Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn set to win on the first round according to sensation

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn set to win on the first round according to sensational YouGov LAB leadership poll

The detail from the YouGov LAB leader polling which has Corbyn winning on 1st round pic.twitter.com/XGCF6DKPKF

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    He doesn't just want to win.

    He's after Blair's 57% in 1994...
  • "Comrades, this is your Leadership Candidate. It is an honour to speak to you today, and I am honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our motherland's most recent achievement. Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary — The Conservative Party. For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game and played it well. But today the game is different. We have the advantage. It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations! Well, they will tremble again — at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!

    "Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party doesn't know our full potential. They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... Comradeship!

    "A great day, Comrades! We sail into history!"
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,736
    Judging by what a few people are saying on Twitter, some people seem to be under the impression that the Labour Party has said that it won't publish the details of the vote transfers in the AV election.

    The question which it had been asked, and which it answered, was that it wouldn't count or announce separately the votes of how the Labour Party members voted, compared with how the recently-affiliated £3-paying supporters voted. There would be no reason to count them separately because they are all the same type of votes, of the same value, without there being separate sections like in the old electoral college.

    There has never been any suggestion that the actual result of the election (i.e. the number of votes in each round of the AV election) would not be declared in full.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    JohnLoony said:

    Judging by what a few people are saying on Twitter, some people seem to be under the impression that the Labour Party has said that it won't publish the details of the vote transfers in the AV election.

    The question which it had been asked, and which it answered, was that it wouldn't count or announce separately the votes of how the Labour Party members voted, compared with how the recently-affiliated £3-paying supporters voted. There would be no reason to count them separately because they are all the same type of votes, of the same value, without there being separate sections like in the old electoral college.

    There has never been any suggestion that the actual result of the election (i.e. the number of votes in each round of the AV election) would not be declared in full.

    And the winner is... Corbyn.

    There will be no Stewards' Enquiry
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,736
    (FPT)
    JPJ2 said:

    "sleepwalking into a one-party state"

    More destruction of the English language.

    A one party state is what China has-it means no other parties are allowed. Is that Britain? No it is not.

    For the benefit of the people who have not been paying attention, the People's Republic of China has nine political parties.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Apropos of nothing.

    I'm 50 next week.

    Any advice from those who have survived this disaster?
  • JohnLoony said:

    (FPT)

    JPJ2 said:

    "sleepwalking into a one-party state"

    More destruction of the English language.

    A one party state is what China has-it means no other parties are allowed. Is that Britain? No it is not.

    For the benefit of the people who have not been paying attention, the People's Republic of China has nine political parties.
    Which are...?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,057
    As the late, unlamented, Mick Pork might have observed...'chortle'......
  • rullkorullko Posts: 160
    JohnLoony said:

    Judging by what a few people are saying on Twitter, some people seem to be under the impression that the Labour Party has said that it won't publish the details of the vote transfers in the AV election.

    The question which it had been asked, and which it answered, was that it wouldn't count or announce separately the votes of how the Labour Party members voted, compared with how the recently-affiliated £3-paying supporters voted. There would be no reason to count them separately because they are all the same type of votes, of the same value, without there being separate sections like in the old electoral college.

    There has never been any suggestion that the actual result of the election (i.e. the number of votes in each round of the AV election) would not be declared in full.

    Are SLAB going to publish the figures for their leadership election? They didn't in 2011 or in 2014, which led some people to suspect this was an attempt to avoid revealing that they only had about 14 members. Surely they'll want to disabuse everyone of that notion this time.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,057
    Longer term this might have interesting ramifications in Scotland - short term, I doubt anything will stand in the way of the SNP juggernaut next year......as for SindyRef......Brent Crude is $49.......
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,881
    edited August 2015
    RodCrosby said:

    He doesn't just want to win.

    He's after Blair's 57% in 1994...

    A new dawn has broken, has it not?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    RodCrosby said:

    He doesn't just want to win.

    He's after Blair's 57% in 1994...

    A new dawn has broken, has it not?
    I'm sure they comforted themselves in the same way, the day after Hiroshima....
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,736

    JohnLoony said:

    (FPT)

    JPJ2 said:

    "sleepwalking into a one-party state"

    More destruction of the English language.

    A one party state is what China has-it means no other parties are allowed. Is that Britain? No it is not.

    For the benefit of the people who have not been paying attention, the People's Republic of China has nine political parties.
    Which are...?
    Communist Party of China
    Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang
    China Democratic League
    China Democratic National Construction Association
    China Association for Promoting Democracy
    Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party
    Zhigongdang of China
    Jiusan Society
    Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,578
    PB is back up..?

    Looking like Corbyn's now a dead cert, not bad for a 100/1 shot.
    **wishes his tenner had been a grand at that price!**

    How much time remains for the Labour Party to come to its collective sense and choose someone electable?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,872
    Sandpit said:

    PB is back up..?

    Looking like Corbyn's now a dead cert, not bad for a 100/1 shot.
    **wishes his tenner had been a grand at that price!**

    How much time remains for the Labour Party to come to its collective sense and choose someone electable?

    Ballot papers go out on Friday, with the deadline in early September.

    Apparently, usually most people send their votes in within days. However, I wouldn't be surprised if people take longer this time (I'm personally still undecided between Burnham and Corbyn and don't intend to decide fully until as late as possible).
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878
    RodCrosby said:

    Apropos of nothing.

    I'm 50 next week.

    Any advice from those who have survived this disaster?

    Two year away.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,057
    RodCrosby said:

    Apropos of nothing.

    I'm 50 next week.

