politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guido’s LAB leadership spreadsheet looks set to become a key t

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guido’s LAB leadership spreadsheet looks set to become a key tool for those betting on Corbyn’s successor

Over the next seven weeks this spreadsheet from Guido and others like it are going to be a key part for those following and betting on the LAB leadership contest. For we are nearly two months away from ballots going out – this is stage one of gathering the nominations simply in order to be able to proceed to the next stage.

Read the full story here

RobD

First

Nemtynakht

If the left can get Corbyn on the ballot then it can get one or two now.

Sandpit

Third, like Labour if they elect another hard-left leader.

DecrepiterJohnL

Never mind all that Labour rubbish, the real scandal is the budget being set for Wednesday 11 March, clashing with Cheltenham.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51011000

DecrepiterJohnL

The 11/3 budget will doubtless invest in infrastructure (mentioned 28 times in the Conservative manifesto) as well as Corbynet broadband:
We intend to bring full fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK by 2025.
We know how difficult it will be, so we have announced a raft of legislative changes to accelerate progress and £5 billion of new public funding to connect premises which are not commercially viable.

(Did no-one proof-read the manifesto, by the way? I don't think it means the premises themselves are not viable. If only there were a leading journalist, novelist and Churchill biographer in the government.)

As the Telegraph helpfully pointed out, the new rules on borrowing for investment tear up the economically-illiterate Osbornian austerity and mark a return to the golden age rule of Gordon Brown.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/07/chancellor-sajid-javid-launches-investment-boom-ending-era-slash/

partypoliticalorphan

I see in Guido's latest update Lavery has confirmed he is not running and backs RLB.

OldKingCole

I'm a bit wary of promises on broadband etc. Locally we have promises of repairs to a mast for several months and nothing had happened. To be fair, it wrecks the text service, not broadband, of course.
On the general point, as I think I've posted before, a son who lives in Kent is envious of my 60+ mb/s download speed, but the other son, who lives in Thailand is rather contemptuous of it, as he gets 100mb/s.
'Twill be interesting to see what the Governments detailed plans are, as opposed to the pie in the sky of pre-election ones.

MarqueeMark

Efforts race ahead to thwart Corbyn's Commie-com:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51013308

DecrepiterJohnL

MarqueeMark said:

Efforts race ahead to thwart Corbyn's Commie-com:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51013308

Do keep up. The Saj is investing £5 billion in Borisnet.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Surely there are countless comrades lining up behind the colossus that is Burgon?

eek

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The 11/3 budget will doubtless invest in infrastructure (mentioned 28 times in the Conservative manifesto) as well as Corbynet broadband:
We intend to bring full fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK by 2025.
We know how difficult it will be, so we have announced a raft of legislative changes to accelerate progress and £5 billion of new public funding to connect premises which are not commercially viable.

(Did no-one proof-read the manifesto, by the way? I don't think it means the premises themselves are not viable. If only there were a leading journalist, novelist and Churchill biographer in the government.)

As the Telegraph helpfully pointed out, the new rules on borrowing for investment tear up the economically-illiterate Osbornian austerity and mark a return to the golden age rule of Gordon Brown.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/07/chancellor-sajid-javid-launches-investment-boom-ending-era-slash/

Austerity was based on Keynesian economics - you have to stop spending to ensure you have things in reserve for the next recession.

Japan has shown that Keynesian isn't required and Modern Monetary Theory claims you can spend what you want provided you have control of your own currency.

And when you look at it that way Greece and Italy are the North East and Wales of the Eurozone - not getting the money required to lift themselves out of the mess they are in (I'm ignoring all arguments that their tax collection is beyond useless).

alex_

So RBL is not just defending, but taking credit for all the nonsense policies around nationalised utility companies run by local “democratic” groups. Because nothing says taking the steps to combat climate change on a national and international level like running massive national infrastructure through local Coop committees.

Alistair

Lavery is an absolute wanker.

ydoethur

Alistair said:

Lavery is an absolute wanker.

That’s rather harsh on absolute wankers.

NorthernPowerhouse

eek said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The 11/3 budget will doubtless invest in infrastructure (mentioned 28 times in the Conservative manifesto) as well as Corbynet broadband:
We intend to bring full fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK by 2025.
We know how difficult it will be, so we have announced a raft of legislative changes to accelerate progress and £5 billion of new public funding to connect premises which are not commercially viable.

(Did no-one proof-read the manifesto, by the way? I don't think it means the premises themselves are not viable. If only there were a leading journalist, novelist and Churchill biographer in the government.)

As the Telegraph helpfully pointed out, the new rules on borrowing for investment tear up the economically-illiterate Osbornian austerity and mark a return to the golden age rule of Gordon Brown.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/07/chancellor-sajid-javid-launches-investment-boom-ending-era-slash/

Austerity was based on Keynesian economics - you have to stop spending to ensure you have things in reserve for the next recession.

Japan has shown that Keynesian isn't required and Modern Monetary Theory claims you can spend what you want provided you have control of your own currency.

And when you look at it that way Greece and Italy are the North East and Wales of the Eurozone - not getting the money required to lift themselves out of the mess they are in (I'm ignoring all arguments that their tax collection is beyond useless).

And austerity was largely a marketing piece of nonsense. Barely a penny was cut from anything until about 2013, and then pretty much all reductions fell on the police and local authorities. Nhs, schools were not only maintained at what would have been the profligate standard labour spending envelope, they were maintained at the ‘temporary’ fiscal stimulus rate.

The 09/10 spending was not normal or sustainable, the taps had been turned on full. Yet the conservatives managed to maintain most of it and by 2020 still spending a greater percent of gdp on public spending than even immediately post crash.

https://tinyurl.com/Austerityfiction

DavidL

eek said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The 11/3 budget will doubtless invest in infrastructure (mentioned 28 times in the Conservative manifesto) as well as Corbynet broadband:
We intend to bring full fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK by 2025.
We know how difficult it will be, so we have announced a raft of legislative changes to accelerate progress and £5 billion of new public funding to connect premises which are not commercially viable.

(Did no-one proof-read the manifesto, by the way? I don't think it means the premises themselves are not viable. If only there were a leading journalist, novelist and Churchill biographer in the government.)

As the Telegraph helpfully pointed out, the new rules on borrowing for investment tear up the economically-illiterate Osbornian austerity and mark a return to the golden age rule of Gordon Brown.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/07/chancellor-sajid-javid-launches-investment-boom-ending-era-slash/

Austerity was based on Keynesian economics - you have to stop spending to ensure you have things in reserve for the next recession.

