Good luck to Chuka and Kendall trying to hold their seats under a Conservative label (or a label like "Liberal Unionists" which is specifically affiliated with the Tories). I doubt they have particularly high personal votes which would allow them to carry over a significant amount of tribal Labour voters over with them.
Leicester West has quite a large LD, Kipper and Tory vote. Not that safe for Labour, winnable but academic. Kendall will be part of the fightback.
Leicester West is also undersized (the other 2 Leicester seats are alright) and will need to take in 10k voters from outside the City boundary (I guess from Charnwood). This would I presume make it a lot more marginal.
It's more likely they'll attempt to equalise the electorates within Leicester itself by moving one ward from Leicester South and one from East to West.
Not necessarily - in the (now abandoned) redrawing of boundaries during the last parliament, the electoral commission were (due to their terms of reference) much more willing to cross boundaries, and much less willing to tolerate boundaries that deviated too far from the mean than previously. Made their task very difficult, and made for some quite odd shaped constituencies.
As I recall the number of constituencies in Leics was not going to change. Leicester W would become more marginal if it took in some of the county.
But I expect Liz to stick it out within Labour, so theoretical.
Well, Fox, I bow to your local knowledge on this one. Although of course, the electorate figures this is all based on will be entirely different - I recall Loughborough in particular was one of those constituencies which lost a lot of its electorate due to the requirement for voters to be registered. Basically, we don't know. A lot of MPs from all parties will be defending quite different seats.
Wow. Finally the penny drops with the ABC group about what the big unions have been up to. "Meanwhile, insiders report that the details of trade union members have been passed onto party headquarters with their telephone numbers scrubbed, preventing either the party or the candidates from contacting them"
Mr. P, I'm sure he's as worried as we were when the Anglo-Zanzibar War began.
I don’t think “we” in the sense of the general British population knew it had either started or finished. Had consequences for the population of Heligoland, though!
I don't think that we are popular in Heligoland anymore. In the late 40's we blew up a fair bit of the island.
I think if the 3 ABCers are gong to express concerns about the process they should now call for the leadership election contest to be suspended and withdraw from the race. Harman to continue as Deputy Leader until an enquiry into the process has been carried out. Then a new race under new rules could be planned for later in the year.
It's way too late for that. That is just going to be incendiary. The Corblimey Tendency would go bonkers.
Hmmm....
On second thoughts...go on Hattie, you know you want to....
So what do we think the true price of a Jeremy Corbyn win is in the light of this news? 1.1?
It's ridiculous. In all honesty, if I were a right-wing Labour Party member, I might in all seriousness be voting for Corbyn now out of sheer exasperation over the pathetic petulance and uselessness of the other candidates.
There have never been many "right-wing Labour members".
From the YouGov members poll:
Which of the candidates does NOT share your political outlook? Jeremy Corbyn: 16% Andy Burnham: 16% Yvette Cooper: 19% Liz Kendall: 47%
There are still many pragmatists, who have doubts whether Corbyn's platform can win elections, but the overwhelming majority agree with him on principle.
Mr. P, I'm sure he's as worried as we were when the Anglo-Zanzibar War began.
I don’t think “we” in the sense of the general British population knew it had either started or finished. Had consequences for the population of Heligoland, though!
I don't think that we are popular in Heligoland anymore. In the late 40's we blew up a fair bit of the island.
From 1945 to 1952 the uninhabited Heligoland islands were used as a bombing range. On 18 April 1947, the Royal Navy detonated 6,700 tonnes of explosives ("Big Bang" or "British Bang"), creating one of the biggest single non-nuclear detonations in history.[24] While aiming at the fortifications, the island's total destruction would have been accepted.[25] The blow shook the main island several miles down to its base, changing its shape (the Mittelland was created).
I have to confess I've found the Labour Party leadership election process curious. The Liberal Democrats, admittedly with fewer members, got to a decision in mid-July with the time from the issuing of ballot papers to the result in three weeks which isn't unreasonable allowing for holidays and the like..