    Any advice from those who have survived this disaster?

    When American comedian George Burns was asked 'what's it like being 99?' he replied 'better than the alternative'.....
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    JohnLoony said:

    JohnLoony said:

    (FPT)

    JPJ2 said:

    "sleepwalking into a one-party state"

    More destruction of the English language.

    A one party state is what China has-it means no other parties are allowed. Is that Britain? No it is not.

    For the benefit of the people who have not been paying attention, the People's Republic of China has nine political parties.
    Which are...?
    Communist Party of China
    Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang
    China Democratic League
    China Democratic National Construction Association
    China Association for Promoting Democracy
    Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party
    Zhigongdang of China
    Jiusan Society
    Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
    The first has 89 million members, and other second just over 53,000 !
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,736
    Indigo said:

    JohnLoony said:

    JohnLoony said:

    (FPT)

    JPJ2 said:

    "sleepwalking into a one-party state"

    More destruction of the English language.

    A one party state is what China has-it means no other parties are allowed. Is that Britain? No it is not.

    For the benefit of the people who have not been paying attention, the People's Republic of China has nine political parties.
    Which are...?
    Communist Party of China
    Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang
    China Democratic League
    China Democratic National Construction Association
    China Association for Promoting Democracy
    Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party
    Zhigongdang of China
    Jiusan Society
    Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
    The first has 89 million members, and other second just over 53,000 !
    Indigo said:

    JohnLoony said:

    JohnLoony said:

    (FPT)

    JPJ2 said:

    "sleepwalking into a one-party state"

    More destruction of the English language.

    A one party state is what China has-it means no other parties are allowed. Is that Britain? No it is not.

    For the benefit of the people who have not been paying attention, the People's Republic of China has nine political parties.
    Which are...?
    Communist Party of China
    Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang
    China Democratic League
    China Democratic National Construction Association
    China Association for Promoting Democracy
    Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party
    Zhigongdang of China
    Jiusan Society
    Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
    The first has 89 million members, and other second just over 53,000 !
    The other 8 have 466,600 members in total, according to the link.

  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    JohnLoony said:

    Indigo said:

    JohnLoony said:

    JohnLoony said:

    (FPT)

    JPJ2 said:

    "sleepwalking into a one-party state"

    More destruction of the English language.

    A one party state is what China has-it means no other parties are allowed. Is that Britain? No it is not.

    For the benefit of the people who have not been paying attention, the People's Republic of China has nine political parties.
    Which are...?
    Communist Party of China
    Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang
    China Democratic League
    China Democratic National Construction Association
    China Association for Promoting Democracy
    Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party
    Zhigongdang of China
    Jiusan Society
    Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
    The first has 89 million members, and other second just over 53,000 !
    Indigo said:

    JohnLoony said:

    JohnLoony said:

    (FPT)

    JPJ2 said:

    "sleepwalking into a one-party state"

    More destruction of the English language.

    A one party state is what China has-it means no other parties are allowed. Is that Britain? No it is not.

    For the benefit of the people who have not been paying attention, the People's Republic of China has nine political parties.
    Which are...?
    Communist Party of China
    Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang
    China Democratic League
    China Democratic National Construction Association
    China Association for Promoting Democracy
    Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party
    Zhigongdang of China
    Jiusan Society
    Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
    The first has 89 million members, and other second just over 53,000 !
    The other 8 have 466,600 members in total, according to the link.

    I like Leagues. I might form one
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,575
    edited August 2015
    Is this poll more or less likely to make Labour voters think again? Frankly, there are some completely insane people in the Labour party if the poll is correct !
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Brilliant tweet from Mike Smithson about Burnham lending support, totally sums up how out of touch these people are, he genuinely thought Corbyn had no chance. This is a man who has lived and breathed politics, specifically the Labour Party, since his teens.

    A lesson to all politicians here in terms of what happens when you surround yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear, Burnham's career is effectively over and he only has himself to blame.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,851
    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
    To think that Corbyn only got enough MP nominations to be on the ballot because Team Burnham thought it smart to "lend" him some

    If that's not worth a titter, I don't know what is.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Death by election. It's novel, you have to give Labour that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    On the evidence we have, which is overwhelming, Corbyn's price should be well under 1.4 on Betfair right now. Personally, I'd back him down to 1.2-1.25 on what we know.

    The current price bracket of 1.65-1.70 is (still) an absolute gift.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498
    Mr Crosby,

    50 is nothing to worry about. It's 60 that suddenly jolts you - now that is old and you'll remember when you were 17, met someone in their 60s and decided they were ancient.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,130
    Nice for my betting position.

    Politics are going to be huge fun for the next few years.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,200
    RodCrosby said:

    Apropos of nothing.

    I'm 50 next week.

    Any advice from those who have survived this disaster?

    Stop thinking of it as a "disaster" (I am told).

  • CD13 said:

    Mr Crosby,

    50 is nothing to worry about. It's 60 that suddenly jolts you - now that is old and you'll remember when you were 17, met someone in their 60s and decided they were ancient.

    Life begins at 66 - ask Jeremy Corbyn!

    More seriously, are we now becoming a one-Party state, and, if so, is that not what most successful countries (the USA being the obvious exception) are? Entrepreneurship requires freedom of speech & action, but perhaps not as much of even those as we like to think (look at Asian tigers) - it does not require more than one governmental party.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170

    Brilliant tweet from Mike Smithson about Burnham lending support, totally sums up how out of touch these people are, he genuinely thought Corbyn had no chance. This is a man who has lived and breathed politics, specifically the Labour Party, since his teens.