Japan has shown that Keynesian isn't required and Modern Monetary Theory claims you can spend what you want provided you have control of your own currency.

And when you look at it that way Greece and Italy are the North East and Wales of the Eurozone - not getting the money required to lift themselves out of the mess they are in (I'm ignoring all arguments that their tax collection is beyond useless).

You may have noticed that Japan's continuous borrowing and high public debt have not exactly led to stellar growth. Indeed their economy seems to have stalled completely after the best part of 2 decades of sub-optimal growth. This suggests that debt remains an issue inhibiting growth. Classic Keynesian economics suggested that this was an increasing problem beyond about 90% of GDP and the performance of Japan, Italy and Greece rather bears that out. We must make sure that we are not in the same boat.

A_View_From_Cumbria5

OldKingCole said:

I'm a bit wary of promises on broadband etc. Locally we have promises of repairs to a mast for several months and nothing had happened. To be fair, it wrecks the text service, not broadband, of course.
On the general point, as I think I've posted before, a son who lives in Kent is envious of my 60+ mb/s download speed, but the other son, who lives in Thailand is rather contemptuous of it, as he gets 100mb/s.
'Twill be interesting to see what the Governments detailed plans are, as opposed to the pie in the sky of pre-election ones.

You should move to rural South Cumbria where 1 G, 1,000 M via B4RN, Broadband for the Rural North is the norm. Of course Labour are committed to nationalising companies like B4RN and destroying what volunteers have built up. I pay £30 per month.

Stocky

Looks to me that the Labour Contest will have 4 contenders: Starmer, RLB, Nandy and Phillips. Three women and one man.

I still think that Starmer (1.85 BF) is too short. Labour members will - surely - be concerned how it will look if from such a line-up the man is chosen.

ydoethur

Stocky said:

Looks to me that the Labour Contest will have 4 contenders: Starmer, RLB, Nandy and Phillips. Three women and one man.

I still think that Starmer (1.85 BF) is too short. Labour members will - surely - be concerned how it will look if from such a line-up the man is chosen.

However, if he does not win it will be the first time a female candidate has been placed above a male one in any Labour leadership election.

Edit - but more pertinently, out of the field if he doesn’t win they will have chosen a weaker candidate on gender grounds. Perhaps a better question should be, why, after 25 years of all women shortlists and an election that finally saw more than half the PLP female, somehow they are less impressive than their male counterparts? Because surely that is the real puzzle.

Casino_Royale

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

NickPalmer

I don't think Starmer will have any trouble getting CLP nominations. There are lots where nobody pays the slightest attention to recommendations from outside, and the poll of member preferences shows ample support to get him a whole bunch of CLPs. Similarly, Long-Bailey will have enough MPs - for example, people like Rayner who are not on the far left. If Corbyn could do it, she can.

Phillips will have more trouble - there are not many CLPs who liked the open hostility shown to Corbyn by her and even more the MPs who have endorsed her (all 4 are people who gave countless media quotes to that effect) - there are plenty of non-Corbynites who felt that they should STFU.

Lewis will struggle in both PLP and CLP camps - he's been running for most of a month with little sign of support, and his potential left-wing backers will be focused on RLB.

I'm not sure about Nandy. - essentially the candidate of the pro-soft Brexit non-left non-Corbynites. There is a constituency for that in the party but is it large enough?

So we could well end up with just 2 or 3 names on the ballot.

DavidL

NorthernPowerhouse said:

eek said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Austerity was based on Keynesian economics - you have to stop spending to ensure you have things in reserve for the next recession.

Japan has shown that Keynesian isn't required and Modern Monetary Theory claims you can spend what you want provided you have control of your own currency.

And when you look at it that way Greece and Italy are the North East and Wales of the Eurozone - not getting the money required to lift themselves out of the mess they are in (I'm ignoring all arguments that their tax collection is beyond useless).

And austerity was largely a marketing piece of nonsense. Barely a penny was cut from anything until about 2013, and then pretty much all reductions fell on the police and local authorities. Nhs, schools were not only maintained at what would have been the profligate standard labour spending envelope, they were maintained at the ‘temporary’ fiscal stimulus rate.

The 09/10 spending was not normal or sustainable, the taps had been turned on full. Yet the conservatives managed to maintain most of it and by 2020 still spending a greater percent of gdp on public spending than even immediately post crash.

https://tinyurl.com/Austerityfiction

I think that this is a misdescription. What happened after 2010 is that government spending continued to rise in real terms but much, much more slowly than in the period to the GFC. The result of that was cuts in real terms in some parts of government expenditure to allow funding increases in others, specifically the NHS. In my view Osborne was either incredibly lucky or remarkably skillful during his Chancellorship in that he managed to maintain consumption and growth while bearing down heavily on the deficit in part by increasing the tax burden on the higher paid. To cut the best part of £100bn out of the deficit while still having the best growth in the western EU (eastern countries grew faster due to catch up) was remarkable.

Inevitably, however, there are limits to such policies and there comes a point where the public sector, which shed the best part of 1m employees over that period, simply cannot provide the public services that we want without additional resources. We probably reached that point under spreadsheet Phil but he never noticed.

squareroot2

DavidL said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

eek said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Austerity was based on Keynesian economics - you have to stop spending to ensure you have things in reserve for the next recession.

Japan has shown that Keynesian isn't required and Modern Monetary Theory claims you can spend what you want provided you have control of your own currency.

And when you look at it that way Greece and Italy are the North East and Wales of the Eurozone - not getting the money required to lift themselves out of the mess they are in (I'm ignoring all arguments that their tax collection is beyond useless).

And austerity was largely a marketing piece of nonsense. Barely a penny was cut from anything until about 2013, and then pretty much all reductions fell on the police and local authorities. Nhs, schools were not only maintained at what would have been the profligate standard labour spending envelope, they were maintained at the ‘temporary’ fiscal stimulus rate.

