UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[YL]

Ashcroft released another round of constituency polls in the marginals.  They show a small shift from Lab to UKIP since the last time he did this, so they're not quite as good for Labour overall, but still show some comfortable Labour gains in seats narrowly won by the Tories last time.  They also show Thurrock and South Thanet turning purple, for what that's worth.

[EPG]

In fact, Burnham did better among MPs than the other two electorates.

Unlike 2010, Ed Miliband will not be a candidate and it's hard to see how David Miliband could be. That's 70% of the FPV up for grabs.

[MaxQue]

There is really people liking Chukka Ummana? I mean, he sounds like a right-wing version of Tony Blair.

[Cassius]

There is really people liking Chukka Ummana? I mean, he sounds like a right-wing version of Tony Blair.

Muh British Obama!1!1

Not that I don't think he's probably at least somewhat talented and all, but I think this is one of the reasons as to why some (but not all) people (especially those working in journalism) like to big him up as the potential next Labour leader/PM.

[ChrisDR68]

There is really people liking Chukka Ummana? I mean, he sounds like a right-wing version of Tony Blair.

Weird how the only two leaders that have won Labour a general election since Clement Attlee in 1950 are held in such low esteem by so many.

At the same time most of the Labour leaders that failed at the ballot box are generally quite fondly remembered such as Gaitskell, Callaghan, Foot and even Kinnock.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There is really people liking Chukka Ummana? I mean, he sounds like a right-wing version of Tony Blair.

Weird how the only two leaders that have won Labour a general election since Clement Attlee in 1950 are held in such low esteem by so many.

At the same time most of the Labour leaders that failed at the ballot box are generally quite fondly remembered such as Gaitskell, Callaghan, Foot and even Kinnock.

If it wasn't for Iraq and his post-office behaviour, Blair wouldn't be so reviled. True, he'd be distrusted by the traditional members; but he'd probably be remembered as Labour's Clinton.

Callaghan, I think gets more pathos points than "fond respect"; while Foot is sort of a British left-wing Barry Goldwater - one who blew it, but still is respected for (appearing to) stick to "principles".

Also, I think a lot of people respect Kinnock (and Smith) for doing most of the legwork modernising Labour when the party looked like it was headed to oblivion, before Blair's team waltzed in and took all the credit.

[EPG]

There is really people liking Chukka Ummana? I mean, he sounds like a right-wing version of Tony Blair.

Weird how the only two leaders that have won Labour a general election since Clement Attlee in 1950 are held in such low esteem by so many.

At the same time most of the Labour leaders that failed at the ballot box are generally quite fondly remembered such as Gaitskell, Callaghan, Foot and even Kinnock.

To be fair, they also dislike the people who led their happily-forgotten governments of the 1920s. I think the subtext of this comment is that Labour's intellectual-history base holds to principles too far left to win a majority in the country.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Even if many people fondly remember Michael Foot, I'm not sure if they fondly remember Michael Foot As Party Leader...

[King of Kensington]

Is there any chance of Miliband stepping down before the election?

Why would he do that?  How often do leaders resign before running in any election as leader?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Duncan_Smith

(Pushed out though I guess)

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Duncan_Smith

(Pushed out though I guess)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A5kan_Juholt

Would be a non-British example.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Labour Party does not do that.

[King of Kensington]

Then there's the Julia Gillard/Kevin Rudd thing in Australia...

But I guess it is possible...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661151/Gaffe-prone-Ed-Miliband-scores-lowest-poll-rating-worse-Nick-Clegg.html

[politicus]

The Labour Party does not do that.

Isn't that just until they do?

Before 1992 no one had ever challenged a sitting SD Chairman in Denmark and everybody thought it would never happen, then a leader proved incapable of getting the party into government and out of nowhere a successful challenge did happen.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Yeah, it's number 10 or resign for Miliband.

It's quite intresting how that has become the norm in politics these days. No party today would for example tolerate, as was the case with Niel Kinnock, losing an election and then go on as leader for the next election as well. 