    A lesson to all politicians here in terms of what happens when you surround yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear, Burnham's career is effectively over and he only has himself to blame.

    To be fair, everyone thought he had no chance and history would tend to confirm that. What's happening is not only without precedent but was without any real prior indication (hence the 100/1 price offered and not snapped up immediately).

    Burnham's career is not necessarily over but his leadership ambitions may be. That said, even if he'd not lent (given, more accurately) Corbyn nominations, given his campaign since, he may well still have lost to Cooper.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,200
    The Mediterranean looks very blue this morning, the sun is out, I am off to the beach.

    Let the Labour Party elect a terrorist appeasing idiot if they must. We need a Stupid Party and Labour will do very well.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,130
    @JananGanesh: Corbyn as Labour leader. No historic analogy does it justice. Not Foot, not IDS. Would be like Arsenal appointing Gunnersaurus as manager.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614

    "Comrades, this is your Leadership Candidate. It is an honour to speak to you today, and I am honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our motherland's most recent achievement. Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary — The Conservative Party. For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game and played it well. But today the game is different. We have the advantage. It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations! Well, they will tremble again — at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!

    "Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party doesn't know our full potential. They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... Comradeship!

    "A great day, Comrades! We sail into history!"

    As I recall The Hunt For Red October, Captain Ramius was deliberately lying when he said all of that. The problem with Corbyn is that he believes what he's saying, and he believes everyone secretly agrees with him but daren't say so, a bit like the former Bishop of Fulham.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Burnham's career may not be over given his express willingness to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet but Cooper's and Kendall's probably are.

    Will they hang around in the hope that the party will turn back to them as the scale of the disaster becomes evident or will they decide that a party that thinks like this is really not something to dedicate your life to?

    My guess is that Cooper may well follow her husband out of the Commons altogether.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,820

    Brilliant tweet from Mike Smithson about Burnham lending support, totally sums up how out of touch these people are, he genuinely thought Corbyn had no chance. This is a man who has lived and breathed politics, specifically the Labour Party, since his teens.

    A lesson to all politicians here in terms of what happens when you surround yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear, Burnham's career is effectively over and he only has himself to blame.

    I'd take a slightly different message which is about arrogance and control.

    Burnham though he was coasting home (your point) so wanted to be magnanimous. In doing so, he introduced a new variable that he thought he could control - but it turned out he couldn't. For me, his mistake was taking an ill-judged and unnecessary risk by allowing a new variable into the contest
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    antifrank said:

    @JananGanesh: Corbyn as Labour leader. No historic analogy does it justice. Not Foot, not IDS. Would be like Arsenal appointing Gunnersaurus as manager.

    More like Arsenal appointing me as manager.

    My first briefing would be, 'OK, boys, you've been doing it wrong all these years. First things first, the ball. You've been using the wrong shape of ball. It should be long and pointy so you can get a firm grip on it, not round and kicked about all the time in the vague hope it goes in the back of a fishing net. Next, the game. When you get the ball, you don't kick it about and look as though you're trying to be clever. You pick the damn thing up and run with it, and if anyone tries to stop you, you knock them over...'

    Would be fun, but wouldn't win them any matches in the Premiership.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RodCrosby said:

    Apropos of nothing.

    I'm 50 next week.

    Any advice from those who have survived this disaster?

    It's not all bad. Prunes are actually quite tasty, and a zimmer frame handy at times to get to the bingo with. The harder bit to come to terms with is reading the Daily Express and voting UKIP, but I suspect even that becomes tolerable in time.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,130
    DavidL said:

    Burnham's career may not be over given his express willingness to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet but Cooper's and Kendall's probably are.

    Will they hang around in the hope that the party will turn back to them as the scale of the disaster becomes evident or will they decide that a party that thinks like this is really not something to dedicate your life to?

    My guess is that Cooper may well follow her husband out of the Commons altogether.

    What the right of the Labour Party do next is the next exciting question. In practice I doubt they will act as a block.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,217
    @LabourList: How did we get in this mess? @lukeakehurst says we all share some of the blame http://labli.st/1WewdRm
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    antifrank said:

    @JananGanesh: Corbyn as Labour leader. No historic analogy does it justice. Not Foot, not IDS. Would be like Arsenal appointing Gunnersaurus as manager.

    Actually, come to think of it George Lansbury might be a sort of analogy, but not a very good one. He took over at a time when the party had been absolutely humiliated and destroyed - down to about 50 seats - and everyone in the party was desperate to hear the soothing message that they were right and people would realise that one day. He was also an old man and very popular at rallies around the country, considered 'transparently decent and honourable'.

    However, there are two important differences: (1) Lansbury was already a senior member of the Labour party, and had served in government and (2) he was elected unopposed because he was pretty much the only plausible leader to hold his seat (that the realistically canvassed alternative was Oswald Mosley is some indication of how desperate the party was).

    One thought does occur, however. He was the only Labour leader ever to be forced out in a coup, led by Ernest Bevin. This was because he was too left-wing, especially on rearmament, which he opposed on principle and committed Labour to opposing. As a result, Labour were not merely unelectable in their own right, but they were causing Baldwin, the de facto Prime Minister, to hesitate over rearming as well - which in 1935, was not the best thing that could be happening.

    Maybe Corbyn should remember that, if he becomes leader.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    On topic, one notable feature about the numbers is that Corbyn's still picking up second preference votes (in contrast to what some thought), despite having scored heavily in the first round.