The 09/10 spending was not normal or sustainable, the taps had been turned on full. Yet the conservatives managed to maintain most of it and by 2020 still spending a greater percent of gdp on public spending than even immediately post crash.

https://tinyurl.com/Austerityfiction

I think that this is a misdescription. What happened after 2010 is that government spending continued to rise in real terms but much, much more slowly than in the period to the GFC. The result of that was cuts in real terms in some parts of government expenditure to allow funding increases in others, specifically the NHS. In my view Osborne was either incredibly lucky or remarkably skillful during his Chancellorship in that he managed to maintain consumption and growth while bearing down heavily on the deficit in part by increasing the tax burden on the higher paid. To cut the best part of £100bn out of the deficit while still having the best growth in the western EU (eastern countries grew faster due to catch up) was remarkable.

Inevitably, however, there are limits to such policies and there comes a point where the public sector, which shed the best part of 1m employees over that period, simply cannot provide the public services that we want without additional resources. We probably reached that point under spreadsheet Phil but he never noticed.

Far more impressively stated than I could have done, but I think that says it all.

DecrepiterJohnL

eek said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The 11/3 budget will doubtless invest in infrastructure (mentioned 28 times in the Conservative manifesto) as well as Corbynet broadband:
We intend to bring full fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK by 2025.
We know how difficult it will be, so we have announced a raft of legislative changes to accelerate progress and £5 billion of new public funding to connect premises which are not commercially viable.

(Did no-one proof-read the manifesto, by the way? I don't think it means the premises themselves are not viable. If only there were a leading journalist, novelist and Churchill biographer in the government.)

As the Telegraph helpfully pointed out, the new rules on borrowing for investment tear up the economically-illiterate Osbornian austerity and mark a return to the golden age rule of Gordon Brown.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/07/chancellor-sajid-javid-launches-investment-boom-ending-era-slash/

Austerity was based on Keynesian economics - you have to stop spending to ensure you have things in reserve for the next recession.

Japan has shown that Keynesian isn't required and Modern Monetary Theory claims you can spend what you want provided you have control of your own currency.

And when you look at it that way Greece and Italy are the North East and Wales of the Eurozone - not getting the money required to lift themselves out of the mess they are in (I'm ignoring all arguments that their tax collection is beyond useless).

Austerity was not based on Keynesian economics. However, the bigger picture is that we can at last bury Osborne's nonsense and move on. (Or at least, the main parties can; Ed Davey, please note!) And yes, the tragedy of the Eurozone is Germany not making transfer payments to the poorer countries, as well as imposing austerity because it worries about inflation, wheelbarrows and Nazis. (As an aside, there is a newer school of thought that holds austerity and not hyperinflation responsible for the rise of Nazism.)

Scrapheap_as_was

Who does Tim support?

DecrepiterJohnL

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

Lavery mentioned that RLB, whom he supports, is a lady person.

Casino_Royale

With no evidence whatsoever I’ve got a feeling Nandy and RLB will battle it out for second, with Kier a clear first, and Philips an also-ran.

But, I’m perhaps not the best reader of the Labour pschy.

DavidL

Is there a real chance that Starmer will do a Boris and get so many nominations from the MPs that others struggle to get to the starting gate at all?

MarqueeMark

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

Because all the other parties have done the heavy lifting in dismantling the glass ceiling. People now look at the candidate, not the gender.

Form an orderly queue to thank Fatcha, Labour......

matt

Alistair said:

Lavery is an absolute wanker.

Send him a bill for your losses. He might be able to get the residual NUM estate to pay it. For a cut.

Casino_Royale

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

Lavery mentioned that RLB, whom he supports, is a lady person.

Yes, but note it’s always “..and she’s a lady”, and not “because she’s a lady.”

Lavery isn’t really dropping out and supporting her because she’s a woman. He’s doing it because he realises he doesn’t have the support or popularity to win, but supports her politics.

Her gender is entirely incidental, and will be throughout this contest even though you can guarantee the BBC will make a big headline thing of it whoever wins.

squareroot2

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Who does Tim support?

I think its Everton.

Stocky

NickPalmer said:

I don't think Starmer will have any trouble getting CLP nominations. There are lots where nobody pays the slightest attention to recommendations from outside, and the poll of member preferences shows ample support to get him a whole bunch of CLPs. Similarly, Long-Bailey will have enough MPs - for example, people like Rayner who are not on the far left. If Corbyn could do it, she can.

Phillips will have more trouble - there are not many CLPs who liked the open hostility shown to Corbyn by her and even more the MPs who have endorsed her (all 4 are people who gave countless media quotes to that effect) - there are plenty of non-Corbynites who felt that they should STFU.

Lewis will struggle in both PLP and CLP camps - he's been running for most of a month with little sign of support, and his potential left-wing backers will be focused on RLB.

I'm not sure about Nandy. - essentially the candidate of the pro-soft Brexit non-left non-Corbynites. There is a constituency for that in the party but is it large enough?

So we could well end up with just 2 or 3 names on the ballot.

Thanks for this.

What is your view about the second hurdle (unions/affiliates)? Please will you rate Starmer/RLB/Nandy/Philips`s chances of securing the necessary backing to get to the final stage.

DecrepiterJohnL

DavidL said:

Is there a real chance that Starmer will do a Boris and get so many nominations from the MPs that others struggle to get to the starting gate at all?

Yes and no. Yes, it seems apparent that some early contenders (such as Lavery and Cooper) are dropping out because they cannot find enough support. No because that is not really what happened with Boris.

matt

Casino_Royale said:

With no evidence whatsoever I’ve got a feeling Nandy and RLB will battle it out for second, with Kier a clear first, and Philips an also-ran.

But, I’m perhaps not the best reader of the Labour pschy.

When does lack of knowledge stop people giving their opinions? See much written about the Conservative party and their members from around 4 people here.

Stocky

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

I disgree with you on this. Tories 2, LDs 1, SNP 1, LP 0.

It will play on the mind.

Foxy

DavidL said:

eek said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The 11/3 budget will doubtless invest in infrastructure (mentioned 28 times in the Conservative manifesto) as well as Corbynet broadband:
We intend to bring full fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK by 2025.
We know how difficult it will be, so we have announced a raft of legislative changes to accelerate progress and £5 billion of new public funding to connect premises which are not commercially viable.

(Did no-one proof-read the manifesto, by the way? I don't think it means the premises themselves are not viable. If only there were a leading journalist, novelist and Churchill biographer in the government.)

As the Telegraph helpfully pointed out, the new rules on borrowing for investment tear up the economically-illiterate Osbornian austerity and mark a return to the golden age rule of Gordon Brown.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/07/chancellor-sajid-javid-launches-investment-boom-ending-era-slash/

Austerity was based on Keynesian economics - you have to stop spending to ensure you have things in reserve for the next recession.