The role of the Unions is one I've always struggled with but that's the Labour Party's roots and so they have to have some say - the registered supporter was just asking for trouble. I wonder if we'll ever know how many Conservatives paid £3 to vote for Corbyn. I know this has been masked by the allegations the "hard left" (whatever that means) have got in on the act but we know (or at least we have been led to believe) a number of Conservatives have opted in to the election.
UNITE were texting their members at least a week or longer ago. Team Corbyn have a massive social media/text campaign going on to register by text instantly.
That the ABCers either didn't notice or have taken this long to respond is pitiful.
Mr. P, I'm sure he's as worried as we were when the Anglo-Zanzibar War began.
I don’t think “we” in the sense of the general British population knew it had either started or finished. Had consequences for the population of Heligoland, though!
I don't think that we are popular in Heligoland anymore. In the late 40's we blew up a fair bit of the island.
Mid 40’s to be accurate. Accrding to Wikipedia (caveat applies) on 18th April 1945 969 aircraft: 617 Lancasters, 332 Halifaxes, 20 Mosquitoes bombed the Naval base, airfield, & town into crater-pitted moonscapes. 3 Halifaxes were lost. The islands were evacuated the following day.
3 weeks later later, my father as an RAF weapons man went past the area on his way to throw all the German armamments he could find in “his" area of Denmark into the North Sea. Which does make one wonder whether the raid of 18th April was a bit of overkill!
Matthew Shaddick, head of political odds at Ladbrokes, is hedging his bets. “I am not a person who is supremely confident of the predictive power of betting markets on political events,” he said. “They are certainly not always right.”
As it stands, the company is set to lose £50,000 on a Corbyn win.
William Hill’s Graham Sharpe also pointed to looming losses. “We’re desperate for anyone other than Jeremy to come out on top.” Mr Sharpe said.
Mr. P, I'm sure he's as worried as we were when the Anglo-Zanzibar War began.
I don’t think “we” in the sense of the general British population knew it had either started or finished. Had consequences for the population of Heligoland, though!
I don't think that we are popular in Heligoland anymore. In the late 40's we blew up a fair bit of the island.
Mid 40’s to be accurate. Accrding to Wikipedia (caveat applies) on 18th April 1945 969 aircraft: 617 Lancasters, 332 Halifaxes, 20 Mosquitoes bombed the Naval base, airfield, & town into crater-pitted moonscapes. 3 Halifaxes were lost. The islands were evacuated the following day.
3 weeks later later, my father as an RAF weapons man was taken past the area on his way to throw all the German armamments he could find in “his" area of Denmark into the North Sea
I think this is the point-in-hand:
From 1945 to 1952 the uninhabited Heligoland islands were used as a bombing range. On 18 April 1947, the Royal Navy detonated 6,700 tonnes of explosives ("Big Bang" or "British Bang"), creating one of the biggest single non-nuclear detonations in history. While aiming at the fortifications, the island's total destruction would have been accepted. The blow shook the main island several miles down to its base, changing its shape (the Mittelland was created).
Well... if you're Joe Biden or A N Other wanting a sign that Hillary can be beaten...
Just laid both Tessa and Hilary on Betfair.
I'm splitting my money laying Jowell and backing Zac, in order to lower the risk (and reward). Laying Jowell, for the moment, is still largely a gamble on her not winning the nomination, whereas Zac can do well even if she is.
Oh and I've got a little bit against Hillary, which I'm sticking with.
Mr. P, I'm sure he's as worried as we were when the Anglo-Zanzibar War began.
I don’t think “we” in the sense of the general British population knew it had either started or finished. Had consequences for the population of Heligoland, though!
I don't think that we are popular in Heligoland anymore. In the late 40's we blew up a fair bit of the island.
Mid 40’s to be accurate. Accrding to Wikipedia (caveat applies) on 18th April 1945 969 aircraft: 617 Lancasters, 332 Halifaxes, 20 Mosquitoes bombed the Naval base, airfield, & town into crater-pitted moonscapes. 3 Halifaxes were lost. The islands were evacuated the following day.
