The only way Labour have any realistic chance of taking power without a general election would be if a lethal virus killed off a large number of Tory MPs and Labour won a lot of by-elections. Then they could claim with at least some credibility that the public was behind them.

 

My guess is that the Tories - and the Lib Dems even more so - are hoping that in a couple years' time they can say "The measures we took at the start of our term have worked even better than we hoped. As a result we don't have to continue with drastic cuts in spending." The best chance of that happening will be if they can flog off a substantial part of their stake in Lloyds and RBS at a decent profit.

Coalition's approval rating is again at -8 today... bear in mind it's unprecedented for a new government to be in negative territory so early. Although voting intentions look a bit better for the Tories today, at 42% to Labour's 39%.

 

Meanwhile, 54% of people expect the Coalition to last a maximum of two years, while only 18% expect it to last the full five-year term. Only 15% think the Lib Dems' presence in the Coalition is leading to fairer policies.

Coalition's approval rating is again at -8 today... bear in mind it's unprecedented for a new government to be in negative territory so early. Although voting intentions look a bit better for the Tories today, at 42% to Labour's 39%.

 

Meanwhile, 54% of people expect the Coalition to last a maximum of two years, while only 18% expect it to last the full five-year term. Only 15% think the Lib Dems' presence in the Coalition is leading to fairer policies.

 

it shows that we have a bigger share of the vote since the general election despite the economic forecasts and that people are blaming the Lib Dems for the problems

it shows that we have a bigger share of the vote since the general election despite the economic forecasts and that people are blaming the Lib Dems for the problems

 

LMAO, the fact the Tories' vote has increased is irrelevant when the numbers still show a swing from the Tories to Labour. The Tories' increase in vote since the election is merely a quirk of the fact that the Lib Dems are haemorraging votes, with the majority of them going to Labour but a minority going to the Tories.

 

Also, what about your assertion that the Coalition will last a full term when practically no-one else agrees with you?

New IPSOS-Mori poll puts Tories and Labour level on 37%, with Lib Dems on 15%, which seems to prove what I said the other day about YouGov generally overestimating the Tories by a couple of points and underestimating the Libs by the same. The most amazing finding from this poll though is that Nick Clegg has a higher approval rating among Tory voters than among Lib Dem voters! :lol:

...anybody else think Ed Balls won the Question Time hustings? :ph34r:

...anybody else think Ed Balls won the Question Time hustings? :ph34r:

Me! Abbott looked like a complete idiot at times, David was all show. Burnham wasn't too bad, but I think both Eds did the best tonight. And, funnily enough, they are my first two choices for Labour leader as well.

Edited September 16, 201014 yr by Daniel II

...anybody else think Ed Balls won the Question Time hustings? :ph34r:

I thought both Eds were far and away ahead. I thought David was absolutely terrible. I'd been warming to him a bit in the last couple of weeks, but I went right off him again tonight. Literally all he had to put forward were empty soundbites, there was no substance, no policy ideas, nothing to get enthused by - his whole message basically boiled down to "vote for me because I can beat David Cameron". Even though I expect he could lead Labour to a victory by default when the Coalition falls apart, people would only give him a hollow, lukewarm, New Labour-type endorsement, and, like we saw with New Labour, as soon as things start going wrong, people would probably start deserting David in droves.

 

As for the others, Diane Abbott was again disappointing as once again, the only thing worthwhile she had to say was "I told you so" re: Iraq. Her whole campaign was a huge wasted opportunity, she's done absolutely nothing to present a vision for the future, instead just going on about the past. Burnham was a non-factor.

Cameron and Clegg both won their respective party's leadership by being showy. I know a number of people who voted for Clegg because he was "good on telly" whereas Chris Huhne was dull, dull, dull. If the Tories had voted for someone other than Cameron, I suspect the Lib Dems would have elected Huhne which would have made the leaders' debates - assuming they still happened - very boring.

I thought both Eds were far and away ahead. I thought David was absolutely terrible. I'd been warming to him a bit in the last couple of weeks, but I went right off him again tonight. Literally all he had to put forward were empty soundbites, there was no substance, no policy ideas, nothing to get enthused by - his whole message basically boiled down to "vote for me because I can beat David Cameron". Even though I expect he could lead Labour to a victory by default when the Coalition falls apart, people would only give him a hollow, lukewarm, New Labour-type endorsement, and, like we saw with New Labour, as soon as things start going wrong, people would probably start deserting David in droves.

 

As for the others, Diane Abbott was again disappointing as once again, the only thing worthwhile she had to say was "I told you so" re: Iraq. Her whole campaign was a huge wasted opportunity, she's done absolutely nothing to present a vision for the future, instead just going on about the past. Burnham was a non-factor.

Agree with all of this. Abbott also seemed a bit dim at times with getting muddled on a question or two and not managing to get her facts straight. Balls did great during the debate, but I still believe Ed has the most steadfast convictions out of all the candidates.