    Cooper's transfers split about 3:1 for Burnham, though this includes Kendall's re-transfers; Burnham's transfers (again, with Kendall third preferences), split only about 2:1 for Cooper. While there's clearly strong transferring within the non-Corbyn candidates, there's still plenty of leakage and it's far too simplistic to characterise the campaign as Corbyn / non-Corbyn.

    On the basis of these figures, I'd still say that his first round target needs to be about 42%. That or above should see him over the line.

    However, we're looking at landslide territory at the moment - no scope for complaining about Tory sign-ups or Militant re-entryists when existing members are so heavily for him - and Casino Royale is right: there's huge value in his price at the moment as mental inertia in the mainstream reporting is preventing his lead for being seen as what it is.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    RodCrosby said:

    Apropos of nothing.

    I'm 50 next week.

    Any advice from those who have survived this disaster?

    Just see it as a new beginning (that's if you want one) but with using all that accumulated experience you did not have when you were 20. Time to branch out and let your heart rule your head for once.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov's Peter Kellner says “I would personally be astonished if Mr Corbyn does not end up as Labour’s leader"

    Was he not equally astonished at the 2015 GE exit poll?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    ydoethur said:

    antifrank said:

    @JananGanesh: Corbyn as Labour leader. No historic analogy does it justice. Not Foot, not IDS. Would be like Arsenal appointing Gunnersaurus as manager.

    Actually, come to think of it George Lansbury might be a sort of analogy, but not a very good one. He took over at a time when the party had been absolutely humiliated and destroyed - down to about 50 seats - and everyone in the party was desperate to hear the soothing message that they were right and people would realise that one day. He was also an old man and very popular at rallies around the country, considered 'transparently decent and honourable'.

    However, there are two important differences: (1) Lansbury was already a senior member of the Labour party, and had served in government and (2) he was elected unopposed because he was pretty much the only plausible leader to hold his seat (that the realistically canvassed alternative was Oswald Mosley is some indication of how desperate the party was).

    One thought does occur, however. He was the only Labour leader ever to be forced out in a coup, led by Ernest Bevin. This was because he was too left-wing, especially on rearmament, which he opposed on principle and committed Labour to opposing. As a result, Labour were not merely unelectable in their own right, but they were causing Baldwin, the de facto Prime Minister, to hesitate over rearming as well - which in 1935, was not the best thing that could be happening.

    Maybe Corbyn should remember that, if he becomes leader.
    Corbyn probably thinks Lansbury was right. It might be worth someone asking him; he's unusually willing to give honest answers at the moment, compared with other leading politicians.
  • Please forgive the analogy, but I can't think of a better one ...

    The Labour party is reaching the end of a long, self-satisfied wank. Soon it will ejaculate Jeremy Corbyn into the face of the British public; and will then be mystified about why everyone is revolted instead of cheering to the rafters.

    Blair, Murdoch and the BBC will be blamed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    edited August 2015
    Financier said:

    YouGov's Peter Kellner says “I would personally be astonished if Mr Corbyn does not end up as Labour’s leader"

    Was he not equally astonished at the 2015 GE exit poll?

    Yes, but that was where he wildly underestimated the leader's support. They were still within about five points.

    If they're underestimating Corbyn by 5 points, on this poll he has a realistic chance of a 2/3 majority.

    If the flaw in their system is that it's too biased towards the left, that may mean they are overstating him - but it's hard to imagine they're doing it by the 15 points that would be necessary to make a difference to the outcome.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    Burnham's career may not be over given his express willingness to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet but Cooper's and Kendall's probably are.

    Will they hang around in the hope that the party will turn back to them as the scale of the disaster becomes evident or will they decide that a party that thinks like this is really not something to dedicate your life to?

    My guess is that Cooper may well follow her husband out of the Commons altogether.

    What the right of the Labour Party do next is the next exciting question. In practice I doubt they will act as a block.
    Corbyn will not be able to control the PLP. What finally forced out the SDP in the early eighties was mandatory re-selection. I can see the Corbynites wanting that too. At that point the Social Democratic wing has to have a proper fight back or to perish.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498

    The lemmings look to be scampering towards the cliff edge but they will pull back at the last moment. Either Yvette Burnham or Andy Cooper (the anodyne duo) will scrape in, leaving Labour to celebrate the diversity of the party.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,217
    @JournoStephen: Labour in 2015: An MP contemplates his own expulsion for being too moderate. https://t.co/o4MlyAfGlT
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    Please forgive the analogy, but I can't think of a better one ...

    The Labour party is reaching the end of a long, self-satisfied wank. Soon it will ejaculate Jeremy Corbyn into the face of the British public; and will then be mystified about why everyone is revolted instead of cheering to the rafters.

    Blair, Murdoch and the BBC will be blamed.

    :-O
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    CD13 said:


    The lemmings look to be scampering towards the cliff edge but they will pull back at the last moment. Either Yvette Burnham or Andy Cooper (the anodyne duo) will scrape in, leaving Labour to celebrate the diversity of the party.

    Well, I hope you're right. But that does rather require one of the two to give people an actual reason to vote for them, which so far they haven't (that's why they're struggling - Corbyn is at least making an effort to win).

    They have 72 hours left to turn things around before the ballot papers go out. It's not looking good for them.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    More seriously, are we now becoming a one-Party state, and, if so, is that not what most successful countries (the USA being the obvious exception) are? Entrepreneurship requires freedom of speech & action, but perhaps not as much of even those as we like to think (look at Asian tigers) - it does not require more than one governmental party.

