Danny

Oh definitely, they had a grim night pencilled in ever since the tuition fees pledge was broken, but I do genuinely think they turned it from grim into catastrophic over the past year by deliberately being "centrist" between the two main parties and having nothing interesting or distinctive to say, hence getting squeezed from all sides.

Hilariously, the "Blairites" are already crowing over Twitter about how Labour's platform (a platform headlined by "balancing the books") was too left-wing, apparently oblivious to the fact that the Lib Dems in the exact centrist position they want Labour to move to got hammered even worse.

First result from Sunderland usually comes in about 10.45-11pm. It won't necessarily tell you the overall trend though (last time, the swings in the Sunderland seats seemed to be pointing to a Tory majority, but then it turned out Labour was holding up better in the closer seats when those results started coming in).

Possible late surge to Labour? The final ICM poll gives them their first lead of 2015.

But the point is that knocking Clegg out (and Danny Alexander and David Laws; I might even vote Tory if I was in the latter's seat) would pull the Lib Dems back to the left and away from austerity-mania, which ultimately would be good for the country. This isn't an exclusive point against the Lib Dems either because I'd consider voting against some of the more vile "Blairite" Labour MPs too; it's good to get rid of the malign influences from any party.

And I really think it's naive in the extreme to think Ed would put through even those half-hearted measures if the press are wailing day after day about it.

You're right, but are many people really arguing for a return 1970s socialism with wholesale nationalisations and statutory "income policies"? All most people on "the Left" want is a return to moderate social democracy: the case made for government spending rather than austerity, total commitment to protecting poor people's welfare, a moral argument made against obscenely high levels of pay and greed.

And on immigration. And on welfare. And on businesses. And on Scotland. The only big issue where you can even make an argument he hasn't surrendered is on an EU referendum. Ed might be deluding himself into thinking he's pushing left-wing ideas to make him feel like his defeat was atleast on "his terms", but that does not automatically make it so, not least because he's been so effortlessly out-leftied by Nicola Sturgeon who (rightly) doesn't even think of herself as a socialist.

Thanks, interesting article. Sturgeon really is the most astute politician in the whole of the UK. ** I hope Labour aren't stupid enough to try and get into government if they have WAY less seats than the Tories. Actually, a Tory minority government which relies on Labour authorisation on each and every policy, with Labour getting veto rights over everything, feels like it would be the best thing for the country, maybe moreso than a cowardly Labour government surrendering to the right-wing press everyday.

SCOTTISH POLL BY REFERENDUM VOTE "Yes" Voters SNP 89% Labour 6% Greens 2% Conservatives 1% Lib Dems 1% UKIP 0% "No" Voters Labour 45% Conservatives 27% SNP 13% Lib Dems 12% UKIP 3% Greens 1% http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumul...ers_Website.pdf (Just to be petty, I'll throw in Jim Murphy's personal rating is now -35, lower than both Miliband and Cameron)

Deleted.

But the question still remains whether there's anyone who'd be a shoo-in to be better than Ed. I'm having doubts about Burnham even tbh (is he going to have the backbone to not give in whenever the press start wailing about something?). Or Chuka Umunna who would send Labour's Northern heartlands the same way as Scotland quicker than you can say "trash and c-list wannabes".

Apparently, Labour MPs are now expecting Miliband to stay as leader even if Labour lose, according to the Times.

Tonight's polls Opinium: 1% Tory lead Survation: 3% Labour lead ComRes: Tied YouGov: 1% Tory lead Scottish YouGov: 24% SNP lead Interestingly, Electoral Calculus says that the Survation results would produce a Labour/LibDem coalition with a majority of 1 (no-one seems to be discussing that as a possibility for some reason).

If being in favour of yet more spending cuts to the poor's safety net at a time when the super-rich's wealth is enough to pay off the deficit about 10 times over, does not make someone a Tory, then what does?

But until his recent hilarious conversion, he was all in favour of yet more spending cuts. I have to admit I wouldn't've expected Scottish voters to know about him being right-wing (I thought his personality and him being a high-profile part of the Better Together campaign would be the main reasons for his unpopularity), but the focus groups from Ashcroft and the Financial Times the other day had people apparently spontaneously saying how right-wing they thought he was for a Labour leader. As for the bit about him being successful with his "tour" during the independence campaign - he might well be more engaging in the flesh, but on TV, he comes across terribly, would you agree?

It was always going to be tough for Labour, but pretty much anyone else could've probably salvaged about 25-30% I reckon, even Johann Lamont. Considering Scottish Labour were being deserted for being too much like the Tories / for taking part in the negative anti-independence campaign / for being too focussed on Westminster / for having such uncharismatic leaders compared to the SNP, selecting a Blairite Westminster MP who was fresh off being one of the main faces of the independence campaign and who had no discernible charisma couldn't have been a more laughably misguided choice if they tried. He literally confirms every single thing that the SNP are using as arguments against Labour.

His ratings are now lower than the Scottish LibDem leader :rofl:

Imo, it's the other way round. The more Labour run away from the SNP, the higher the SNP go in the polls as Scots interpret it as him joining in with the English anti-Scottish hysteria.

One thing that should help Labour in the Wirral is that the Greens aren't standing (purely to try and unseat Esther McVey), but Ashcroft is still including them in his polls for it. That said, Labour would still probably need to keep within about 3% of the Tories nationally to have a chance to have a chance, which is increasingly doubtful. In any case, it just shows what a nonsense the media mantra that Miliband's problems are with "Middle England" when they're competitive there while apparently well behind in far poorer constituencies.

Exactly. Him furiously saying he wouldn't deal with the SNP isn't convincing those who are deadset in hatred of the idea (if it was going to work then it would be working already since he's been saying it nonstop for weeks), and on top of it he makes himself look even more weak and easy to push around by his critics.

Also, I think this assumption that SNP MPs are going to all happily vote for Labour budgets so that they don't risk letting in the Tories is pretty naive. Even IF Nicola Sturgeon would want to do that, the Mhari Black's (the 20-year-old anarchist running against Douglas Alexander) are not going to be voting for Labour legislation that they totally disagree with. These largely aren't going to be a bunch of career politicians who give up their principles just to keep the peace.

Vote-by-vote deals with the SNP with are going to be spun by the press as him "breaking his promise", surely? He's backed himself into a corner just to try and get the bullying to stop for a couple of days, as usual.

In the least surprising news of the election, Ed Miliband is giving into bullying from the Tory press yet again:

What do you mean *even* a by-election?! By-elections are their forte since they can usually be focussed purely on who they want representing the local area and sorting out all the little problems. But I still stand by that a general election is going to have a lot more minds focussed on the national picture (not all minds, admittedly), since people would that who they choose as their MP really could affect who makes the government, whereas a by-election wouldn't. There's ALWAYS been a pattern of Lib Dems performing better in local elections and by-elections, which is what I think tbh Ashcroft's constituency-specific polling reflects.