Miliband and his 'rumoured' future.

[Ernest]

David Miliband is the man. But the unions, and plenty of others in the party, wouldn't accept him. Not until Labour lose again and again, just like they did prior to Tony Blair.

Then eventually the plenty of others start to see sense, get to outvote the unions and they may become electable again.

Yesterdays man more like

 

[jakarta]

And a shiny faced PR spiv is any better as a leader ?

Goodness me, to whom are you referring?

 

[Tooting Gull]

If there isn't a plot to get rid of Ed Miliband, the obvious question is 'Why not', and if there is it is 'Why has it taken so long'?

Labour have left it too late, they will either blow the chance of a win with Miliband, or blow the chance of it without him by getting rid too close and looking hopeless and desperate, with no time for a successor to make his or her mark. Lose/lose.

Shame they didn't have the wit and the guts to do it a year ago, or get the right brother in the first place.

 

[thisistips]

Out of the three main party leaders I think Milliband is the worst, 0% charm and charisma. But in all honesty neither of the other two clowns has that much going for them do they.

What scares me is that if they are the best that our great nation can provide as our leaders then we may as well switch the lights off now ..

You are right, it is pathetic. Theyre all career politicians that are out of touch. Johnson I like. Would he stand? I think he'd win the GE.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

It's all part of the cunning plan. Lower expectations to the point that you have to dig for them, make all hope seem lost, then bring back the other Milliband right before the election campaign kicks off in earnest. Instant boost all round.

Of course, this may be completely wrong but it would at least be a bit interesting to watch.

 

[HOFNSKIN]

Johnson lost the plot after his wife ran off with his plod protection officer.This minor event has cost the Labour Party dearly.

 

[beorhthelm]

If there isn't a plot to get rid of Ed Miliband, the obvious question is 'Why not', and if there is it is 'Why has it taken so long'?

its odd one isnt it. he's been dragging them back for some time now, but the party seem to stay faithfull. yet despite some saying its all a tory press plot, he is unpopular in the party, i read this week only half of Labour members think he's doing a good job. my theory is that no else wants it right now as its going to be an onerous task to lead another minority government in coalition with the Liberals and nationalist from Wales/Scotland. it'll be a huge bun fight just to get a coalition agreement put together - it may not be realisitcally possible and they have to form a minority government.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Yesterdays man more like

Unfortunately for Labour, David Miliband is not even tomorrows man.

Maybe the day after tomorrow.

If he took over today they would win the election but the unions won't wear him yet.

Not until Ed Balls has taken over from Ed, then everyone will be wishing they had Ed back.

But it's actually bad for the country. Only one realistic candidate for PM and even then he may well not be able to form a Government.

Are we another Italy?

 

[User removed 4]

Is there a third brother then.........

Yes , Steve millerband

 

[Simster]

Out of the three main party leaders I think Milliband is the worst, 0% charm and charisma. But in all honesty neither of the other two clowns has that much going for them do they.

What scares me is that if they are the best that our great nation can provide as our leaders then we may as well switch the lights off now ..

This in spades.

 

[Surf's Up]

Labour do have someone who, IMHO, would make an excellent leader but she's a woman and for all their brouhaha about glass ceilings, women's equality and the number of female MPs in the shadow cabinet they're not about to appoint a woman to lead the party. That person is Yvette Cooper. True she suffers from an unfortunate coupling with Ed Balls but she's always impressed me as being a highly able politician, with good shadow cabinet experience who also manages to retain a high level of personal integrity whilst all around her are busy fiddling expense claims or shagging their secretaries!

 

[Gwylan]

The question I'd like answered is this: if the economy is improving all the time (and we keep hearing from Tory supporters that it's on the up, fastest-growing in Europe etc) and the government is faced by the worst political leader in anyone's lifetime, why isn't the Tory party streets ahead in the polls?

Received wisdom is that the party that's winning on the economy will win and if you couple that with having the more popular leader, then the Tory party should have a lead of at least 10% and possibly 15 to 20% - Blair had a lead over Major of more than 20% before the 1997 election. And yet, the parties are running neck-and-neck - why is this?