[King of Kensington]

Another view...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/07/its-poll-lead-holds-labour-divided-between-those-who-fear-defeat-and-those-who-fear

[politicus]

Another view...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/07/its-poll-lead-holds-labour-divided-between-those-who-fear-defeat-and-those-who-fear

This raises he question how big a problem it would be to raise the taxes enough to pay for the public sector. Could Miliband "tax the rich" enough or would it mean too much capital flight or problems with his own right wing?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Another view...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/07/its-poll-lead-holds-labour-divided-between-those-who-fear-defeat-and-those-who-fear

This raises he question how big a problem it would be to raise the taxes enough to pay for the public sector. Could Miliband "tax the rich" enough or would it mean too much capital flight or problems with his own right wing?

I have seen some speculation that NI contributions will rise to pay for the NHS under Labour. That may be broadly accepted.

Oh yeah, and I think the mansion tax will get through. Not sure how much money that will actually raise, but still.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Isn't that just until they do?

To an extent, yes. But it isn't just party culture; party rules have been written in such a way as to make it very difficult to challenge a sitting leader, which in turn makes it hard to force resignations. Palace coup style leadership changes are also made less likely by the widespread fear of factionalism (which remains a problem for Labour in local government, incidentally) and Labour's rather... er... byzantine party structure. Certainly ousting a leader before an election would be ridiculously difficult, unless they had managed to alienate literally everyone.

[King of Kensington]

Probably not that much.  Nordic social democrats have been better at understanding that an overemphasis on taxing the rich alone doesn't raise that much revenue.

How popular is the mansion tax idea?  On the one hand, I can see it as a popular "tax the rich" scheme; on the other hand, I can see it "that's my nest egg and what if they tax me?" attitudes prevailing.  

[DL]

It's quite intresting how that has become the norm in politics these days. No party today would for example tolerate, as was the case with Niel Kinnock, losing an election and then go on as leader for the next election as well. 

The context is everything. Kinnock took over as leader of Labour after they had suffered their worst defeat of all time in 1983. He was widely hailed as having saved the party from total collapse and getting it onto the road to recovery. While he clearly didn't win his first election in 1987 - he did gain ground and he was widely viewed as having run a good campaign and as having been an asset to the party. For that reason he was seen as having earned another kick at the can. In 1992, he was seen as having blown what should have been an easy win and he quickly resigned after the election. I think parties will keep leader after a loss if that leader is viewed as having run a good campaign and gained ground - no one seriously expected Labour to win outright in 1987 after having been reduced to 200 seats in 1983.

There have been cases in the UK of leaders being dumped before they even led their party through an election campaign - remember Ian Duncan Smith who the Tories picked and then forced out a year and a half later?

[ChrisDR68]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Labour Party under Michael Foot managed to win 209 seats in 1983 with the manifesto they had at the time I doubt Labour was ever heading for oblivion.

A very long period in opposition yes but oblivion no.

[DL]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Labour Party under Michael Foot managed to win 209 seats in 1983 with the manifesto they had at the time I doubt Labour was ever heading for oblivion.

A very long period in opposition yes but oblivion no.

Don't be too sure - in 1983 the Labour party was only 2% ahead of the SDP/Liberal Alliance and at the time it seemed like a very strong possibility that the Alliance would gain more momentum and Labour would dissolve into internal chaos and division and that the Alliance would become the new main non-Tory party. Its easy to scoff at all this now - but in 1984-85 this was seen as a serious possibility.

[EPG]

As for decapitating Ed - forget the structural effects if you must - Labour still has a very good chance of winning a majority. Why risk it by ditching Miliband with less than a year to go?

[You kip if you want to...]

There's no alternative candidate at this point. No one's on manoeuves, and if anyone's laying the groundwork for a leadership campaign after the election, they're keeping it well hidden (unlike D.Miliband this time 5 years ago who was quite obviously getting ready for the leadership race).