Interestingly, polls show Alan Johnson as leader would only do a couple of % better than Ed, while Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper as leader would actually do WORSE (though it might not be representative in Cooper's case because I'm not sure how well known she is).

Was Ed Balls even in the Survation poll? I don't think anyone's advocating him as an alternate leader in any case.

 

For those who missed it:

 

Ed Miliband Labour 34, Tories 30

Alan Johnson Labour 37, Tories 29

Andy Burnham Labour 36, Tories 32

Chuka Umunna 37, Tories 29

Yvette Cooper 31, Tories 31

 

Obviously a degree of pie-in-the-sky stuff as always with hypotheticals (I think Alan Johnson will probably be the only representative one there of the other potentials given he's the only really well known one), but they did precede the questions by showing people a one minute clip of each potential leader being interviewed, so it did at least give them a proper basis for answering (i.e. how they come across in public) rather than 'do you remember this figure?' as most hypotheticals do.

 

Chuka Umunna's figures on some of the other questions are pretty remarkable as well, and I'm not sure how viewers would be getting those impressions from the video so maybe his statements as Business Secretary HAVE been noticed. Who knows though?

Chuka Umunna's figures on some of the other questions are pretty remarkable as well, and I'm not sure how viewers would be getting those impressions from the video so maybe his statements as Business Secretary HAVE been noticed. Who knows though?

 

I don't think it can be that, because YouGov's poll asked about whether people recognised various Labour people, and Umunna came out pretty low on that score (lower even than Sadiq Khan and that God-awful Tristram Hunt).

 

I suppose it's just the fact he's good-looking and speaks something vaguely resembling English (rather than Politician-ese) means he makes a good first impression with that video that the respondents were shown. Which surprises me a bit, because I would've thought people would've gone off that kind of "slick" insincere type of politician now.

I'd be surprised if being good-looking would explain why people thought he'd be the most likely of any of them to create jobs and help the economy grow! (He also led on most likely to close the deficit, but by a statistically insignificant margin)

 

In any case, superfun (half-)useless trivia questions time:

 

http://i58.tinypic.com/23kof2q.png

I wouldn't be surprised if all of these rumours end up being a blessing in disguise for Ed. He's effectively being forced to come out fighting at a time when had this not happened he could have carried on as normal in the hope of clinging to that slender poll lead.

In theory it could, but given the complete lack of any courage he's shown to date, and how quickly he gives in whenever he faces criticism for anything vaguely different to the status quo, I won't hold my breath.

In theory it could, but given the complete lack of any courage he's shown to date, and how quickly he gives in whenever he faces criticism for anything vaguely different to the status quo, I won't hold my breath.

Was standing up to Murdoch 'giving into the status quo'?

Was declaring state action on rents and energy prices 'giving into the status quo'? Was vetoing action on Syria a complete lack of courage? I can't pretend that I agree with everything Ed Miliband has done...but christ, you're never going to be happy with any centre-left leader if you don't recognise when you're getting something that would produce a government more left-wing and in favour of state action than any we've had since 1979.

It's all an indication of how little notice people take of politics and have their opinions driven by people other than politicians. What has Cameron ever done to be seen as strong? How do so many people think he is intelligent? He is easily the dimmest PM I can remember.

Was declaring state action on rents and energy prices 'giving into the status quo'? Was vetoing action on Syria a complete lack of courage? I can't pretend that I agree with everything Ed Miliband has done...but christ, you're never going to be happy with any centre-left leader if you don't recognise when you're getting something that would produce a government more left-wing and in favour of state action than any we've had since 1979.

 

He HAS given in on those things. Even if they haven't formally abandoned the energy price freeze, they never talk about it despite it being an ample opportunity right now since it's winter, presumably because he was too scared to stand up to the people who were crying about how "anti-business" it was.

 

In any case, the fact you consider things as timid as that to be "radical" just shows how far the "Blairites" have become a parody of themselves. Even Tony Blair had a "windfall tax" on the major utility companies (and he also never pledged to slash spending further when public services and help for the poor were already cut to the bone). The only difference is there is now much more resistance to the most basic of decent centre-left things than there was in 1997 from the vested interests (partly because Labour themselves have been so complicit in allowing the "centre of gravity" to move so far to the right in the commentariat's political debate).

 

At this point, I'd settle for something as dangerous and Marxist as Blair's 1997 manifesto, rather than the truly sorry, depressing platform Labour is currently set to run on.

Edited November 9, 201410 yr by Danny

It's all an indication of how little notice people take of politics and have their opinions driven by people other than politicians. What has Cameron ever done to be seen as strong? How do so many people think he is intelligent? He is easily the dimmest PM I can remember.

 

I don't think people do think Cameron is particularly strong really - they just think he's slightly less weak than Miliband.

I don't think people do think Cameron is particularly strong really - they just think he's slightly less weak than Miliband.

Cameron still tends to get positive ratings on whether he is a strong leader. Sadly, people are never asked how they came to that conclusion.