Japan has shown that Keynesian isn't required and Modern Monetary Theory claims you can spend what you want provided you have control of your own currency.

And when you look at it that way Greece and Italy are the North East and Wales of the Eurozone - not getting the money required to lift themselves out of the mess they are in (I'm ignoring all arguments that their tax collection is beyond useless).

You may have noticed that Japan's continuous borrowing and high public debt have not exactly led to stellar growth. Indeed their economy seems to have stalled completely after the best part of 2 decades of sub-optimal growth. This suggests that debt remains an issue inhibiting growth. Classic Keynesian economics suggested that this was an increasing problem beyond about 90% of GDP and the performance of Japan, Italy and Greece rather bears that out. We must make sure that we are not in the same boat.

Perhaps the lesson from Japan, Italy and Greece is also that high spending doesn't bring growth in the situation of severely ageing demographics. That isn't to say that a rapidly aging population (Germany is close behind Japan for example) cannot have a successful economy, just that it needs to grow endogenously rather than via financial stimulus, and probably at a slower rate. The same may well apply to regions of the UK with unfavorable demographics.

Casino_Royale

Stocky said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

I disgree with you on this. Tories 2, LDs 1, SNP 1, LP 0.

It will play on the mind.

Perhaps it will... so what?

People are going to be voting on policy, values and leadership potential; confirmation bias will be what does the work on gender.

Stocky

ydoethur said:

Stocky said:

Looks to me that the Labour Contest will have 4 contenders: Starmer, RLB, Nandy and Phillips. Three women and one man.

I still think that Starmer (1.85 BF) is too short. Labour members will - surely - be concerned how it will look if from such a line-up the man is chosen.

However, if he does not win it will be the first time a female candidate has been placed above a male one in any Labour leadership election.

Edit - but more pertinently, out of the field if he doesn’t win they will have chosen a weaker candidate on gender grounds. Perhaps a better question should be, why, after 25 years of all women shortlists and an election that finally saw more than half the PLP female, somehow they are less impressive than their male counterparts? Because surely that is the real puzzle.

The LibDems chose a weaker candidate on gender grounds. I`m praying they don`t make the same mistake again.

DecrepiterJohnL

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

Because all the other parties have done the heavy lifting in dismantling the glass ceiling. People now look at the candidate, not the gender.

Form an orderly queue to thank Fatcha, Labour......

Arguably both Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May were elected by mistake, but yes, they were invaluable in normalising women leaders.

Foxy

NickPalmer said:

I don't think Starmer will have any trouble getting CLP nominations. There are lots where nobody pays the slightest attention to recommendations from outside, and the poll of member preferences shows ample support to get him a whole bunch of CLPs. Similarly, Long-Bailey will have enough MPs - for example, people like Rayner who are not on the far left. If Corbyn could do it, she can.

Phillips will have more trouble - there are not many CLPs who liked the open hostility shown to Corbyn by her and even more the MPs who have endorsed her (all 4 are people who gave countless media quotes to that effect) - there are plenty of non-Corbynites who felt that they should STFU.

Lewis will struggle in both PLP and CLP camps - he's been running for most of a month with little sign of support, and his potential left-wing backers will be focused on RLB.

I'm not sure about Nandy. - essentially the candidate of the pro-soft Brexit non-left non-Corbynites. There is a constituency for that in the party but is it large enough?

So we could well end up with just 2 or 3 names on the ballot.

If that is so, prepare for another decade in the wilderness. RLB is the candidate of continued retreat and neither Nandy or Starmer have the charisma needed.

Stocky

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Surely there are countless comrades lining up behind the colossus that is Burgon?

Yes, yes please - the comedy value!

Casino_Royale

matt said:

Casino_Royale said:

With no evidence whatsoever I’ve got a feeling Nandy and RLB will battle it out for second, with Kier a clear first, and Philips an also-ran.

But, I’m perhaps not the best reader of the Labour pschy.

When does lack of knowledge stop people giving their opinions? See much written about the Conservative party and their members from around 4 people here.

Never stopped me.

matt

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

Because all the other parties have done the heavy lifting in dismantling the glass ceiling. People now look at the candidate, not the gender.

Form an orderly queue to thank Fatcha, Labour......

Arguably both Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May were elected by mistake, but yes, they were invaluable in normalising women leaders.

Christ, even when conceding, gracelessness about Thatcher wins out.

TGOHF666

Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.

This really is a clash for the ages.

Casino_Royale

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

Because all the other parties have done the heavy lifting in dismantling the glass ceiling. People now look at the candidate, not the gender.

Form an orderly queue to thank Fatcha, Labour......

Conservatives like us will love trolling Labour about it, of course, but no-one normal really cares about this sort of thing.

The best option for them is Nandy but her problem isn't her gender it’s that she can’t set a room alight, and she’ll be rapidly tarred with the “right wing” brush by the true believers, which will probably be terminal.

squareroot2

TGOHF666 said:

Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.

This really is a clash for the ages.

bit like Benn V Healey for Dep Labour leader

Stocky

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

I don't think Starmer will have any trouble getting CLP nominations. There are lots where nobody pays the slightest attention to recommendations from outside, and the poll of member preferences shows ample support to get him a whole bunch of CLPs. Similarly, Long-Bailey will have enough MPs - for example, people like Rayner who are not on the far left. If Corbyn could do it, she can.

Phillips will have more trouble - there are not many CLPs who liked the open hostility shown to Corbyn by her and even more the MPs who have endorsed her (all 4 are people who gave countless media quotes to that effect) - there are plenty of non-Corbynites who felt that they should STFU.

Lewis will struggle in both PLP and CLP camps - he's been running for most of a month with little sign of support, and his potential left-wing backers will be focused on RLB.

I'm not sure about Nandy. - essentially the candidate of the pro-soft Brexit non-left non-Corbynites. There is a constituency for that in the party but is it large enough?

So we could well end up with just 2 or 3 names on the ballot.

If that is so, prepare for another decade in the wilderness. RLB is the candidate of continued retreat and neither Nandy or Starmer have the charisma needed.

And Phillips would be a lamentable choice - lacks the intellect, experience, gravitas, look etc etc.

If I were a Labour member, I think I`d go for Nandy (but without much confidence).

Anabobazina

For I hope the final time...

It’s spelled like this: Keir.

K-E-I-R

Let’s see how long it takes for yet another overqualified PBer to cock up the spelling!

