Danny

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.

3rd YouGov poll in a row with a Tory lead.

If keeping the Tories out was their main concern, they wouldn't have ever voted Lib Dem in the first place. Again, I come back to why would they vote Labour if they're committed to the very policies which led them to get so furious with the Lib Dems after 2010? They want an end to Tory policies, not just a change of personnel. This is actually what's happened for Labour with their attempts at "economic credibility". Despite the fact their economic policy is now more right-wing than Tony Blair's ever was, they have still received NO credit whatsoever from the right-wing press (meanwhile, the Blairite idiots who were the ones who urged these disastrous policies on the leadership were moaning again over the weekend how they STILL weren't "credible" enough), and they have continually insisted they give up yet more ground on economics and give the Tories space to be ever more horrible. Labour simply were never going to convince the austerity-maniacs, yet they've also leaked votes on the left at the same time. The polls show that people already consider Labour to be closer to the "centre" than the Tories but it's done them no good whatsoever. Or basically the point I'm making made much more eloquently: http://labourlist.org/2014/10/how-the-labo...ggest-problems/

If this is what ends up happening then I might even be in favour of it (though Assad would probably also have to be part of the equation, since it seems pretty obvious now that he was the lesser of two evils all along), but what I fear is that the West won't "trust" those to finish the job and will insist on a full-scale Western invasion. I can't see how that wouldn't be a disaster -- even if it managed to "defeat" Islamic State this time, the kind of resentment towards towards the West that another invasion and the mass killings would cause would probably mean that something similar would crop up again before long.

The "Cameron's speech was more left-wing than Miliband" was not what I think the public think, that was my personal opinion. And I now think the 2010 Lib Dems are probably not going to go Labour. They might go back to the Lib Dems (they were certainly a lot more forthright than Labour in condemning the Tories' disgusting welfare cuts this week, however disingenuous they might've been), but I'm starting to think the most likely thing is they're going to go Green. You're right that most people don't pay attention to "left and right", but these Guardianista, very politically-aware former Lib Dems do if my dad's any indication -- they abandoned the Lib Dems in the first place because they signed up to austerity so why would they vote Labour who are the same?