Danny

You're right that tax revenues are the big problem, but it's not even like big tax hikes are needed. All that's needed are for the rich and big businesses to actually pay their taxes at the rates that are currently in force, rather than squirrelling all their money away in tax havens. Yet supposedly left-wing politicians are too scared to even SAY that the rich are the ones to blame, let alone do something about cracking down on them. I do think it's inevitable over the next 10-20 years that all the major economies will club together and raise their tax rates to similar levels, and then refuse to trade with any country that doesn't do the same. The option of the global rich being able to hold their countries to ransom, and allow the living standards of the poor and middle class to collapse (even though the poor and the middle class are the ones who made such a huge contribution to those rich people getting so rich in the first place), has to be taken off the table.

That's not backed up by the polls. UKIP supporters as a whole are very anti-austerity (though admittedly the Tory activists who've defected to UKIP are probably a different story). Imo, the ToryKippers were generally people who voted Tory in 2010 because of immigration and because they thought generally it was "time for a change", rather than approving of the Tories' economic policies.

Probably a "cap" on European immigration and an end to austerity.

Sorry, but pinning it all on Ed Miliband is just too easy. This goes back to something we talked about a while ago, but at this point, there's been two Labour leaders in a row who were utterly uninspiring, and then throw in Scotland with Johann Lamont and her predecessor. Don't you think it's time to ask whether the party has just been unfortunate to have a whole sequence of fundamentally bad leaders, or if the reason they're all seen as bad/uninspiring/boring leaders is a result of the political choices they've made (namely to be as uncontroversial/uninteresting/"un-ideological" as possible)? On the point about people saying they hate Ed but would've voted for David. In my view, that's just people projecting whatever they want from Labour onto an empty vessel, in the same way people used to do with the Lib Dems irrespective of what their actual policies were. When I was canvassing round here (these anecdotes are a couple of years out of date now admittedly), the MANY people who complained about how Labour/Ed were just Tories in disguise and how nothing would be different if Labour got in, were often the very people who said they would've preferred David to be leader. And the smaller group of people who said they were worried that Labour would overspend (yes, even I admit there were SOME :P ) would also say they preferred David. Agreed! But then that begs the question of why Labour have become too scared to suggest that rich people and big businesses (do you atleast agree there's HUGE anger towards them?) should not be taking any hits.

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"?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

What question on earth would Rachel Reeves be the answer to?

Plus he can actually speak English. I'm not sure I'd like his policies, but I think he'd easily be worth another few percent on Labour's vote compared to Ed even with all other things being equal.

LOL, if any of Chuka Umunna, Rachel Reeves or Stella Creasy are chosen, it will show that not a damn thing has been learnt about the fiasco of the last few years.

I think they would have until the end of the year to do it. It would be worth it even at the risk of a few weeks of negative headlines about panicking. The only problem is who to go for. Ed's main problem (not being able to speak normally or come across as...a humanbeing) is shared by all the potential "contenders" with the exceptions of only Alan Johnson and Andy Burnham. I just don't agree with that. So many "working-class" Labour voters are sick of the party and will be tempted either to vote UKIP or not vote at all, which means the Tories could hold onto many of their marginals even if their vote falls.

I can see them picking up a lot of the Lib Dem seats. Suedehead's made the point before that the Lib Dems are holding up better in the Tory/Lib Dem seats, and that might be right, but even so the Lib Dems only need to fall by about 10% for a whole load to flip over to the Conservatives. In the main Labour/Tory marginals, I think it'll be pretty much no change from last time except Labour might pick up a few in London. This is all on the assumption that they stick with Ed and stick with their current terrible policies, obviously (if they changed both those things then who knows since the Tories remain so unpopular).

I'm thinking now that the Tories will get a small majority, with Labour possibly dropping back in vote share from 2010. UKIP close to 20% -- everyone keeps saying how they'll lose steam when people are making the choice about the government, but I think it'll be the opposite - the huge media coverage for mainstream politicians will just remind everyone how much they hate them and all their habits.

UKIP reach a record high of 25% in a Survation poll. Tories and Labour tied on 31%.

That is highly questionable in itself, but even so, even most swing seats will have some so-called "core" Labour voters. So even if Labour won over every single floating voter in those seats, if the lifelong working-class Labour voters abandon them then they're still going to be beaten in most of them. And if Labour wants poor people to vote for them, it will simply have to promise them things that will help them, rather than yet more cuts and misery.

Wake up call, so much for "core Labour voters" seeing the difference between them and the Tories, etcetc.

Yes, but it does have to be said that it's a bit rich for Clegg to be saying this when mental health services have deteriorated SHOCKINGLY over the last 4 years. In a way, that's sadly inevitable because people with mental health issues by their very nature are usually not going to have the energy/motivation to make a fuss about it when they're not getting adequate treatment, so they're the "easy targets" for any politicians when the health budget is being squeezed. Tiny crumb of credit to Clegg for atleast acknowledging the problem, but it's going to take a hell of a lot more money than ANY of the parties are pledging to the NHS to make the improvements needed. Apparently some people with depression are now having to wait up to a year for counselling, and even then are often only entitled to a few sessions. If cancer patients were being treated so shockingly by the health service, there would (rightly) be a national outrage.

Nick Clegg's conference speech doing the impossible by making Miliband's look good. Piously claiming that he'll give "economic competence" AND protection for public services and the poor. Will someone please tell him (and his counterparts on Labour's Progress wing) that the two things contradict eachother.

People don't really want it. Despite their poll leads, the Conservatives are still polling a little below their mediocre 2010 performance. The problem is that Labour have let so many votes slip to the Greens (up to 7% in some polls, almost all of it people who were saying they'd vote Labour til recently), the SNP and UKIP. Get even half of those lost votes back and Labour would probably win without the Tories losing a single one of their current votes.

Isn't it too late for a leadership election? Ousting Ed would probably mean Harriet Harman would become leader by default at this point. Which....I like her more than most of the shadow cabinet prats, but it's not very clear that she'd be more popular than Ed. (Then again, Labour actually were doing better when she was temp leader in 2010 than now....)

This is exactly my point :P I'm saying that some of those lefty former Lib Dems might well vote Green instead of Labour, if Labour don't get their act together. Rey Carlos seemed to be saying they would vote for Labour simply as the "lesser of two evils" compared to the Conservatives, but if they all they cared about was stopping the Tories at any price regardless of how terrible Labour's policies are, then they would've been voting Labour in 2010.

Tory/LibDem marginals are exceptions obviously. But a lot of Labour commentators always assume that the "Guardianista" Lib Dems will definitely be voting Labour, no matter how unappealing Labour's policies are, simply because they want to "kick the Tories out" so much -- but if that was the case, they would've voted Labour (in seats where they were in contention) in 2010 rather than Lib Dem.