 

[Buzzer]

The question I'd like answered is this: if the economy is improving all the time (and we keep hearing from Tory supporters that it's on the up, fastest-growing in Europe etc) and the government is faced by the worst political leader in anyone's lifetime, why isn't the Tory party streets ahead in the polls?

Received wisdom is that the party that's winning on the economy will win and if you couple that with having the more popular leader, then the Tory party should have a lead of at least 10% and possibly 15 to 20% - Blair had a lead over Major of more than 20% before the 1997 election. And yet, the parties are running neck-and-neck - why is this?

My gut feeling is that the extra 10% has switched to UKIP.

 

[Surf's Up]

The question I'd like answered is this: if the economy is improving all the time (and we keep hearing from Tory supporters that it's on the up, fastest-growing in Europe etc) and the government is faced by the worst political leader in anyone's lifetime, why isn't the Tory party streets ahead in the polls?

Received wisdom is that the party that's winning on the economy will win and if you couple that with having the more popular leader, then the Tory party should have a lead of at least 10% and possibly 15 to 20% - Blair had a lead over Major of more than 20% before the 1997 election. And yet, the parties are running neck-and-neck - why is this?

Because UKIP are right up there in the polls with the Tories and Labour

 

[Gwylan]

Because UKIP are right up there in the polls with the Tories and Labour

My gut feeling is that the extra 10% has switched to UKIP.

I'm not sure that's true - maybe some have - but the swing voters who move between parties tend to be more centrist/pro-Europe, not the sort of people to move to UKIP

The other aspect of UKIP voting is that, according to the polls, they've attracted a lot of people who have never voted before, rather than switching votes.

I think the UKIP explanation accounts for some but not all that discrepancy

 

[Brovion]

Yes , Steve millerband

That made me laugh!

 

[Buzzer]

I'm not sure that's true - maybe some have - but the swing voters who move between parties tend to be more centrist/pro-Europe, not the sort of people to move to UKIP

The other aspect of UKIP voting is that, according to the polls, they've attracted a lot of people who have never voted before, rather than switching votes.

I think the UKIP explanation accounts for some but not all that discrepancy

I think it accounts for a large part of it but I'd also add that for some reason Tory support inveterately appears to be understated in opinion polls.

But to take you up on your point about UKIP not being your usual swing voter, in which case they MUST have come from somewhere. I've no evidence at all for this but I reckon the centrist/pro-Europe swing vote has gone left as a reaction to UKIP's success thus inflating Labour and the Greens. The Lib Dems are still persona non-grata for their betrayal on tuition fees and also the very low opinion of Nick Clegg, IMO.

It makes for interesting times, eh?

 

[Surf's Up]

The recent NSC poll actually quite closely reflected current trends in national polls with the Tories on 26%, Labour on 25%, UKIP on 26%, the Greens on 15% and there Lib Dems on 12%. This suggests that UKIP may be drawing support from both Tories and Labour (and Lib Dems?).

 

[Gwylan]

I think it accounts for a large part of it but I'd also add that for some reason Tory support inveterately appears to be understated in opinion polls.

But to take you up on your point about UKIP not being your usual swing voter, in which case they MUST have come from somewhere. I've no evidence at all for this but I reckon the centrist/pro-Europe swing vote has gone left as a reaction to UKIP's success thus inflating Labour and the Greens. The Lib Dems are still persona non-grata for their betrayal on tuition fees and also the very low opinion of Nick Clegg, IMO.

It makes for interesting times, eh?

yes, that's very true. Labour has probably picked up some Lib Dem votes, negating the loss to the Tories - although they've certainly lost some to the Greens.

But the factor I left out in my original post is that Labour has lost a massive amount of support to SNP. And, while taking your point about polls understating the Tory vote (although it didn't in the last election), I still think the Tories should be way ahead in the polls by now.

Personally, I think there are two reasons: one is the UKIP factor but the other is that people still don't feel the economy is doing well, despite what Osborne says

 

[Surf's Up]

"Personally, I think there are two reasons: one is the UKIP factor but the other is that people still don't feel the economy is doing well, despite what Osborne says"

Which is where Labour have had some success supporting and amplifying the Vox Pop that the "feel good factor" may be reflected in statistics but its not matched by how well the economic upturn is being felt at grass roots.