3 weeks later later, my father as an RAF weapons man went past the area on his way to throw all the German armamments he could find in “his" area of Denmark into the North Sea. Which does make one wonder whether the raid of 18th Aoril was a bit of overkill!
UNITE were texting their members at least a week or longer ago. Team Corbyn have a massive social media/text campaign going on to register by text instantly.
That the ABCers either didn't notice or have taken this long to respond is pitiful.
ABC letter "But, they allege, the Jeremy Corbyn campaign has been given direct access to these members, handing them an advantage."
Some weeks ago the work of the call centres such as Unite's have been reported on the radio and recently in the Independent etc. How naive are ABC?
It's all bunkum, this has been going on for weeks now – all you had to do was follow ‘Jeremy Corbyn’ on twitter to see a sophisticated and organised campaign to recruit new Corbynytes.
Even going as far to coordinate timings to top the ‘trending charts’ - Can’t believe no one spotted this at ABC HQ.
Just used my credit card to stick another £250 on Corbyn at 1.5
You must be 100% certain he's going to win with a bet like that.
I'm 90% certain. But that's all I have to be for a bet to be value at that price.
If I was 100% certain I'd be taking the bet all the way down to 1.05. I agree with Pulpstar and Antifrank that the price should now be not far off 1.10.
The big risk I face now is the race being suspended, called off or Corbyn falling under a bus. Otherwise he will win handsomely.
Well... if you're Joe Biden or A N Other wanting a sign that Hillary can be beaten...
Sanders is of a piece with Trump and Corbyn. In a world where the professionals keep schtum for fear of offending anyone, an outsider who says pretty much anything at all will attract followers.
Just used my credit card to stick another £250 on Corbyn at 1.5
You must be 100% certain he's going to win with a bet like that.
I'm 90% certain. But that's all I have to be for a bet to be value at that price.
If I was 100% certain I'd be taking the bet all the way down to 1.05. I agree with Pulpstar and Antifrank that the price should now be not far off 1.10.
The big risk I face now is the race being suspended, called off or Corbyn falling under a bus. Otherwise he will win handsomely.
Well... if you're Joe Biden or A N Other wanting a sign that Hillary can be beaten...
Sanders is of a piece with Trump and Corbyn. In a world where the professionals keep schtum for fear of offending anyone, an outsider who says pretty much anything at all will attract followers.
Yes. I know plenty of the "Twitterati" of the US - young, left-wing, idealist types - who just love him.
And I'm there wondering how much it would all cost.
It’s a measure of the virulence of the fever currently infecting the Labour Party that the expulsion of a Tory MP and a Tory Peer and a senior Tory supporting columnist from Labour’s ranks merits only passing comment in the news pages. If Screaming Lord Sutch, the late founder of the Monster Raving Loony Party, were alive I suspect he would look at Labour and seriously consider filing suit for breach of patent.
But instead the news cycle will be dominated by chilling tales of Left-wing, rather than Right-wing, entryism. The hard-Left, utilising their fearsome organisational muscle, have stacked the deck. Trots, Stop-The-War-Bots, and a ragtag bunch of militant, (not to mention Militant), fellow-travellers have infested Labour’s ranks to subvert the leadership election in favour of their man.
If the SDP hadn't formed then David Owen would had become Labour leader after Foot instead of Kinnock.
Out of topic:
The 3 "losers" writing a joint letter to protest that's unfair for them that voters are not voting for them is a sure way to convince people that yep from those 4 only Corbyn is the most capable and decent enough to do the job.
It certainly has convinced me, once I felt gravitating towards Cooper but over the past month I felt more and more convinced that those 3 are all crap, and Corbyn is the only one that has put any effort at winning people over, that letter is the final draw. Instead of getting out there trying to convince people to vote for them they moan why no one is voting for them.
Kendall, Cooper and Burnham are officially too crap to be leader of the Labour party any time any place.
John Mann on Radio 4 saying the job of checking who is joining the party in Bassetlaw is being left to him personally.
Mann is very free with his comments. But he did ask whether the Labour election was being dominated by London votes and that Corbyn was not being voted for from his area.
