Aside: if I posted on polls like most people on here seem to, I could make a big deal out of Labour's seven point lead in today's YouGov poll. But I won't do that. I will say that it's likely we're probably still on the 3-4 point leads that we've been on for the last forever now. We seem to be getting a lot of two-in-a-row one point leads lately that then revert to the norm with barely a hint of what came before. In this case, I think it was probably just a Budget effect wearing off.

 

More significantly, there was a European elections question in there too. Tory 24%, Labour 32%, Lib Dem 11%, UKIP 23%, Green 5%. Probably insignificant if it was a sample which favoured Labour as a whole, but we aren't out of it by any means.

 

-x-

 

I should probably also just quote this verbatim as I've been worrying about having to type the explanation for a few days now so I may as well save myself the essay if it DOES happen:

 

One thing worth noting is that if the average position in the polls settles down to a Labour lead of two points or so, then it is almost inevitable that sooner or later normal random sample variation will spit out some polls with the two parties equal, or the Conservatives ahead. It won’t necessarily be particularly meaningful in terms of the individual poll (as ever, it’s the underlying trends that count) – but politically it may well have an impact in terms of narrative and the morale of the Parliamentary political parties.

 

So PRIOR WARNING if there is a poll with a Tory lead of one or something - whomever starts screaming at that point WILL have their tits summarily bitten off (though I'm saved the trouble of having to deal with Craig turning into an automated soundbite generator for about three days at least). Hopefully the seven point lead's a sign that we've settled back to the four point trend.

Also (TRIPLE POST) it's now nearly thirteen months until polling day, so about the same amount of time until the general as it's been since the Eastleigh by-election, which feels like yesterday. TERRIFYING/EXCITING

And you wouldn't find anyone except a couple of raging try-hard Tonyites at a Progress who would genuinely think we were doing too badly because we were being too left-wing.

 

There's LOADS of people on Twitter who continually insist Labour are doing badly because people think they'd spend too much, that they're too close to the unions, that they're anti-business, despite all evidence that the public thinks no such things. That guy Phil Collins who I think was one of the leading thinktankbots of the Blair years is a typical example -- he said on Newsnight on the night Ed Balls made that "surplus" pledge that it was the thing that could win the election for Labour because it would show they were "getting real" and "credible". And then, when the move he hailed oh-so-predictably led to a polling collapse, he moved the goalposts in a Times column last week and said Labour were doing badly because they still weren't talking about cuts enough. It couldn't possibly be that he was wrong, no, it must be that his advice wasn't followed closely enough. I really don't feel the cult of "Blairites" honestly feel deep down that what they're saying is best for Labour, it's just they're so arrogant and have such overinflated opinions of their "legacies" that they want to believe they created a "magic formula" for winning elections that no-one else had ever come up with, and so they just refuse to accept the masses of recent evidence that proves they're wrong and insist that, whenever the tactics and strategies they themselves called for fail, it was because their tactics and strategies weren't followed closely enough.

 

 

Let's not forget that Thatcher wasn't elected as an especially radical opposition leader

 

Is that really true though? I'd have to check with someone who was around at the time (*paging Suedehead*), but my understanding was that, even if Thatcher's manifesto in her first election wasn't *as* radical as she would eventually be, she was still even then openly talking about how the government shouldn't subsidise flagging industries, that keeping inflation down was more important than unemployment, and that the trade unions needed to be brought into line - all things which no mainstream politician had said in many years. That's a far cry from Labour accepting their opponents' lines on the key issues of today almost wholesale.

Edited March 31, 201411 yr by Danny

*Resident old git reporting for duty*

 

It is certainly true that Thatcher's Tories said very little in opposition about what they would do. Their main pitch was that they were an alternative to the Labour government of the day. It is also true that they made tackling inflation a higher priority than unemployment despite all the "Labour Isn't Working" rhetoric in the campaign. That's why it was such a delicious irony that inflation was higher when Thatcher left office than it was when she became PM.

Danny - didn't you even say yourself at the time that it wasn't the surplus announcement (which was totally overshadowed) but the bad handling of the 50p increase that caused those poll falls?

Danny - didn't you even say yourself at the time that it wasn't the surplus announcement (which was totally overshadowed) but the bad handling of the 50p increase that caused those poll falls?

 

I think that was what caused the immediate slump, but the long-term drift downwards (which has been going on all year, not just since the Budget) has been caused by their economic stance and the total confusion about what they stand for that's happened as a result.

 

Btw, I don't think it's them pledging to create a surplus in itself that's caused it -- I don't think people actually care about things like that, people don't understand the public finances and frankly I'd bet quite a lot of people would have no idea what a "surplus" even is (not surprising since there's been a surplus so infrequently throughout the whole of history, hence people won't exactly have come across it in the news much). The problem is more what Labour haven't been saying - i.e. that they've completely stopped bothering to say they oppose any cuts (which obviously is an inevitable consequence of saying you're going to create a surplus, so it's an indirect consequence of that pledge).