He HAS given in on those things. Even if they haven't formally abandoned the energy price freeze, they never talk about it despite it being an ample opportunity right now since it's winter, presumably because he was too scared to stand up to the people who were crying about how "anti-business" it was.

 

In any case, the fact you consider things as timid as that to be "radical" just shows how far the "Blairites" have become a parody of themselves. Even Tony Blair had a "windfall tax" on the major utility companies (and he also never pledged to slash spending further when public services and help for the poor were already cut to the bone). The only difference is there is now much more resistance to the most basic of decent centre-left things than there was in 1997 from the vested interests (partly because Labour themselves have been so complicit in allowing the "centre of gravity" to move so far to the right in the commentariat's political debate).

 

At this point, I'd settle for something as dangerous and Marxist as Blair's 1997 manifesto, rather than the truly sorry, depressing platform Labour is currently set to run on.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't really think you understand politics if you think Blair's 1997 manifesto would in seriousness be called Marxist by anybody to the left of Sandro.

I don't really think you understand politics if you think Blair's 1997 manifesto would in seriousness be called Marxist by anybody to the left of Sandro.

 

It definitely would be now if Blair himself and his groupies were presented that manifesto blind, without the knowledge that it was the manifesto they once ran on. Again, I genuinely can't see how Labour's current platform is more left-wing than anything Blair stood for? That's the sign of how far things have moved to the right, and how a lot of the "thinktank left" are suffering from some kind of collective Stockholm syndrome when they think something as mild as a slight reduction in energy prices or a couple of thousand less on tuition fees than Blair ever dreamed of when he was in office counts as "radical" and "bold" policymaking.

Edited November 9, 201410 yr by Danny

And 'they don't mention it in every press release anymore' is the most laughable definition of 'they've given in on a policy' ever. Seriously.

 

We announced a bloody windfall tax on tobacco companies mere weeks ago. But do you really not see the difference between putting in place a tax and legislating that a company/landlord has to keep prices at a certain level because the government says so? Because that isn't timid. At all. Price controls haven't been in place since the early 80s. They weren't in the 1997 manifesto. They weren't in the SDP manifesto. They were in the 1983 manifesto. Price controls are a very pro-state left-wing thing. The idea that they can be referred to as 'timid' is absolutely mind boggling.

It definitely would be now if Blair himself and his groupies were presented that manifesto blind, without the knowledge that it was the manifesto they once ran on.

[citation missing]

 

Trust me, it really wouldn't. You've created a total fiction of what 'Progress Tendency!!!!11!1!!!!!!' people believe. Especially considering most of the signatories on the letter to the Guardian earlier this year calling for rail renationalisation were from Progress.

And 'they don't mention it in every press release anymore' is the most laughable definition of 'they've given in on a policy' ever. Seriously.

 

We announced a bloody windfall tax on tobacco companies mere weeks ago. But do you really not see the difference between putting in place a tax and legislating that a company/landlord has to keep prices at a certain level because the government says so? Because that isn't timid. At all. Price controls haven't been in place since the early 80s. They weren't in the 1997 manifesto. They weren't in the SDP manifesto. They were in the 1983 manifesto. Price controls are a very pro-state left-wing thing. The idea that they can be referred to as 'timid' is absolutely mind boggling.

 

And yet, rent controls are something even centre-right politicians in the bloody UNITED STATES support.

If Labour's plans are so breathtakingly daring and radical, then why do people STILL say, by a margin of 65% to 20%, that Miliband "hasn't made it clear what he stands for"?

 

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/docu...ults-071114.pdf

 

Or is this another issue on which people in the constituency you're canvassing in mysteriously have polar-opposite views to everyone else in the country?

In New York maybe (where it's already the status quo - no surprise that you don't get huge opposition to something already in place and popular), but I'm going to need to see some receipts on that support being broad-based given opposition to state intervention is basically the defining mission of the right wing there.

 

And anyway, that doesn't make it right-wing. For all the hard left harp on about 'neoliberalism', the definition of the term is 'an opposition to state activity in the economy'. If state intervention in the energy and housing markets doesn't count as a breaking of that consensus, I really don't know what does.

 

At this stage Danny, you legitimately baffle me. You hold up the 1997 manifesto and Cameron's speech as examples of things more left wing than Ed Miliband, just because the two Eds agree that the deficit is something that should be closed by the end of the next parliament - without saying whether that will come through taxes or spending cuts, but likely a mixture of the two, because frankly it isn't 'left-wing' that we're spending more on interest than on schools, and it's quite nice to be able to govern without the threat of speculative attacks from people pissed off that you aren't paying them back. (By the way, check that 1997 manifesto - you might have forgotten it had a commitment to Conservative spending plans until 1999 in there)

 

Meanwhile, you proceed to define a Labour policy as existing based on whether or not it's been mentioned in the last month, hold up Andy 'foundation hospitals' Burnham as the saviour of the left-wing, and just generally act as if Ed Miliband is essentially Margaret Thatcher reincarnate but minus the handbag and the backbone. Do you view politics solely through the prism of rhetoric?