Your beginning to sound like Dan Hodges now Danny :P!

It's quite the UNHOLY ALLIANCE *.*

Great article here which encapsulates everything I'm always banging on about how Labour SHOULD be thriving right now, yet they're completely wasting the opportunity:

 

The current political circumstances are more benevolent for Labour than they have been for many decades. The right is split, a schism now reflected in pre-election defections from the Conservatives to Ukip. Left-of-centre voters who supported the Liberal Democrats still fume with a sense of betrayal and switch to Labour.

 

Listen carefully to those who voted Ukip last week and they are crying out for more government intervention rather than less. They want the Government to intervene in the labour and housing markets. They feel powerless in the face of other markets, such as energy. They want an NHS that can be relied on. They ask government to help them rather than leave them behind, a demand that has more in common with Ed Miliband’s agenda than the one espoused by right-wing libertarians in the Ukip leadership.

 

Listen also to more affluent, urban middle-class voters – especially in London – with whom Ukip has fared poorly. They are fearful too. They turn to government in the hope that it can sort out the nightmare of care for the elderly, rather than being ;left to to a lottery in which they fear they might have to sell their homes to pay for erratic private care.

 

They worry about their children, struggling in the jobs market and facing high rents. They too are concerned about the NHS. It is laughable to read or hear that when Miliband highlights the NHS or failing markets he pursues a core vote strategy. To revive a New Labour soundbite, these issues touch the many and not the few.

 

So given this context, why is Labour so agonised and nervy? Part of the answer is that few voters know what Miliband stands for, or if he stands for anything at all. When I was in Scotland for the referendum campaign I heard voters cry out for policies that he espouses, and then heard them dismiss Miliband as being the same as David Cameron. They did not know who he was and had ceased to care.

 

Nick Clegg’s problem is a failure to explain to those who had voted for his party why he had acted in the way that he did after the 2010 election. There has been no dialogue with his left-of-centre voters, no attempt at persistent explanation. They are very different figures, but like Clegg, Miliband is a young leader who moved to the harsh glare of the centre stage at an early phase of his career, untested by publicly fought battles and with no fully developed public voice.

 

In Miliband’s case this has led to periods of near-silence. Where is the clear declaration from him, repeatedly made, that issues of genuine concern go well beyond a core vote?

 

Without such a persistent cry the rest of the electorate will assume they might be losers under Miliband. Where is the explanation that if Labour takes an interventionist approach in relation to immigration it is not an aberration but wholly in line with its view that the state has a duty to intervene in some markets?

 

Yvette Cooper made this point well in her party conference speech – that a balanced approach to immigration is more logical for Labour than the free-market, libertarian right.

 

The argument needs to be made daily, with the admission that the previous Labour government got it wrong. The issue is complex, and to appear anti-immigration would lead to deserved defeat. But to repeat the argument endlessly, accessibly, that managing immigration is a left-of-centre issue should not be beyond the wit of a self-confident, clear-sighted leadership.

 

The frustration with Miliband’s conference speech last month was that, as usual with him, he seized on a potent theme, arguing that the UK is better together rather than living as a bunch of atomised individuals at the whim of wild markets, unprotected by a shrinking state.But he failed to develop the argument. Equally disastrously, he got into an unnecessary bind over the deficit.

 

Miliband has got a sense of proportion over the deficit. He knows how George Osborne exaggerates its significance, the Chancellor having failed to wipe it out. Yet because Miliband forgot to mention it, and explained in endless interviews how he made the omission, he ended up talking only about the deficit and will now have to do so repeatedly to show that he appreciates the seriousness of economic policy.

 

One ally suggests that some of the anecdotal episodes in the speech were included on the advice of his US-based advisers: “Use real people… show that you are in touch…” If that is the case, Miliband should pay less attention to those so far removed from a UK election.

 

Although Miliband is more alert to fundamentally changing times than other leaders, he sometimes behaves as if it is still 1997. The challenge then was to show that Labour was rigidly united and economically competent.