Could there be a split along regional lines? The North of Watford Labour Party? NOWLP
Part of reason Corbyn is 1.5 could be the possibility of election being called off.
The market is "Next Permanent Lab Leader" so if election is postponed the market still runs.
My thoughts too. If the election is suspended or called off, how long would HH be temp leader? How temp is temp?? Or does there need to be an actual election for it to be permenant?
If there was a round of re-nominations and she was sole candidate then she would be leader by acclimation
So what do we think the true price of a Jeremy Corbyn win is in the light of this news? 1.1?
It's ridiculous. In all honesty, if I were a right-wing Labour Party member, I might in all seriousness be voting for Corbyn now out of sheer exasperation over the pathetic petulance and uselessness of the other candidates.
There have never been many "right-wing Labour members".
From the YouGov members poll:
Which of the candidates does NOT share your political outlook? Jeremy Corbyn: 16% Andy Burnham: 16% Yvette Cooper: 19% Liz Kendall: 47%
There are still many pragmatists, who have doubts whether Corbyn's platform can win elections, but the overwhelming majority agree with him on principle.
So more than half of Labour Party members share a self-declared political outlook with Liz Kendall. That seems like quite a few to me. But it's interesting that you equate right-wing with pragmatic.
What you're really saying is that there's a large chunk of Labour Party who can't abide Kendall, but could tolerate the others, and that her victory could split the party. Valid, but not quite the same thing.
Mr. P, I'm sure he's as worried as we were when the Anglo-Zanzibar War began.
I don’t think “we” in the sense of the general British population knew it had either started or finished. Had consequences for the population of Heligoland, though!
I don't think that we are popular in Heligoland anymore. In the late 40's we blew up a fair bit of the island.
Mid 40’s to be accurate. Accrding to Wikipedia (caveat applies) on 18th April 1945 969 aircraft: 617 Lancasters, 332 Halifaxes, 20 Mosquitoes bombed the Naval base, airfield, & town into crater-pitted moonscapes. 3 Halifaxes were lost. The islands were evacuated the following day.
3 weeks later later, my father as an RAF weapons man went past the area on his way to throw all the German armamments he could find in “his" area of Denmark into the North Sea. Which does make one wonder whether the raid of 18th Aoril was a bit of overkill!
ISTR there was also a drive to get schoolchildren to collect conkers in WW1, as there was a chemical process by which one of the components of an explosive could be made, which otherwise could only be obtained from ?South America? .
Fascinating site and data. I did see a poll a few days ago which put the NDP on 39%, eleven points ahead of the Conservatives who were three points in front of the Liberals.
The Liberal revival seems to be hitting the Conservatives hardest while the NDP are also benefiting from the collapse of BQ. Could wee see an NDP-Liberal Coalition emerge ?
I can't see what possible grounds there could be for suspending the contest. Quite apart from anything else, it would make the whole thing seem even more farcical, and it would be even more divisive.
In any case, how could it be justified, other than on the basis that the wrong candidate was going to win? I doubt if the unions have actually broken the letter of any rules, any more than they did last time.
Still, more entertainment to come, that's for sure.
The 3 "losers" writing a joint letter to protest that's unfair for them that voters are not voting for them is a sure way to convince people that yep from those 4 only Corbyn is the most capable and decent enough to do the job.
.
Yep, it really is quite baffling. Regardless of specific complaints or what they may be attempting to say, that is exactly what it looks and sounds like, and only undermines all of them, bar Corbyn, who I have found to be quite lacking in qualities to explain his remarkable campaign, except that he has actually said things and not looked like a wazzock. That is, it seems, enough against what he faces.
Just used my credit card to stick another £250 on Corbyn at 1.5
You must be 100% certain he's going to win with a bet like that.
I'm 90% certain. But that's all I have to be for a bet to be value at that price.
If I was 100% certain I'd be taking the bet all the way down to 1.05. I agree with Pulpstar and Antifrank that the price should now be not far off 1.10.
The big risk I face now is the race being suspended, called off or Corbyn falling under a bus. Otherwise he will win handsomely.