Edited September 16, 201014 yr by Daniel II

Yes, I though Diane Abbott was pretty poor. She had a chance to put across a radically different programme for Labour but didn't really do that.

Cameron and Clegg both won their respective party's leadership by being showy. I know a number of people who voted for Clegg because he was "good on telly" whereas Chris Huhne was dull, dull, dull. If the Tories had voted for someone other than Cameron, I suspect the Lib Dems would have elected Huhne which would have made the leaders' debates - assuming they still happened - very boring.

 

Yeah, but it's not even like David M has the decent charisma and public-speaking skills of Cameron and Clegg :lol: It's not even like he has particularly good PR instincts, as we saw with the banana photo and the "get the nibbles in" party leaflets. To me, it seems like someone once proclaimed him "prime-ministerial" for no apparent reason, and then everyone started believing it simply because someone had said it. I might be biased, but I can't honestly see how there's a single category where he trumps his brother, except for the fact he has the "New Labour establishment" behind him (who didn't exactly do a great job of winning for us this year).

None of them are that impressive really

 

David Milliband reminds me of the type of person you would meet at a Star Trek convention or one of these geeks that sit at an internet cafe playing World of Warcraft every minute of the day

 

Ed Milliband looks less socially awkward and geeky than his brother but is rather left wing and would not attract disaffected Tories IMHO

 

Ed Balls is just a continuation of the failed policies of Gordon Brown, he just seems to be Brown's puppet

 

Andy Burnham looks hopelessly out of his depth as a Labour leader

 

Diane Abbott while I like her on tv has as much chance of being Labour leader than David Davis does

 

Ed Milliband is probably Labour's best hope, Alan Johnson should have stood, he would have made a great leader of the opposition, a sharp and witty guy and great communicator

Ed Milliband looks less socially awkward and geeky than his brother but is rather left wing and would not attract disaffected Tories IMHO

 

Um, he doesn't need to. Of the 5m voters that Labour has lost since 1997, only 1m of those have gone to the Tories, with most either going to the Lib Dems or not voting at all, due to Iraq and the fact people felt they weren't left-wing enough on the economy. This Mandelson/Blair idea of what the "centre ground" is is totally outdated.

Um, he doesn't need to. Of the 5m voters that Labour has lost since 1997, only 1m of those have gone to the Tories, with most either going to the Lib Dems or not voting at all, due to Iraq and the fact people felt they weren't left-wing enough on the economy. This Mandelson/Blair idea of what the "centre ground" is is totally outdated.

 

it is a centrist country now, things have changed since the days of Maggie etc whoever gets the votes of the centre ground will form the government

 

Maggie would not get into power now, nor would a hard left leader

 

Whoever is the next Labour leader if he wants to be PM has to convince the centre ground that the party is electable

How were Brown's policies 'failed', precisely? Yes, they increased the deficit (which was rather the point...when aggregate demand collapses the government has to step in or it becomes a demand/supply spiral as supply is slashed in response, and demand falls further due to the lost jobs etc.), but they undeniably saved us from further economic meltdown.

it is a centrist country now, things have changed since the days of Maggie etc whoever gets the votes of the centre ground will form the government

 

Maggie would not get into power now, nor would a hard left leader

 

Whoever is the next Labour leader if he wants to be PM has to convince the centre ground that the party is electable

What is the centre ground, given the average wage is £21,000 a year?

What is the centre ground, given the average wage is £21,000 a year?

 

The hardcore Labour and hardcore Tories would vote for an orangutan if it was leader of their party but elections are decided by floating voters who are essentially centrists who can't make up their mind who to vote for, they win elections so a party that is too far to the right or too far to the left will merely preach to the converted

How were Brown's policies 'failed', precisely? Yes, they increased the deficit (which was rather the point...when aggregate demand collapses the government has to step in or it becomes a demand/supply spiral as supply is slashed in response, and demand falls further due to the lost jobs etc.), but they undeniably saved us from further economic meltdown.

 

If Brown's policies were judged by the electorate to be a success he would have won the last election, the country voted with their feet and decided Brown could not be trusted with the economy, that in my mind is failure

The hardcore Labour and hardcore Tories would vote for an orangutan if it was leader of their party but elections are decided by floating voters who are essentially centrists who can't make up their mind who to vote for, they win elections so a party that is too far to the right or too far to the left will merely preach to the converted

 

Again, they're only centrists by the outdated Mandelson-esque tags. Whenever people are polled on the prospect of higher taxes on the wealthy, land taxes, much bigger bank taxes, all those ideas are wildly popular - they're even pretty popular among Tories, and most importantly, they're very popular among Lib Dems, which is where the new Labour leader really needs to be targeting.

 

And by the way, your idea that Ed would be too left-wing for the public doesn't explain the fact Labour have suddenly started eating into the Tories' poll lead after it was announced last weekened that Ed was the front-runner.