Morning everyone.

MarqueeMark

TGOHF666 said:

Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.

This really is a clash for the ages.

Tis why they need Nandy.....

Stocky

Anabobazina said:

For I hope the final time...

It’s spelled like this: Keir.

K-E-I-R

Let’s see how long it takes for yet another overqualified PBer to cock up the spelling!

Morning everyone.

It`s Starmer who can`t spell. It`s i before e except after c - everyone knows this.

Anabobazina

Foxy said:

NickPalmer said:

I don't think Starmer will have any trouble getting CLP nominations. There are lots where nobody pays the slightest attention to recommendations from outside, and the poll of member preferences shows ample support to get him a whole bunch of CLPs. Similarly, Long-Bailey will have enough MPs - for example, people like Rayner who are not on the far left. If Corbyn could do it, she can.

Phillips will have more trouble - there are not many CLPs who liked the open hostility shown to Corbyn by her and even more the MPs who have endorsed her (all 4 are people who gave countless media quotes to that effect) - there are plenty of non-Corbynites who felt that they should STFU.

Lewis will struggle in both PLP and CLP camps - he's been running for most of a month with little sign of support, and his potential left-wing backers will be focused on RLB.

I'm not sure about Nandy. - essentially the candidate of the pro-soft Brexit non-left non-Corbynites. There is a constituency for that in the party but is it large enough?

So we could well end up with just 2 or 3 names on the ballot.

If that is so, prepare for another decade in the wilderness. RLB is the candidate of continued retreat and neither Nandy or Starmer have the charisma needed.

Disagree.

Keir-Rosena would be an attractive pairing up top.

Stocky

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF666 said:

Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.

This really is a clash for the ages.

Tis why they need Nandy.....

Yep, I agree, Marquee-Mark.

Starmer will be pummelled for years about his role in the Benn "surrender" Act. Remainer-in chief. A gift for the Tories. Do you agree?

MarqueeMark

Stocky said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Surely there are countless comrades lining up behind the colossus that is Burgon?

Yes, yes please - the comedy value!

The idea of Starmer saying something calm, measured, reassuring - then the guy next to him piping up with something bat-shit crazy..... It's got to be worth £25, just to vote Burgon in!

Anabobazina

NickPalmer said:

I don't think Starmer will have any trouble getting CLP nominations. There are lots where nobody pays the slightest attention to recommendations from outside, and the poll of member preferences shows ample support to get him a whole bunch of CLPs. Similarly, Long-Bailey will have enough MPs - for example, people like Rayner who are not on the far left. If Corbyn could do it, she can.

Phillips will have more trouble - there are not many CLPs who liked the open hostility shown to Corbyn by her and even more the MPs who have endorsed her (all 4 are people who gave countless media quotes to that effect) - there are plenty of non-Corbynites who felt that they should STFU.

Lewis will struggle in both PLP and CLP camps - he's been running for most of a month with little sign of support, and his potential left-wing backers will be focused on RLB.

I'm not sure about Nandy. - essentially the candidate of the pro-soft Brexit non-left non-Corbynites. There is a constituency for that in the party but is it large enough?

So we could well end up with just 2 or 3 names on the ballot.

Agree that Phillips looks like a no hoper, but your tone betrays you slightly Nick. You should turn your ire towards Corbyn, Milne etc, who have marched this great party of state into a nasty place. You remain far too sympathetic to them.

NickPalmer

Stocky said:

NickPalmer said:

I don't think Starmer will have any trouble getting CLP nominations. There are lots where nobody pays the slightest attention to recommendations from outside, and the poll of member preferences shows ample support to get him a whole bunch of CLPs. Similarly, Long-Bailey will have enough MPs - for example, people like Rayner who are not on the far left. If Corbyn could do it, she can.

Phillips will have more trouble - there are not many CLPs who liked the open hostility shown to Corbyn by her and even more the MPs who have endorsed her (all 4 are people who gave countless media quotes to that effect) - there are plenty of non-Corbynites who felt that they should STFU.

Lewis will struggle in both PLP and CLP camps - he's been running for most of a month with little sign of support, and his potential left-wing backers will be focused on RLB.

I'm not sure about Nandy. - essentially the candidate of the pro-soft Brexit non-left non-Corbynites. There is a constituency for that in the party but is it large enough?

So we could well end up with just 2 or 3 names on the ballot.

Thanks for this.

What is your view about the second hurdle (unions/affiliates)? Please will you rate Starmer/RLB/Nandy/Philips`s chances of securing the necessary backing to get to the final stage.

Not sure but remember you EITHER need 5% of CLPs OR 5% of affiliates. RLB will be fine but won't need it. Starmer might or might be fine in this section but again doesn't need it. I've not noticed any major unions taking an interest in Nandy or Phillips (or Lewis) but I may have missed something.

TGOHF666

Anabobazina said:

For I hope the final time...

It’s spelled like this: Keir.

K-E-I-R

Let’s see how long it takes for yet another overqualified PBer to cock up the spelling!

Morning everyone.

Keith ?

Stocky

NickPalmer said:

Stocky said:

NickPalmer said:

I don't think Starmer will have any trouble getting CLP nominations. There are lots where nobody pays the slightest attention to recommendations from outside, and the poll of member preferences shows ample support to get him a whole bunch of CLPs. Similarly, Long-Bailey will have enough MPs - for example, people like Rayner who are not on the far left. If Corbyn could do it, she can.

Phillips will have more trouble - there are not many CLPs who liked the open hostility shown to Corbyn by her and even more the MPs who have endorsed her (all 4 are people who gave countless media quotes to that effect) - there are plenty of non-Corbynites who felt that they should STFU.

Lewis will struggle in both PLP and CLP camps - he's been running for most of a month with little sign of support, and his potential left-wing backers will be focused on RLB.

I'm not sure about Nandy. - essentially the candidate of the pro-soft Brexit non-left non-Corbynites. There is a constituency for that in the party but is it large enough?

So we could well end up with just 2 or 3 names on the ballot.

Thanks for this.

What is your view about the second hurdle (unions/affiliates)? Please will you rate Starmer/RLB/Nandy/Philips`s chances of securing the necessary backing to get to the final stage.

Not sure but remember you EITHER need 5% of CLPs OR 5% of affiliates. RLB will be fine but won't need it. Starmer might or might be fine in this section but again doesn't need it. I've not noticed any major unions taking an interest in Nandy or Phillips (or Lewis) but I may have missed something.