 

The New Labour control-freakery is still in place, so much so speakers at this year’s conference were scared of uttering an interesting word, their every comma checked with the leader’s office, even if some of those in that office might be ill-equipped to judge whether cautious banality is the most effective path to victory.

 

On this the Tories are well ahead, capable of staging lively, grown-up debates without damaging each other. There is also a temptation, as far as Miliband and Ed Balls are concerned, to play the New Labour trick of using small symbolic policies to illustrate a broader sense of direction. These policies go unnoticed by voters in the current stormy climate. The challenges at the next election are very different from 1997. The past is a treacherous guide.

 

In one respect the task is the same at every election. Victorious leaders are like teachers, explaining to voters why they are what they are. The ability to communicate accessibly and constantly is not an extra, but a pre-condition to successful leadership. Labour can win, but it won’t if Miliband and others do not or cannot explain why they should win.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commen...it-9792142.html

Be fair, a person has to be fairly arrogant to think they are capable of playing a part in running the country. No democracy will ever have a government made up of shrinking violets.

 

true - but they could at least PRETEND they are listening to other peoples opinions before dismissing them - though "insincerity" listed means they still lose :lol:

 

Seriously, nothing wrong with self-confidence, that's a major plus, it's when it's mixed with the inability to admit when you get it wrong/or have an opinion that masquerades as inarguable, that it slips over the line into arrogance. A bit like me when it comes to The Beatles, I can take no opinion other than "genius" seriously :lol:

Great article here which encapsulates everything I'm always banging on about how Labour SHOULD be thriving right now, yet they're completely wasting the opportunity:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commen...it-9792142.html

 

good article...

That's completely not what you've been saying Danny. You said literally two pages ago that you thought Labour's policies were terrible, which is miles away from the argument the article's making.

The article didn't seem to be particularly praising Labour's current policies to me, but the main points that I agreed with were that this SHOULD be a good moment for any left-wing economic party, and that as things stand people DO just see Miliband and Labour as being the same as the Conservatives.

Edited October 15, 201410 yr by Danny

The article didn't seem to be particularly praising Labour's current policies to me, but the main points that I agreed with were that this SHOULD be a good moment for any left-wing economic party, and that as things stand people DO just see Miliband and Labour as being the same as the Conservatives.

It's come to the same conclusion as you (that Labour should be doing better) from a completely different angle. It says that many people, despite everything, see Labour and the Conservatives as the same while you're effectively one of those people since you dismiss every announcement the party makes as pathetic/Tory-lite.

 

This article demonstrates how difficult it will be for the Tories to win a majority:

 

http://may2015.com/featured/will-the-torie...ts-in-may-2015/

It's come to the same conclusion as you (that Labour should be doing better) from a completely different angle. It says that many people, despite everything, see Labour and the Conservatives as the same while you're effectively one of those people since you dismiss every announcement the party makes as pathetic/Tory-lite.

 

This article demonstrates how difficult it will be for the Tories to win a majority:

 

http://may2015.com/featured/will-the-torie...ts-in-may-2015/

 

interesting reading....

Indeed it will be as hard for the tories as history shows few governing parties increase vote share after being in office. Labour are set to win all of the 260 odd seats they won in 2010 which would be a decent base to start on!

Lib Dems in FIFTH place(!!) behind the Greens in a new poll.

 

Labour and the Tories still near rock-bottom levels of support, with 31% and 28% respectively, as their shared policy of "paying off random rich dudes on a Shanghai trading floor is more important than improving poor people's lives" continues to reap rewards.

Lib Dems in FIFTH place(!!) behind the Greens in a new poll.

 

Labour and the Tories still near rock-bottom levels of support, with 31% and 28% respectively, as their shared policy of "paying off random rich dudes on a Shanghai trading floor is more important than improving poor people's lives" continues to reap rewards.

 

Surely that should read "Any trading floor, with an open invitation to come and buy any UK businesses, property, pay little tax and don't even bother living in the country, kill off British companies through incompetence and get paid rich-megabucks for doing it, allow megacorps to pay no tax on anything they sell, and take advantage of innumerable tax loopholes to avoid paying tax like all rich people do....is more important than..." etc.