    Most of the successful Asian Tigers are what amount to beneficent dictatorships, leaders take decisive action with broadly popular support. What they lack in freedom they make up for in terms of discipline and decisiveness. When we need some national project to make the economy work, such as a new airport, we get lost in a couple of decades of wrangling and enquiry, where as in a lot of Asia the ruling party decides it needs to be done, and makes it happen very rapidly.

    Granted it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but a lot of the populations appear to be happy by and large to give away significant freedoms in exchange for rampant prosperity and a comfortable lifestyle - the same deal was supposed implicitly on offer for us with the EU, except the upside kind of didn't happen ;)
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,592
    RobD said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
    To think that Corbyn only got enough MP nominations to be on the ballot because Team Burnham thought it smart to "lend" him some

    In other words, some Labour MPs are rather stupid.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    CD13 said:


    The lemmings look to be scampering towards the cliff edge but they will pull back at the last moment. Either Yvette Burnham or Andy Cooper (the anodyne duo) will scrape in, leaving Labour to celebrate the diversity of the party.

    Easy money on Betfair if you really believe that!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,130

    On the evidence we have, which is overwhelming, Corbyn's price should be well under 1.4 on Betfair right now. Personally, I'd back him down to 1.2-1.25 on what we know.

    The current price bracket of 1.65-1.70 is (still) an absolute gift.

    I agree that Jeremy Corbyn remains a clear buy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    Brilliant tweet from Mike Smithson about Burnham lending support, totally sums up how out of touch these people are, he genuinely thought Corbyn had no chance. This is a man who has lived and breathed politics, specifically the Labour Party, since his teens.

    A lesson to all politicians here in terms of what happens when you surround yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear, Burnham's career is effectively over and he only has himself to blame.

    To be fair, everyone thought he had no chance and history would tend to confirm that. What's happening is not only without precedent but was without any real prior indication (hence the 100/1 price offered and not snapped up immediately).

    Burnham's career is not necessarily over but his leadership ambitions may be. That said, even if he'd not lent (given, more accurately) Corbyn nominations, given his campaign since, he may well still have lost to Cooper.
    Burnham's campaign has been so abysmal it's made Ed Miliband look competent.

    But what's struck me the most about our Andy on the stump is his 'sense of humour'. It's something that only he seems to be amused by, to put it politely.

    The rest of us either gasp or cringe.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,487

    Corbyn set to change Labour motto to:

    "We're unelectable and we don't care."

  • ydoethur said:

    CD13 said:


    The lemmings look to be scampering towards the cliff edge but they will pull back at the last moment. Either Yvette Burnham or Andy Cooper (the anodyne duo) will scrape in, leaving Labour to celebrate the diversity of the party.

    Well, I hope you're right. But that does rather require one of the two to give people an actual reason to vote for them, which so far they haven't (that's why they're struggling - Corbyn is at least making an effort to win).

    They have 72 hours left to turn things around before the ballot papers go out. It's not looking good for them.

    They can't beat Corbyn now. It's done and dusted. What happens next will be fascinating in a hide behind the sofa, watch between the fingers kind of way.

    The LDs need to sort themselves out sharpish. They have a big shot at redemption.

  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Brilliant tweet from Mike Smithson about Burnham lending support, totally sums up how out of touch these people are, he genuinely thought Corbyn had no chance. This is a man who has lived and breathed politics, specifically the Labour Party, since his teens.

    A lesson to all politicians here in terms of what happens when you surround yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear, Burnham's career is effectively over and he only has himself to blame.

    To be fair, everyone thought he had no chance and history would tend to confirm that. What's happening is not only without precedent but was without any real prior indication (hence the 100/1 price offered and not snapped up immediately).

    Burnham's career is not necessarily over but his leadership ambitions may be. That said, even if he'd not lent (given, more accurately) Corbyn nominations, given his campaign since, he may well still have lost to Cooper.
    Fair points as usual but I'd question the word "everyone". "Everyone" has tended to mean those who write about politics, it's clear those people are as detached as politicians. Call it the bubble, the Westminster elite, whatever you wish, it's obvious the Labour Party and its media cronies are enormously removed from their grass roots.

    I suspect there's a message in there for the Tories too.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    U
    MikeL said:

    Here we go - what did I say a couple of hours ago ..........

    "David Cameron will fight 2020 election, senior Tories believe"

    "Senior Conservatives say that they are convinced David Cameron will fight a third general election in 2020 because the “lure of power will be too strong”"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11795172/David-Cameron-will-fight-2020-election-senior-Tories-believe.html

    Well, it was a different time and expecting different circumstances when he said he would not stay on.

    Assuming he does not leave after the EU ref, it depends if Osborne stays loyal and the others do not kick up a fuss behind the scenes. I figured if he were to stay on the most likely scenario would be he announced he intended to go in a year or something, the public reaction to potential successors looked bad and so 'for the good of the party' he'd stay on. We'll see.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,057
    Likely to win GE2020 (net)

    Burnham: +14
    Cooper: 0
    Corbyn: -5
    Kendall: -52

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/14x8p1al7n/TimesResults150810LabourMembers.pdf

    And yet they still prefer Corbyn.....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    ydoethur said:

    antifrank said:

    @JananGanesh: Corbyn as Labour leader. No historic analogy does it justice. Not Foot, not IDS. Would be like Arsenal appointing Gunnersaurus as manager.

    Actually, come to think of it George Lansbury might be a sort of analogy, but not a very good one. He took over at a time when the party had been absolutely humiliated and destroyed - down to about 50 seats - and everyone in the party was desperate to hear the soothing message that they were right and people would realise that one day. He was also an old man and very popular at rallies around the country, considered 'transparently decent and honourable'.