Sorry, I should have said "unions/affiliates/CLPs".

I thought Nandy had a union - but I may be wrong. I wonder whether Phillips may prove popular with the CLPs?

Charles

I don’t think you can conclude that RLB is “struggling”.

Very few nominations have been declared so “n” is too small to draw conclusions at this stage

Stocky

What`s interesting about the leadership contest, brom a betting perspective, is that no-one is "in the know" about how it plays out. (Even Nick P (see below).)

Punters are grasping at factoids and extrapolating wildly. It`s what makes it fun I guess.

My largely ignorant observation on the current odds is: Starmer is too short and Nandy too long.

Casino_Royale

Stocky said:

What`s interesting about the leadership contest, brom a betting perspective, is that no-one is "in the know" about how it plays out. (Even Nick P (see below).)

Punters are grasping at factoids and extrapolating wildly. It`s what makes it fun I guess.

My largely ignorant observation on the current odds is: Starmer is too short and Nandy too long.

I think Starmer is about right, Nandy is too long and RLB too short.

Philips is probably too short too, but not sure how much value there is there in laying that.

kle4

Given Phillips has been all mouth and no trousers in opposition to Corbyn im surprised the membership would hold that much of a grudge, but it should be interesting to see how she handles direct questions about failures of the current leadership given straight talking has to be one of key appeals.

isam

Stocky said:

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF666 said:

Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.

This really is a clash for the ages.

Tis why they need Nandy.....

Yep, I agree, Marquee-Mark.

Starmer will be pummelled for years about his role in the Benn "surrender" Act. Remainer-in chief. A gift for the Tories. Do you agree?

He is just a comfort blanket for people who want 2015 back. (Possibly) Privately educated, Oxford University grad who went on to be a human rights lawyer then campaigned to get Brexit overturned. The reasons for him being leader seem better suited to fighting the election just gone (he might appeal to wavering Tories who might vote Lib Dem) than one in five years time

kinabalu

Morning all. Gosh, some value added from Guido. One does not get to say that too often. I'm pleased that Long Bailey is going for it. She is a far more credible standard bearer for the continuation of the One Nation Socialism project than Ian Lavery would have been. I could not in a Month of Sundays have voted for Lavery as leader. I am unlikely to vote for Long Bailey either but at least it's a possibility.

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

Stocky said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Surely there are countless comrades lining up behind the colossus that is Burgon?

Yes, yes please - the comedy value!

The idea of Starmer saying something calm, measured, reassuring - then the guy next to him piping up with something bat-shit crazy..... It's got to be worth £25, just to vote Burgon in!

I still just can't wrap my head around that the leader doesnt appoint their own deputy, or that you pick both at the same time rather leader first then deputy leader. Didnt exactly lead to harmonious relations in the last regime.

MarqueeMark

Stocky said:

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF666 said:

Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.

This really is a clash for the ages.

Tis why they need Nandy.....

Yep, I agree, Marquee-Mark.

Starmer will be pummelled for years about his role in the Benn "surrender" Act. Remainer-in chief. A gift for the Tories. Do you agree?

Long-Bailey - gift to whoever leads the Tories.

Starmer - unless he can deploy a previously unseen aptitude for withering humour, he is going to struggle against Boris. A details man you say? Spreadsheet Phil without the spreadsheet I say.

Nandy - she is just sensible. She doesn't come with a hundred years of discredited idealogy underpinning her every pronouncement. She showed a level of uncertainty on how to implement Brexit that many can relate to (although her opponents will paint it as indecision). She just comes across as somebody who will arrive to the right decision for the right reasons. Which is why she will build up a healthy respect over the near five year term of this Parliament before being tested with the voters. And why the Tories should fear her.

Phillips - anybody who gleefully adopts "gobby" as a self-descriptor will keep most decent folk at arms length. The candidate most likely to induce Buyer's Remorse. "What WERE we thinking?" Electing her means doing it all again in 2022.

alex_

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

Stocky said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Surely there are countless comrades lining up behind the colossus that is Burgon?

Yes, yes please - the comedy value!

The idea of Starmer saying something calm, measured, reassuring - then the guy next to him piping up with something bat-shit crazy..... It's got to be worth £25, just to vote Burgon in!

I still just can't wrap my head around that the leader doesnt appoint their own deputy, or that you pick both at the same time rather leader first then deputy leader. Didnt exactly lead to harmonious relations in the last regime.

Anyone pledged to bring back shadow cabinet elections? Perhaps elected by the membership rather than the Parlimentary Party?

kle4

isam said:

Stocky said:

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF666 said:

Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.

This really is a clash for the ages.

Tis why they need Nandy.....

Yep, I agree, Marquee-Mark.

Starmer will be pummelled for years about his role in the Benn "surrender" Act. Remainer-in chief. A gift for the Tories. Do you agree?

He is just a comfort blanket for people who want 2015 back. (Possibly) Privately educated, Oxford University grad who went on to be a human rights lawyer then campaigned to get Brexit overturned. The reasons for him being leader seem better suited to fighting the election just gone (he might appeal to wavering Tories who might vote Lib Dem) than one in five years time

Possibly, although he seems like hed perform the basic functions of the role with more competence at least.

Stocky

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

Stocky said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Surely there are countless comrades lining up behind the colossus that is Burgon?

Yes, yes please - the comedy value!

The idea of Starmer saying something calm, measured, reassuring - then the guy next to him piping up with something bat-shit crazy..... It's got to be worth £25, just to vote Burgon in!

I still just can't wrap my head around that the leader doesnt appoint their own deputy, or that you pick both at the same time rather leader first then deputy leader. Didnt exactly lead to harmonious relations in the last regime.

Yes, it`s a bad system. It`s entirely possible - probable even - that one of the losers in the leardership contest would be the best pick for the deputy post - but this can`t happen.

MarqueeMark

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

Stocky said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Surely there are countless comrades lining up behind the colossus that is Burgon?

Yes, yes please - the comedy value!

The idea of Starmer saying something calm, measured, reassuring - then the guy next to him piping up with something bat-shit crazy..... It's got to be worth £25, just to vote Burgon in!

I still just can't wrap my head around that the leader doesnt appoint their own deputy, or that you pick both at the same time rather leader first then deputy leader. Didnt exactly lead to harmonious relations in the last regime.

Tis madness.

Burgon. Hur hur hur.....

isam

MarqueeMark said:

Stocky said:

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF666 said:

Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.