What is your position if it's suspended etc?
I've got about £550 of exposure. I don't know what Betfair would do about that. Presumably the market would be left open and all the odds would change.
I can cash out at the moment (anytime) for a small 3-figure profit. So I'd prob try and bale out.
@RuthDavidsonMSP: "If the Labour Party can't run its own leadership election, how the hell can it claim that it can run the country?" http://t.co/MvvpPanOU0
Mr. P, I'm sure he's as worried as we were when the Anglo-Zanzibar War began.
I don’t think “we” in the sense of the general British population knew it had either started or finished. Had consequences for the population of Heligoland, though!
I don't think that we are popular in Heligoland anymore. In the late 40's we blew up a fair bit of the island.
Mid 40’s to be accurate. Accrding to Wikipedia (caveat applies) on 18th April 1945 969 aircraft: 617 Lancasters, 332 Halifaxes, 20 Mosquitoes bombed the Naval base, airfield, & town into crater-pitted moonscapes. 3 Halifaxes were lost. The islands were evacuated the following day.
3 weeks later later, my father as an RAF weapons man went past the area on his way to throw all the German armamments he could find in “his" area of Denmark into the North Sea. Which does make one wonder whether the raid of 18th Aoril was a bit of overkill!
ISTR there was also a drive to get schoolchildren to collect conkers in WW1, as there was a chemical process by which one of the components of an explosive could be made, which otherwise could only be obtained from ?South America? .
"Dear Iain We are writing following the meeting with campaign teams yesterday morning. There are two issues we wish to follow-up on. Lists of members/registered supporters/affiliated supporters We are concerned we will only receive accurate lists in around 10 day’s time, which hinders each campaign’s effort. It would appear unreasonable for an election to be taking place without the provision of a full list of voters. If you are sharing the information with ERS, then it is reasonable for the campaign teams to also be provided with it. It was mentioned in the meeting that the data could contain individuals who have not been fully validated, however, if ERS are able to use this data then I believe the campaign teams should also be able to use it, on the understanding that individuals may later be excluded. We believe it is essential that campaign teams have maximum ability to contact potential voters, especially as the affiliated supporters data is likely to be made available to candidates who have the respective union support. This would not be a level playing field for all candidates. We would ask that the Procedures Committee consider making this data available to campaign teams 48 hours before it is provided to the ERS. It is likely that people receiving their ballot details will vote within 48 hours of receiving them and so campaign teams will be hugely disadvantaged if they are not in receipt of the data until some 5 days later. Lists of members still to vote We also feel it would be reasonable to provide lists of members, affiliated supporters and registered supporters who have voted. This will help us focus our effort on voters who have yet to cast their ballots. It would also mean that we are not calling members who have already voted. We understand the Procedures Committee is in the tomorrow and believe that these are important agenda items for discussion at that meeting. We would be grateful if you would ensure this email is tabled at the meeting, and would ask for a response afterwards. Kind regards Michael Dugher, Toby Perkins, Vernon Coaker"
What loads of rubbish.
"Michael Dugher, Toby Perkins, Vernon Coaker", Kendall, Cooper and Burnham don't even have the courage to write the letter themselves
@RuthDavidsonMSP: "If the Labour Party can't run its own leadership election, how the hell can it claim that it can run the country?" http://t.co/MvvpPanOU0
The last three Labour leadership campaigns have all been rather odd and, in their own ways, undemocratic. Firstly Brown's coronation after years of plotting by his supporters; then Miliband's election-by-union; finally this messy business.
Oh, and thanks to Antifrank for this piece; utterly fascinating.
Its amazing how badly Ed seems to have buggered the Labour party. Just like Dave has driven away the right wingers from the Tory party, Ed drove out all of the centrists from Labour and attracted the loony left to replace them. The Labour party of 2010 may well have voted for Cooper or even Kendall, but after Ed, Labour seem to have forgotten that the most important part of politics is winning, and the left of the party can't win.