    However, there are two important differences: (1) Lansbury was already a senior member of the Labour party, and had served in government and (2) he was elected unopposed because he was pretty much the only plausible leader to hold his seat (that the realistically canvassed alternative was Oswald Mosley is some indication of how desperate the party was).

    One thought does occur, however. He was the only Labour leader ever to be forced out in a coup, led by Ernest Bevin. This was because he was too left-wing, especially on rearmament, which he opposed on principle and committed Labour to opposing. As a result, Labour were not merely unelectable in their own right, but they were causing Baldwin, the de facto Prime Minister, to hesitate over rearming as well - which in 1935, was not the best thing that could be happening.

    Maybe Corbyn should remember that, if he becomes leader.
    Corbyn probably thinks Lansbury was right. It might be worth someone asking him; he's unusually willing to give honest answers at the moment, compared with other leading politicians.
    He's passionate, principled, honest and tells the faithful what they want to hear.

    Given the other candidates, to a Labour Party supporter, that's very attractive.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    edited August 2015

    Brilliant tweet from Mike Smithson about Burnham lending support, totally sums up how out of touch these people are, he genuinely thought Corbyn had no chance. This is a man who has lived and breathed politics, specifically the Labour Party, since his teens.

    A lesson to all politicians here in terms of what happens when you surround yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear, Burnham's career is effectively over and he only has himself to blame.

    To be fair, everyone thought he had no chance and history would tend to confirm that. What's happening is not only without precedent but was without any real prior indication (hence the 100/1 price offered and not snapped up immediately).

    Burnham's career is not necessarily over but his leadership ambitions may be. That said, even if he'd not lent (given, more accurately) Corbyn nominations, given his campaign since, he may well still have lost to Cooper.
    Burnham's campaign has been so abysmal it's made Ed Miliband look competent.

    But what's struck me the most about our Andy on the stump is his 'sense of humour'. It's something that only he seems to be amused by, to put it politely.

    The rest of us either gasp or cringe.
    Ed Miliband's campaign to win the leadership was outstanding, unlike what he did with it.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626

    Please forgive the analogy, but I can't think of a better one ...

    The Labour party is reaching the end of a long, self-satisfied wank. Soon it will ejaculate Jeremy Corbyn into the face of the British public; and will then be mystified about why everyone is revolted instead of cheering to the rafters.

    Blair, Murdoch and the BBC will be blamed.

    Thanks
    Not had breakfast yet... don't think I can stomach it now.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    Indigo said:

    More seriously, are we now becoming a one-Party state, and, if so, is that not what most successful countries (the USA being the obvious exception) are? Entrepreneurship requires freedom of speech & action, but perhaps not as much of even those as we like to think (look at Asian tigers) - it does not require more than one governmental party.

    Most of the successful Asian Tigers are what amount to beneficent dictatorships, leaders take decisive action with broadly popular support. What they lack in freedom they make up for in terms of discipline and decisiveness. When we need some national project to make the economy work, such as a new airport, we get lost in a couple of decades of wrangling and enquiry, where as in a lot of Asia the ruling party decides it needs to be done, and makes it happen very rapidly.

    Granted it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but a lot of the populations appear to be happy by and large to give away significant freedoms in exchange for rampant prosperity and a comfortable lifestyle - the same deal was supposed implicitly on offer for us with the EU, except the upside kind of didn't happen ;)
    India is no one party state it has more parties than the UK nor is Japan or South Korea

    Only China really and dominated by factions

    The U.S. Republicans have lost more recent general elections than Labour

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    PClipp said:

    RobD said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
    To think that Corbyn only got enough MP nominations to be on the ballot because Team Burnham thought it smart to "lend" him some

    In other words, some Labour MPs are rather stupid.
    That'll teach them to ignore a key aspect of the leadership election system, that is the need to have parliamentary support.

    Surely Corbyn has peaked too soon. Surely.

    The weird thing is it seems entirely not to do with him, this surge - I cannot actually recall much of what he has said, just figured on the left getting worked up about taking the party back through him.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498
    Dr Fox,

    My only political bet was with Isam and was in favour of Cafod, a charity with relatively low admin costs (I won it).

    Mr Observer's simile is rude but apt. Eventually Labour will rue the day, but the question is whether it's before or after the votes are cast. I still think it will be before.
  • PClipp said:

    RobD said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
    To think that Corbyn only got enough MP nominations to be on the ballot because Team Burnham thought it smart to "lend" him some

    In other words, some Labour MPs are rather stupid.
    I am going to dispute, I don't quite think this is what happened.

    At the time Burnham did say he would be willing to lend Corbyn or Creagh a couple of nominations if it meant they could get over the line (35 MPs). To which at the time Corbyn responded "I don't want charity nominations".

    Anyway, fast forward the week later and the MPs who were undecided were get hounded by Corbyn's campaign supporters online through Twitter, Facebook and Email. Corbyn's Facebook page I think had something like 15-18k supporters at the time and they were running lists of MPs who needed to be persuaded. Polls were coming back online overwhelmingly for corbyn support and they used this as evidence that Corbyn should be heard in the debate.

    It did put a lot of pressure on the MPs to nominate him as there was a feeling that the PLP was not listening to it's constituents at the time. Whether you call this charity or not I don't know, but it wasn't the work of Burnham. That ignores the feeling at the time.

    I followed this closely, and that is why I stuck £100 on Corbyn in the early days, because in did think he would get over the line not through charity but because of the overwhelming activism.
  • HYUFD said:

    Indigo said:

    More seriously, are we now becoming a one-Party state, and, if so, is that not what most successful countries (the USA being the obvious exception) are? Entrepreneurship requires freedom of speech & action, but perhaps not as much of even those as we like to think (look at Asian tigers) - it does not require more than one governmental party.