This really is a clash for the ages.

Tis why they need Nandy.....

Yep, I agree, Marquee-Mark.

Starmer will be pummelled for years about his role in the Benn "surrender" Act. Remainer-in chief. A gift for the Tories. Do you agree?

Long-Bailey - gift to whoever leads the Tories.

Starmer - unless he can deploy a previously unseen aptitude for withering humour, he is going to struggle against Boris. A details man you say? Spreadsheet Phil without the spreadsheet I say.

Nandy - she is just sensible. She doesn't come with a hundred years of discredited idealogy underpinning her every pronouncement. She showed a level of uncertainty on how to implement Brexit that many can relate to (although her opponents will paint it as indecision). She just comes across as somebody who will arrive to the right decision for the right reasons. Which is why she will build up a healthy respect over the near five year term of this Parliament before being tested with the voters. And why the Tories should fear her.

Phillips - anybody who gleefully adopts "gobby" as a self-descriptor will keep most decent folk at arms length. The candidate most likely to induce Buyer's Remorse. "What WERE we thinking?" Electing her means doing it all again in 2022.

Nandy would be great for headlines involving Nando's

Charles

isam said:

Stocky said:

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF666 said:

Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.

This really is a clash for the ages.

Tis why they need Nandy.....

Yep, I agree, Marquee-Mark.

Starmer will be pummelled for years about his role in the Benn "surrender" Act. Remainer-in chief. A gift for the Tories. Do you agree?

He is just a comfort blanket for people who want 2015 back. (Possibly) Privately educated, Oxford University grad who went on to be a human rights lawyer then campaigned to get Brexit overturned. The reasons for him being leader seem better suited to fighting the election just gone (he might appeal to wavering Tories who might vote Lib Dem) than one in five years time

Nah @isam it’s a deliberate kick in the pants for you and your ilk. They aren’t concerned about what you want. Islington lawyers rule ok. 😆

rkrkrk

kinabalu said:

Morning all. Gosh, some value added from Guido. One does not get to say that too often. I'm pleased that Long Bailey is going for it. She is a far more credible standard bearer for the continuation of the One Nation Socialism project than Ian Lavery would have been. I could not in a Month of Sundays have voted for Lavery as leader. I am unlikely to vote for Long Bailey either but at least it's a possibility.

It's irritating to need his cesspit of a site. How difficult would it be for the BBC or guardian to set up this spreadsheet and hire an intern to check Mps twitter twice a day?

AlastairMeeks

Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.

isam

What would the candidates immigration policy be once we have left the EU?

alex_

Stocky said:

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

Stocky said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Surely there are countless comrades lining up behind the colossus that is Burgon?

Yes, yes please - the comedy value!

The idea of Starmer saying something calm, measured, reassuring - then the guy next to him piping up with something bat-shit crazy..... It's got to be worth £25, just to vote Burgon in!

I still just can't wrap my head around that the leader doesnt appoint their own deputy, or that you pick both at the same time rather leader first then deputy leader. Didnt exactly lead to harmonious relations in the last regime.

Yes, it`s a bad system. It`s entirely possible - probable even - that one of the losers in the leardership contest would be the best pick for the deputy post - but this can`t happen.

Why not? Have the rules changed? Prescott became Blair’s deputy post 1994.

rkrkrk

Read RLB's pitch this morning. Not very impressive. Lots of little digs in at previous mistakes made by others, but her main thrust was green new deal and being a committed socialist. I don't think that's going to be enough to win over the membership.

isam

AlastairMeeks said:

Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.

Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better

AlastairMeeks

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.

Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better

There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.

isam

Charles said:

isam said:

Stocky said:

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF666 said:

Clever-dick Uber remainer scolding Starmer vs continuity Corbyn thicko Beccy from accounts.

This really is a clash for the ages.

Tis why they need Nandy.....

Yep, I agree, Marquee-Mark.

Starmer will be pummelled for years about his role in the Benn "surrender" Act. Remainer-in chief. A gift for the Tories. Do you agree?

He is just a comfort blanket for people who want 2015 back. (Possibly) Privately educated, Oxford University grad who went on to be a human rights lawyer then campaigned to get Brexit overturned. The reasons for him being leader seem better suited to fighting the election just gone (he might appeal to wavering Tories who might vote Lib Dem) than one in five years time

Nah @isam it’s a deliberate kick in the pants for you and your ilk. They aren’t concerned about what you want. Islington lawyers rule ok. 😆

My family were in Islington first!

kle4

rkrkrk said:

Read RLB's pitch this morning. Not very impressive. Lots of little digs in at previous mistakes made by others, but her main thrust was green new deal and being a committed socialist. I don't think that's going to be enough to win over the membership.

What more is needed to win them over them? Corbyn won them over, I'm not sure hed lose if he stood again, what does she lack than he has, and can she establish that?

alex_

I would guess that Johnson’s approval and popularity ratings have risen significantly since the election.

isam

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.

Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better

There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.

I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.

DecrepiterJohnL

matt said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

Because all the other parties have done the heavy lifting in dismantling the glass ceiling. People now look at the candidate, not the gender.

Form an orderly queue to thank Fatcha, Labour......

Arguably both Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May were elected by mistake, but yes, they were invaluable in normalising women leaders.

Christ, even when conceding, gracelessness about Thatcher wins out.

Historically accurate gracelessness about Thatcher (whose campaign misled MPs into making "safe" protest votes against Heath) and also that the self-styled most sophisticated electorate in the world invariably trips itself up.

TrèsDifficile

I heard RLB's Today programme interview this morning and she verbed "detriment". Sounded bloody odd.

kinabalu

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

Think you're wrong here. It's a genuine embarrassment that we have never had a female leader and therefore "female" will rank quite validly as an attribute alongside others - charisma, intellect, relatability etc - to be considered in the mix and in the round.

This does not mean that Starmer will not win. It just means that his vote will be materially less than it would have been if absolutely everything else was the same apart from his gender. It's the dead opposite of the Beyonce song if you know that one.

Sandpit

NorthernPowerhouse said:

eek said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The 11/3 budget will doubtless invest in infrastructure (mentioned 28 times in the Conservative manifesto) as well as Corbynet broadband:
We intend to bring full fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK by 2025.
We know how difficult it will be, so we have announced a raft of legislative changes to accelerate progress and £5 billion of new public funding to connect premises which are not commercially viable.