Bit late to the party but worth mentioning National Labour, which after the SDP is probably the most pertinent split in the current context given that those involved are still regarded by many in Labour as inhabiting a circle of hell several below that assigned to Blair. It's this, as much as anything, which is the cultural and historical inhibitor to another split that would have to find common cause with the Tories.
In theory, a new SDP and the Lib Dems could each have much to gain from linking with each other but in practice it'd be more likely to be 1983 all over again but with lower vote shares.
With hindsight, it's easy to see that the SDP's timing was wrong. If they'd launched in January 1983 they would've done much better, the 1982 Falklands War notwithstanding. Parties shouldn't launch far out from an election, whatever the circumstances. They must keep their powder dry. If they can, they can then ride the bandwagon into the election campaign. I've given the same advice to other new parties since but they never listen and they all sink without trace (or float around with 1 MP).
I like it particularly when I stand to make a substantial chunk of dosh from it!
I'm not counting my chickens because I've been very committal on this. If anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn wins now, it's cornflakes for the rest of September chez antifrank.
Mr. Antifrank, reminds me of the quote (which I can't precisely remember) saying the Conservatives could hunt babies, or set fire to newborn foxes and get away with it now.
Its amazing how badly Ed seems to have buggered the Labour party. Just like Dave has driven away the right wingers from the Tory party, Ed drove out all of the centrists from Labour and attracted the loony left to replace them. The Labour party of 2010 may well have voted for Cooper or even Kendall, but after Ed, Labour seem to have forgotten that the most important part of politics is winning, and the left of the party can't win.
It's much, much worse than that.
2005 GE - Lab vote lead 3% = Lab seat lead 160
Now, on UNS - Lab vote lead 3% = Lab seat lead zero, ie seats level
I know Scotland accounts for a bit of this but only a bit. And we had boundary changes in 2010.
But the main factor is that centre ground voters WIN YOU SEATS.
Blair and Cameron - the masters of optimising votes to seats.
@RuthDavidsonMSP: "If the Labour Party can't run its own leadership election, how the hell can it claim that it can run the country?" http://t.co/MvvpPanOU0
The last three Labour leadership campaigns have all been rather odd and, in their own ways, undemocratic. Firstly Brown's coronation after years of plotting by his supporters; then Miliband's election-by-union; finally this messy business.
Oh, and thanks to Antifrank for this piece; utterly fascinating.
If Corbyn picks up 60-62% of the vote, there can't be any question about his legitimacy within the Labour movement. His position within parliament will be somewhat less secure but would MP's openly revolt against their own members?
"Michael Dugher, Toby Perkins, Vernon Coaker", Kendall, Cooper and Burnham don't even have the courage to write the letter themselves
The letter looks less dramatic than the spin - it doesn't claim the election is unfair, and it's essentially raising two technical points for consideration by the committee meeting tomorrow. In context there's an implication that they feel they're at a disadvantage unless these points are taken into account, but it's more appropriate for campaign managers than candidates to raise the issues.
I like it particularly when I stand to make a substantial chunk of dosh from it!
I'm not counting my chickens because I've been very committal on this. If anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn wins now, it's cornflakes for the rest of September chez antifrank.
Excuse me if I don't shed a tear. I refuse to believe you've got through all your SNP winnings yet...
I like it particularly when I stand to make a substantial chunk of dosh from it!
I'm not counting my chickens because I've been very committal on this. If anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn wins now, it's cornflakes for the rest of September chez antifrank.
I haven't gone all in because I fear that JC will stand down and say "debate had, point proven". He must realise that he would lead the party to electoral oblivion and might decide to stick to his original idea of just opening up the debate.
@RuthDavidsonMSP: "If the Labour Party can't run its own leadership election, how the hell can it claim that it can run the country?" http://t.co/MvvpPanOU0
The last three Labour leadership campaigns have all been rather odd and, in their own ways, undemocratic. Firstly Brown's coronation after years of plotting by his supporters; then Miliband's election-by-union; finally this messy business.
Oh, and thanks to Antifrank for this piece; utterly fascinating.
If Corbyn picks up 60-62% of the vote, there can't be any question about his legitimacy within the Labour movement. His position within parliament will be somewhat less secure but would MP's openly revolt against their own members?