 

Back in 2011-12, their opposition to cuts, feeble and mealy-mouthed though it was, atleast projected a SOMEWHAT coherent and clear message, and that was all that was required to be ahead of such an unpopular government and when political circumstances were so favourable for Labour -- since they ditched their one coherent message last summer, it's no surprise their poll ratings have crumbled, with only a brief respite last autumn when they started to tentatively build a new narrative of taking on the hated fat-cats and punishing them for what they've done to ruin the country (before that was again ruined by the New Labour prats who had palpitations at being seen as "anti-business" by the political commentariat).

Edited March 31, 201411 yr by Danny

With only a brief respite last autumn when they started to tentatively build a new narrative of taking on the hated fat-cats and punishing them for what they've done to ruin the country (before that was again ruined by the New Labour prats who had palpitations at being seen as "anti-business" by the political commentariat).

A bit of evidence for this please. And something other than 'SOMEONE WHO WAS A BLAIR ADVISER WROTE A NEGATIVE COLUMN ABOUT IT', because they aren't the ones deciding policy. If anything the big problem was that the energy freeze idea was standalone - Ed didn't come up with follow-up policies that actually chained with it, hence the momentum was lost. Nothin to do with 'New Labour prats' pressure, and I think most self-identified New Labour prats would probably love to have as much influence as you think they have within the party. Blairites are effectively outcast as a faction now in the Cabinet and the parliamentary party, possibly Tristram Hunt and maybe Caroline Flint aside (Murphy's a lost man now) - it's the Brownites running things now. Have we really cast the net of 'New Labour prat' that wide? Because the energy price freeze definitely fits within the Brownite tradition - and, as I'm not going to tire of saying, was drafted by a Blairite. This dark New Labour vanguard that apparently sees Ed and his failings as Marxist is a paper tiger limited almost entirely to the columns of Murdoch and the Barclays.

A bit of evidence for this please. And something other than 'SOMEONE WHO WAS A BLAIR ADVISER WROTE A NEGATIVE COLUMN ABOUT IT', because they aren't the ones deciding policy. If anything the big problem was that the energy freeze idea was standalone - Ed didn't come up with follow-up policies that actually chained with it, hence the momentum was lost. Nothin to do with 'New Labour prats' pressure, and I think most self-identified New Labour prats would probably love to have as much influence as you think they have within the party. Blairites are effectively outcast as a faction now in the Cabinet and the parliamentary party, possibly Tristram Hunt and maybe Caroline Flint aside (Murphy's a lost man now) - it's the Brownites running things now. Have we really cast the net of 'New Labour prat' that wide? Because the energy price freeze definitely fits within the Brownite tradition - and, as I'm not going to tire of saying, was drafted by a Blairite. This dark New Labour vanguard that apparently sees Ed and his failings as Marxist is a paper tiger limited almost entirely to the columns of Murdoch and the Barclays.

 

Erm...yes. As if there's any difference between "Blairites" and "Brownites" apart from what personality-clique certain MPs happened to be in about 10 years ago :lol: They're all subscribe to the same New Labour bullshit about being in the mythical "centre-ground" and are steadily destroying any definition the party has.

Only if you took the media hook, line and sinker. There were differences between the two that went beyond personality that I'd have at least thought you'd appreciate - Brownism never really cared much about public sector reform, was far more focused on state solutions and paid more attention to equality of outcome than Blairism did. If there's definitely a faction succeeded the soft left, Brownism is it - it wasn't just some petty personality battle, though that was part of it to a degree.

So Len McCluskey's saying that the unions could provide heavy financial backing to a new left wing party if Labour lose next year.

 

The unions would be somewhat justified in doing so if we lose on an austerity-lite platform, but it doesn't really change the fact that the main gameplan is still "win the election". Ultimately the right of the party still wants to win, it just has the wrong ideas for how to do so.

Len McCluskey once again saying more of substance in a half-hour interview than any of the triangulating technocrats in the shadow cabinet have said in 4 years. It's about time he started speaking up, and the Labour leadership should thank their lucky stars he's been as well-behaved as this so far, because all accounts normal union members are completely disillusioned with Labour's pathetic "policies".

 

He hit the nail on the head when he said that, as things stand, people are probably going to just stick with the devil they know (i.e. the Conservatives). No matter what Labour do or say, people ARE going to think it's a "risk" to re-elect Labour and risk bankruptcy, and people were always going to think that no matter who the Labour leader was and no matter how much posturing they did about being "credible" on the deficit. So, to try and offset the inevitable fears, you have to atleast give people a potential upside to try and get them to think it's worth voting for you and taking the risk. If Labour are saying that, even in a best-case scenario, their policies are just going to be the same as the Tories', then where on earth is the incentive for people to vote for them? People are just going to think that, if things are going to be crap eitherway no matter who gets in, they may as well stick with the people they see as vaguely competent rather than go with people who are offering all the risks and not even holding out any potential rewards. That's something the Progress thinktankbots refuse to see because it would ruin their delusions about the "centre-ground" and "credibility" that they've built their careers on.