(Did no-one proof-read the manifesto, by the way? I don't think it means the premises themselves are not viable. If only there were a leading journalist, novelist and Churchill biographer in the government.)

As the Telegraph helpfully pointed out, the new rules on borrowing for investment tear up the economically-illiterate Osbornian austerity and mark a return to the golden age rule of Gordon Brown.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/07/chancellor-sajid-javid-launches-investment-boom-ending-era-slash/

Austerity was based on Keynesian economics - you have to stop spending to ensure you have things in reserve for the next recession.

Japan has shown that Keynesian isn't required and Modern Monetary Theory claims you can spend what you want provided you have control of your own currency.

And when you look at it that way Greece and Italy are the North East and Wales of the Eurozone - not getting the money required to lift themselves out of the mess they are in (I'm ignoring all arguments that their tax collection is beyond useless).

And austerity was largely a marketing piece of nonsense. Barely a penny was cut from anything until about 2013, and then pretty much all reductions fell on the police and local authorities. Nhs, schools were not only maintained at what would have been the profligate standard labour spending envelope, they were maintained at the ‘temporary’ fiscal stimulus rate.

The 09/10 spending was not normal or sustainable, the taps had been turned on full. Yet the conservatives managed to maintain most of it and by 2020 still spending a greater percent of gdp on public spending than even immediately post crash.

https://tinyurl.com/Austerityfiction

Exactly. Total government spending has increased every single year, what people don’t notice is that the “department” of Debt Interest is now around £50bn, around 8% of total govt spending and as much as the defence budget.

AlastairMeeks

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.

Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better

There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.

I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.

You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.

kinabalu

alex_ said:

I would guess that Johnson’s approval and popularity ratings have risen significantly since the election.

Because he hasn't been around?

kle4

rkrkrk said:

kinabalu said:

Morning all. Gosh, some value added from Guido. One does not get to say that too often. I'm pleased that Long Bailey is going for it. She is a far more credible standard bearer for the continuation of the One Nation Socialism project than Ian Lavery would have been. I could not in a Month of Sundays have voted for Lavery as leader. I am unlikely to vote for Long Bailey either but at least it's a possibility.

It's irritating to need his cesspit of a site. How difficult would it be for the BBC or guardian to set up this spreadsheet and hire an intern to check Mps twitter twice a day?

Theres a lot of things where investing in someone good with charts and graphs or just good old data trawling would be pretty easy but a lot of the time outlets seem to decide that since a lot of political hobbyists will do it anyway, just wait for that.

TrèsDifficile

Also heard Thought For The Day by Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani. I'm very disappointed to discover that she's a doctor of philosophy, and not men's undercarriages.

Alistair

Anabobazina said:

For I hope the final time...

It’s spelled like this: Keir.

K-E-I-R

Let’s see how long it takes for yet another overqualified PBer to cock up the spelling!

Morning everyone.

As someone who continually gets notifications when people want to argue with Mr Meeks there is zero chance they will spell it right.

isam

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.

Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better

There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.

I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.

You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.

I am not assuming anything, I am just looking at the raw facts.There is a tendency on PB to ignore those in favour of flowery arguments that disguise the truth in a logically consistent but incorrect fashion.

Casino_Royale

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t think the fact Starmer is a man and the other three main contenders are female will have any significant bearing on voting in the contest

It’s a myth to suggest it might.

Think you're wrong here. It's a genuine embarrassment that we have never had a female leader and therefore "female" will rank quite validly as an attribute alongside others - charisma, intellect, relatability etc - to be considered in the mix and in the round.

This does not mean that Starmer will not win. It just means that his vote will be materially less than it would have been if absolutely everything else was the same apart from his gender. It's the dead opposite of the Beyonce song if you know that one.

Don’t get me wrong - it suits me.

This faithful belief is what is keeping Starmer’s odds close to evens, so I’m happy.

TGOHF666

alex_ said:

I would guess that Johnson’s approval and popularity ratings have risen significantly since the election.

And set to rise further when we leave the EU.

Mexicanpete

AlastairMeeks said:

Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.

I thought that too, however in the blue collar circles I mix with here in South Wales he is seen as hugely likeable and competent. It surprises me as traditionally he would have been viewed as dislikeable for being both English and a toff. He transcends class and national identity, I would say his popularity has improved markedly since the election as well. There is no accounting for taste.

Sandpit

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

Stocky said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Surely there are countless comrades lining up behind the colossus that is Burgon?

Yes, yes please - the comedy value!

The idea of Starmer saying something calm, measured, reassuring - then the guy next to him piping up with something bat-shit crazy..... It's got to be worth £25, just to vote Burgon in!

I still just can't wrap my head around that the leader doesnt appoint their own deputy, or that you pick both at the same time rather leader first then deputy leader. Didnt exactly lead to harmonious relations in the last regime.

Although it was incredibly funny to watch in the 2016 ‘purge’, when the one guy who didn’t report to Corbyn and couldn’t be fired by him, was the one sitting next to him shouting that the leader was an idiot!

MarqueeMark

alex_ said:

I would guess that Johnson’s approval and popularity ratings have risen significantly since the election.

Will be interesting to see Boris in head-to-heads against Labour leader candidates in early February, once he has delivered Brexit.

Some in Labour might despair at "What's the point?"......

MarqueeMark

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.

Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better

There was rather a lot of polling on it, and it wasn't the sort of marginal matter where the polls were likely to be relevantly adrift.

I prefer to look at actual votes, and Labour never get more than what Corbyn got. There are excuses after every election as to why another leader will do better but, unless its Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn, they don't.

You're assuming that people cast votes for a party rather than against one.

Where the biggest determinant is voting against the Tories.....

eek

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Huge amounts of complacency among Conservatives on here. They're under the delusion that Boris Johnson is popular. He was re-elected as a pretty unpopular Prime Minister (installed largely by the epic unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn). Unless he turns that around, his opponent is only going to need to be distinctly average to cause him major problems.

Is Corbyn's unpopularity a fact? He got millions more votes in General Election's than other, more moderate Labour leaders. I think it is complacent to assume they would have done better

It depends on what theory of voting you believe in. If you believe most people vote for the least worst candidate anyone but Corbyn could give Boris a run for his money.

Boris's and the Tory's luck / misfortune since 2015 has been the leadership of the other parties - and I say misfortune as it was Corbyn doing nothing which probably won Boris the referendum and cost Cameron and Osbourne their jobs.