    Most of the successful Asian Tigers are what amount to beneficent dictatorships, leaders take decisive action with broadly popular support. What they lack in freedom they make up for in terms of discipline and decisiveness. When we need some national project to make the economy work, such as a new airport, we get lost in a couple of decades of wrangling and enquiry, where as in a lot of Asia the ruling party decides it needs to be done, and makes it happen very rapidly.

    Granted it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but a lot of the populations appear to be happy by and large to give away significant freedoms in exchange for rampant prosperity and a comfortable lifestyle - the same deal was supposed implicitly on offer for us with the EU, except the upside kind of didn't happen ;)
    India is no one party state it has more parties than the UK nor is Japan or South Korea

    Only China really and dominated by factions

    The U.S. Republicans have lost more recent general elections than Labour

    I don't measure democracy by the number of parties but by the frequency with which the governing party is turned out of office.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    PClipp said:

    RobD said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
    To think that Corbyn only got enough MP nominations to be on the ballot because Team Burnham thought it smart to "lend" him some

    In other words, some Labour MPs are rather stupid.
    Some Burnham backers are leftwing and would have backed Corbyn had he been in the race at the start
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    CD13 said:


    Mr Observer's simile is rude but apt. Eventually Labour will rue the day, but the question is whether it's before or after the votes are cast. I still think it will be before.

    1 Corinthians 13: 13 (KJV)

    I admire your optimism. I just don't share it.
  • RobD said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
    To think that Corbyn only got enough MP nominations to be on the ballot because Team Burnham thought it smart to "lend" him some

    If that's not worth a titter, I don't know what is.

    As Field Marshal Cameron no doubt advised his Lieutenant General Osborne... "never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake!"
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986
    So politics is restored and spin has spun itself out.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    DavidL said:

    Burnham's career may not be over given his express willingness to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet but Cooper's and Kendall's probably are.

    Will they hang around in the hope that the party will turn back to them as the scale of the disaster becomes evident or will they decide that a party that thinks like this is really not something to dedicate your life to?

    My guess is that Cooper may well follow her husband out of the Commons altogether.

    That'd be very weak. Whatever happened to undermining the new leader and picking up the pieces when they fall?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    :lol:
    DavidL said:

    Death by election. It's novel, you have to give Labour that.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,959
    Of the 3 other contenders is a fair summary that Burnham is finished but there might be scope for YC and LK to return in a "told you so" vien in 2019 ?

    Or will they disappear to the circuit like the righwing Miliband brother ?
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,845
    edited August 2015
    IMO the only hope for Labour (and the country) is that at this late stage the other three candidates come together and two agree to swallow their pride and withdraw from the contest. For all the theoretical arguments about how it doesn't matter if they all stay in because their votes can transfer between each other, in practice it is very difficult to win an election solely on an "anyone but" prospectus. This election is no longer for Labour about electing the best leader, it is about preventing Corbyn winning. And to do that i think the opposition has to have one candidate to rally behind.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,217
    @montie: Tory MP to me: whether Corbyn wins or loses we'll now be able to scare voters with thought Labour is only ever inches from Far Left takeover
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,713
    Good morning, comrades.

    Saw the headline lead on Sky News last night. Andy Burnham has committed the most stupid tactical blunder since Antiochus III thought that putting elephants in the middle of his densely packed heavy infantry would win him the Battle of Magnesia.

    It's more stupid than Varro at Cannae. What were they thinking?

    However, we should recall that polls can be wrong. Such as in the UK General Election this year. Or the Greek referendum. Or the Israeli election.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    CD13 said:


    Mr Observer's simile is rude but apt. Eventually Labour will rue the day, but the question is whether it's before or after the votes are cast. I still think it will be before.

    al ejecta est?
    ;-)
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Only one thing to say.... OMFG !!


    Oh and .....

    LOL
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    *reaches for Kleenex*

    That was very funny, in a horribly graphic way.

    Please forgive the analogy, but I can't think of a better one ...

    The Labour party is reaching the end of a long, self-satisfied wank. Soon it will ejaculate Jeremy Corbyn into the face of the British public; and will then be mystified about why everyone is revolted instead of cheering to the rafters.

    Blair, Murdoch and the BBC will be blamed.

  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626


    However, we should recall that polls can be wrong. Such as in the UK General Election this year. Or the Greek referendum. Or the Israeli election.

    Polls can be wrong?!?!?? Shurely shome mishtake...
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,575
    When this is the sort of thinking from a senior Labour person.. indeed the current leader, you really have to shake your head. What a loathsome individual Harman is.


    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/08/harriet-harman-how-i-protected-my-baby-from-margaret-thatcher-the-witch/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614


    It's more stupid than Varro at Cannae. What were they thinking?

    That's very charitable Mr Dancer. I don't assume that they were thinking.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170

    Good morning, comrades.

    Saw the headline lead on Sky News last night. Andy Burnham has committed the most stupid tactical blunder since Antiochus III thought that putting elephants in the middle of his densely packed heavy infantry would win him the Battle of Magnesia.

    It's more stupid than Varro at Cannae. What were they thinking?

    However, we should recall that polls can be wrong. Such as in the UK General Election this year. Or the Greek referendum. Or the Israeli election.