 

Bit of a mouthful I know, but then again I'm bitter and they deserve it :teresa:

Oh I agree completely, but despite all we know about Google, Amazon and Starbucks - we still continue to use them for convenience or because of familiarity. I'm as guilty as anybody else.

It depends how many translate into seats (and even then I consider it unlikely). They definitely won't be getting the most seats in Scotland.

 

 

For once on our politics, I sort of agree with Tyron. I don't have any doubt about them taking the highest number of votes, but I don't think they'll quite win on seats. They will probably have a record number of seats.

 

After all, those LibDem seats have got to go somewhere and Labour isn't where they will be going. I know previously the SNP haven't done so well because people don't see the point but with the complete betrayal of the Liberal Democrats and the fact that the devolution issue is so prominent the SNP have a great chance to build up a vote to unprecedented levels on a platform of 'keeping westminster in check and ensuring they keep their promise to Scotland' and rhetoric along the lines of more SNP MPs ensures that a vote will pass on more powers to Scotland etc.

 

Amalgamation of recent polls predict the SNP will take 45 of 59 Scottish seats, with Labour down to 10:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/Screen%20shot%202014-10-21%20at%2018_44_41.png

Labour 25% in the GENERAL ELECTION in Scotland?! No chance. That would imply that Labour's getting LESS than 25% in Scotland with some pollsters...Panelbase had it SNP 34 and Labour 32 the other week, and I really doubt there's been a direct seven point swing in the meantime.

 

(not that UNS is even a measure we should be relying on - that's the same maths that predicted UKIP to get over a hundred seats the other week!)

 

Looking at the article, it's pretty bunk statistics too for polling. Merging six polls to make the crosstabs statistically significant looks like it makes sense at first - until you realise that you're effectively just grabbing together random samples at that point and ignoring the importance of weighting to modern polling. For example, the Scottish samples in each of those individual polls almost certainly didn't have the correct proportion of over 65s, the correct proportion of 2010 Labour voters, the correct proportion of males, the correct proportion of ABC1s. Now in practice, that's actually fine within a single poll because it levels out across the country, but if you're just grabbing a load of polls and adding them together willy-nilly you've probably overly skewed it to one group or another - hence why you have this hugely shocking figure that's totally out of sync with any of the other proper Westminster polls done since the referendum. Even with reverse engineered weighting you're effectively just recreating a single poll - subject to the same margin of errors as any other. A reverse-engineered 39 SNP 28 LAB could still be a rogue, but even then it's chopping within a scenario of 36 SNP and 31 LAB - which isn't actually that far off what we've seen with other polls done since the referendum. The perils of taking a single reverse-engineered poll at face value are the same as taking any poll at face value.

 

And this might well be a Dan Hodges/Craig moment, but I will change my name to Dunning-Kruger if the SNP get more than 30 seats/40% of the vote in Scotland next year. It's literally not happening. Their best case scenario is 20 or so seats.

Lib Dems in FIFTH place(!!) behind the Greens in a new poll.

 

Labour and the Tories still near rock-bottom levels of support, with 31% and 28% respectively, as their shared policy of "paying off random rich dudes on a Shanghai trading floor is more important than improving poor people's lives" continues to reap rewards.

Yep, let's keep on spending more and more and more money on interest to people lending us money. I can definitely see that ending well.

 

And given you could justify defaulting under the reverse of that position...

Yep, let's keep on spending more and more and more money on interest to people lending us money. I can definitely see that ending well.

 

And given you could justify defaulting under the reverse of that position...

 

Oh come on, you can't seriously STILL be denying that Labour's commitment to cuts is a MASSIVE problem?! Unless you're canvassing in Tunbridge Wells, I really can't believe that you would meet no-one who says that they think Labour and the Conservatives' policies are the same (and thus what would be the point in voting for them).