 

As for the unions breaking away from Labour, it's definitely a big risk (imo not just if they lose next year, it's possibly even more likely to happen if they win AND they then go on to implement the Tory-lite policies they're currently threatening to), and the leadership would only have themselves to blame for constantly taking their so-called "core support" for granted and thinking they can push them as much as they like for the sake of satisfying the media without any repercussions.

Edited April 2, 201411 yr by Danny

Len isn't going to fund a new left-wing party - he's putting his chips on the table. Don't forget that we still have Warwick III to go through (the union/party manifesto/funding negotiations) - he's sending a message as to what Labour could expect if they didn't agree to what the unions demand when it comes to Warwick and what they'd settle for to provide election funding. I've always quietly thought that the most interesting upshot of Ed's party reforms is that he now has to negotiate for funding he could've counted on before without reform. Hence, if he was playing the long game, Ed's basically guaranteed a more left-wing manifesto than otherwise with the reforms, as he now needs to make more concessions on policy than he would have done otherwise to get the same amount of funding. A very canny move on Ed's part if so.

Len isn't going to fund a new left-wing party - he's putting his chips on the table. Don't forget that we still have Warwick III to go through (the union/party manifesto/funding negotiations) - he's sending a message as to what Labour could expect if they didn't agree to what the unions demand when it comes to Warwick and what they'd settle for to provide election funding. I've always quietly thought that the most interesting upshot of Ed's party reforms is that he now has to negotiate for funding he could've counted on before without reform. Hence, if he was playing the long game, Ed's basically guaranteed a more left-wing manifesto than otherwise with the reforms, as he now needs to make more concessions on policy than he would have done otherwise to get the same amount of funding. A very canny move on Ed's part if so.

 

For the first time in a while, I am hoping you are actually right! The signs are indeed looking promising that old Len is coming to rescue us from the thinktankbots:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/a...e-len-mccluskey

 

Hopefully he really goes nuclear and says Unite will not be giving the party funding unless they agree to his policies. Even if it comes at the risk of tedious media stories about "unions pulling Labour's strings". Getting good, proper Labour policies as opposed to the unprinciped and unpopular ones the leadership seem hellbent on is the most important thing, no matter what the consequences.

Edited April 12, 201411 yr by Danny

ComRes Poll, as reported for The Independent on Sunday -

 

Conservative 29% (-3)

Labour 35% (0)

Lib Dem 7% (-2)

UKIP 20% (+4)

Other 9% (+1)

 

Some other interesting tidbits in that article, the most surprising being that of the last 8 Prime Ministers, the PM with the most favourable opinion from the public is Margaret Thatcher. Of course, as you probably know by now, I have as much trust in opinion polls as I do in people who try to predict the future by analysing animal entrails.

7% is the joint-lowest Lib Dem score seen since 1990.

7% is the joint-lowest Lib Dem score seen since 1990.

 

 

LOL. They'll be left with less than 20 MPs after the GE.

 

Interestingly, for both Comres and Optimum, Electoral calculus gives the same result. Lab 362, Con 239, LD 21 and UKIP zero, for a Labour majority of 74.

Edited April 13, 201411 yr by Common Sense

ComRes Poll, as reported for The Independent on Sunday -

 

Conservative 29% (-3)

Labour 35% (0)

Lib Dem 7% (-2)

UKIP 20% (+4)

Other 9% (+1)

 

Some other interesting tidbits in that article, the most surprising being that of the last 8 Prime Ministers, the PM with the most favourable opinion from the public is Margaret Thatcher. Of course, as you probably know by now, I have as much trust in opinion polls as I do in people who try to predict the future by analysing animal entrails.

That's not surprising - she's the only one who has any devoted support, she's just got a lot of devoted hatred to counterbalance it. And anyway, I honestly have no idea why you have barely any trust in polls. And yeah, before you trot out the Yes Minister video, obviously questions asking opinions on policy have to be taken with a pinch of salt given wording, but generally party questions and objective statement questions are pretty accurate.

That's not surprising - she's the only one who has any devoted support, she's just got a lot of devoted hatred to counterbalance it. And anyway, I honestly have no idea why you have barely any trust in polls. And yeah, before you trot out the Yes Minister video, obviously questions asking opinions on policy have to be taken with a pinch of salt given wording, but generally party questions and objective statement questions are pretty accurate.

 

Views on Blair being so low down? :P

Views on Blair being so low down? :P

Well, pretty understandable, and they'll stay that way. His premiership is almost totally associated with an unpopular war and an unpopular president.

Well, pretty understandable, and they'll stay that way. His premiership is almost totally associated with an unpopular war and an unpopular president.

 

 

They seem to forget the good things his Government did such as introducing the minimum wage. :)

Edited April 13, 201411 yr by Common Sense