    When was the last time that polls were wrong by 10-12% each way though? Corbyn's lead is 20-24%. That'd be like a 1992 GE result after the 1997 polls.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2015
    From the start, this leadership race has looked a mess, now its an episode of the Simpsons.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,713
    Mr. Herdson, aye, that's a good point. Not long to go now.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    kle4 said:

    U

    MikeL said:

    Here we go - what did I say a couple of hours ago ..........

    "David Cameron will fight 2020 election, senior Tories believe"

    "Senior Conservatives say that they are convinced David Cameron will fight a third general election in 2020 because the “lure of power will be too strong”"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11795172/David-Cameron-will-fight-2020-election-senior-Tories-believe.html

    Well, it was a different time and expecting different circumstances when he said he would not stay on.

    Assuming he does not leave after the EU ref, it depends if Osborne stays loyal and the others do not kick up a fuss behind the scenes. I figured if he were to stay on the most likely scenario would be he announced he intended to go in a year or something, the public reaction to potential successors looked bad and so 'for the good of the party' he'd stay on. We'll see.
    I definitely think the Tories should get rid of the fixed term parliaments act. I can't remember what Cameron said, but if he was to hold another election in say three years time he could argue that he didn't want to serve for another five years and then some more time after the 2020 election.
  • I still think the left is dealing with the Blair legacy -and the question is will that process leads to extinction as its electorate finds a new home (as in Scotland). The trouble with the Blair era is that the left got a labour government with large majorities and weak opposition - itself trying to deal with the Thatcher legacy. However the experience was pretty awful in retrospect. Significant gains were made in moving on the social attitudes of the nation but within foreign policy it was truly awful. They eventually got rid of Blair (what an odd man and what a huge effect he will have on the future - all unintentioal) and replaced him with Brown who again failed to deliver. For the left it was perhaps logical to look at having a crack a being very left even at a time when the figure the came up with - dear Jeremy- has been something of a lightweight for a long time. He will no doubt be principled in a crackpot way.

    I expect 2020 to see a number of independant MPs elected - look for example at Ireland where dicredited FF (once the natural party of government) has failed to recover as the FG government (who have done a good job in difficult circumstances) has hemeraged support over one unpopular decision - water charges. They now have a growing band of independants.It will only take on mistake from the Conservatives (omnishambles any one?) for it to become clear how shallow the depth of affection is for them - but that leakage will not benefit labour who are in full navel gazing mode and totally unfit to govern. The SNP in there own way are a sign of things to come....
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Please forgive the analogy, but I can't think of a better one ...

    The Labour party is reaching the end of a long, self-satisfied wank. Soon it will ejaculate Jeremy Corbyn into the face of the British public; and will then be mystified about why everyone is revolted instead of cheering to the rafters.

    Blair, Murdoch and the BBC will be blamed.

    Ewwww...

    Has to be "the no money left shot"
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    From the start, this leadership race has looked a mess, now its an episode of the Simpsons.

    Yup

    Labour needed a period of "what are we about ?" reflection, since it effectively said nothing under Ed. Instead we have a two fingered salute and a commitment to staying in opposition.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    alex. said:

    IMO the only hope for Labour (and the country) is that at this late stage the other three candidates come together and two agree to swallow their pride and withdraw from the contest. For all the theoretical arguments about how it doesn't matter if they all stay in because their votes can transfer between each other, in practice it is very difficult to win an election solely on an "anyone but" prospectus. This election is no longer for Labour about electing the best leader, it is about preventing Corbyn winning. And to do that i think the opposition has to have one candidate to rally behind.

    1. The reason votes don't transfer cleanly between the non-Corbyn candidates is the same reason that strategy would fail. Some Burnham / Cooper votes would go to Corbyn anyway.
    2. It's probably too late. I don't know the precise rules about withdrawal but even if they can theoretically do it, the ballot papers will almost certainly have already been printed.
    3. Corbyn is likely to win on the first round with four candidates, so what the rest do is shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
    4. In the extremely unlikely event that it is possible, were done and achieved, the left of the Labour party would scream electoral robbery and may well regard the new leader and his/her whip as illegitimate. It may well lead to a full split, including unions and their money.

    No, for Labour's future, the other three have to stick it out now.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498
    Mr Barber,

    "al ejecta est?"

    Forgive my lack of Latin but I read that as 'the ejaculate is cast'.

    I hope it may be premature.

    Mr Observer,

    Analogy rather than simile? I expect you're correct.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    alex. said:

    IMO the only hope for Labour (and the country) is that at this late stage the other three candidates come together and two agree to swallow their pride and withdraw from the contest. For all the theoretical arguments about how it doesn't matter if they all stay in because their votes can transfer between each other, in practice it is very difficult to win an election solely on an "anyone but" prospectus. This election is no longer for Labour about electing the best leader, it is about preventing Corbyn winning. And to do that i think the opposition has to have one candidate to rally behind.

    1. The reason votes don't transfer cleanly between the non-Corbyn candidates is the same reason that strategy would fail. Some Burnham / Cooper votes would go to Corbyn anyway.
    2. It's probably too late. I don't know the precise rules about withdrawal but even if they can theoretically do it, the ballot papers will almost certainly have already been printed.
    3. Corbyn is likely to win on the first round with four candidates, so what the rest do is shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
    4. In the extremely unlikely event that it is possible, were done and achieved, the left of the Labour party would scream electoral robbery and may well regard the new leader and his/her whip as illegitimate. It may well lead to a full split, including unions and their money.

    No, for Labour's future, the other three have to stick it out now.
    The other three could always leave and set up elsewhere - they'd need a whiter than white approach and a snappy name like New Labour
Sign In or Register to comment.