 

If Labour wants poor people to vote for them, they need to promise things that will help them, rather than yet more cuts to their benefits and local services. It's really not rocket science.

I'm not canvassing in Tunbridge Wells, I'm canvassing in a seat Labour *has* to win to win the next election. The common complaint isn't 'Labour's policies are the same as the Tories'' (outside of the 60 or so people voting TUSC). If and when people have issues with Labour, it tends to be 'I'd have voted for his brother but I don't like Ed' (which hardly screams 'GIVE ME A LABOUR GOVERNMENT THAT SPENDS MORE'), or 'I've always voted Labour, but you'll just let all the immigrants in', or 'I support benefits, but people round here take the piss', or 'you spent all the money and I don't trust Ed Balls to not do it again/to not raid my pension' (granted, that comes more from traditional Labour-Tory swing voters, but in honesty when the margins are this narrow I really wouldn't mind having them back). Quite difficult when there's no real way to combat the two out of those four. But what I will say is that the idea that Ed Balls is a right-wing horse of the austerity apocalypse doesn't have much credence with many people outside of a Labour GC or a Labour safe seat, and the idea that you can go on forever spending a lot more than you take in (i.e. not the French or Japanese example, which has been going on a long time spending a bit more than they take in) isn't one that persuades many people outside of some of those who'd reap the benefits. Even then most of them have the sense to know it isn't really sustainable.

 

We have a historically large deficit in a time of growth. If we aren't going to narrow that deficit now, when exactly are we going to close it? Do you think that in the next recession lenders are going to be quite so willing to fund a massive stimulus if they're working with a government that won't even commit to paying them back for the last one?

I'm not canvassing in Tunbridge Wells, I'm canvassing in a seat Labour *has* to win to win the next election. The common complaint isn't 'Labour's policies are the same as the Tories'' (outside of the 60 or so people voting TUSC). If and when people have issues with Labour, it tends to be 'I'd have voted for his brother but I don't like Ed' (which hardly screams 'GIVE ME A LABOUR GOVERNMENT THAT SPENDS MORE'), or 'I've always voted Labour, but you'll just let all the immigrants in', or 'I support benefits, but people round here take the piss', or 'you spent all the money and I don't trust Ed Balls to not do it again/to not raid my pension' (granted, that comes more from traditional Labour-Tory swing voters, but in honesty when the margins are this narrow I really wouldn't mind having them back). Quite difficult when there's no real way to combat the two out of those four. But what I will say is that the idea that Ed Balls is a right-wing horse of the austerity apocalypse doesn't have much credence with many people outside of a Labour GC or a Labour safe seat, and the idea that you can go on forever spending a lot more than you take in (i.e. not the French or Japanese example, which has been going on a long time spending a bit more than they take in) isn't one that persuades many people outside of some of those who'd reap the benefits. Even then most of them have the sense to know it isn't really sustainable.

 

We have a historically large deficit in a time of growth. If we aren't going to narrow that deficit now, when exactly are we going to close it? Do you think that in the next recession lenders are going to be quite so willing to fund a massive stimulus if they're working with a government that won't even commit to paying them back for the last one?

 

Then why do you think Labour are currently polling so atrociously, leaking support to the Greens, UKIP and the SNP (but hardly any to the Conservatives)? And why were they polling so much better when they were opposing the cuts and being "anti-business"?

Edited October 22, 201410 yr by Danny

The Greens and the SNP take the votes of people utterly uninspired by Ed (but who would probably be inspired by almost literally anybody else), Ukip take the votes of people who've decided immigration is to blame for all of their problems, the SNP take the votes of those who want more devolution and who almost certainly would only be voting en masse for the SNP in a Westminster election as a one-shot thing to ensure that devolution (though I imagine the Lib Dems who've gone over to them will probably be staying there).

 

Really what we need is a sustained bit of proper bloody growth that gets through to everyone in society rather than just those at the top, who seem to be willing to be the architects of their own destruction.

Out of interest, what do you think the best way of Cameron going about getting UKIP supporters back is?