Considering what most Labour MPs are like (and what they think of their electorate)... yes.
I like it particularly when I stand to make a substantial chunk of dosh from it!
I'm not counting my chickens because I've been very committal on this. If anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn wins now, it's cornflakes for the rest of September chez antifrank.
For the first time in this contest I have stopped trying to be all-green and have weighed in on Corbyn, but (discounting Liz) my only losing outcome is an Andy B victory, and it's not a big loss. If it's Yvette I'm still in modest profit.
''Still, more entertainment to come, that's for sure.''
Its difficult to see an outcome where labour doesn't either split, or loses at least one MP to independent.
It's difficult to see an outcome where Labour continues to exist.
They are already virtually extinct in Scotland and now they are facing oblivion in England and Wales. And not because of Corbyn but because of the ridiculous infighting and panic.
I like it particularly when I stand to make a substantial chunk of dosh from it!
I'm not counting my chickens because I've been very committal on this. If anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn wins now, it's cornflakes for the rest of September chez antifrank.
I haven't gone all in because I fear that JC will stand down and say "debate had, point proven". He must realise that he would lead the party to electoral oblivion and might decide to stick to his original idea of just opening up the debate.
but if he withdraws the muppets will just pay lip service and no debate will be had, he can only have the debate by getting the top job.
@RuthDavidsonMSP: "If the Labour Party can't run its own leadership election, how the hell can it claim that it can run the country?" http://t.co/MvvpPanOU0
The last three Labour leadership campaigns have all been rather odd and, in their own ways, undemocratic. Firstly Brown's coronation after years of plotting by his supporters; then Miliband's election-by-union; finally this messy business.
Oh, and thanks to Antifrank for this piece; utterly fascinating.
If Corbyn picks up 60-62% of the vote, there can't be any question about his legitimacy within the Labour movement. His position within parliament will be somewhat less secure but would MP's openly revolt against their own members?
Depends whether they think Tories and Trotskyist infiltrators count as "their own members"....
''Still, more entertainment to come, that's for sure.''
Its difficult to see an outcome where labour doesn't either split, or loses at least one MP to independent.
It's difficult to see an outcome where Labour continues to exist.
They are already virtually extinct in Scotland and now they are facing oblivion in England and Wales. And not because of Corbyn but because of the ridiculous infighting and panic.
Anti-Toryism is still strong, the floor of Labour support still seems something most parties would be happy with, unless we are expecting the LDs, UKIP or someone else to rise in England.
Mr. (Miss? Sorry for forgetting) Sulphate, those factors seem very possible but you missed off another: UKIP being rubbish at campaigning. They were rubbish last time, in 2010, in 2005 etc etc.
They campaign too widely, and get broad but shallow support, which is worthless. A focused campaign this year could've netted them 6-12 seats. Instead they racked up over 100 second places and got 1 MP.
However, if we had a purple tsunami, (a bit like the SNP in Scotland this time), that would shift things a hell of a lot. But I think that's very unlikely.
So what do we think the true price of a Jeremy Corbyn win is in the light of this news? 1.1?
It's ridiculous. In all honesty, if I were a right-wing Labour Party member, I might in all seriousness be voting for Corbyn now out of sheer exasperation over the pathetic petulance and uselessness of the other candidates.
There have never been many "right-wing Labour members".
From the YouGov members poll:
Which of the candidates does NOT share your political outlook? Jeremy Corbyn: 16% Andy Burnham: 16% Yvette Cooper: 19% Liz Kendall: 47%
There are still many pragmatists, who have doubts whether Corbyn's platform can win elections, but the overwhelming majority agree with him on principle.
So more than half of Labour Party members share a self-declared political outlook with Liz Kendall. That seems like quite a few to me. But it's interesting that you equate right-wing with pragmatic.
What you're really saying is that there's a large chunk of Labour Party who can't abide Kendall, but could tolerate the others, and that her victory could split the party. Valid, but not quite the same thing.
Bit in bold: I was doing the exact opposite. I was drawing a distinction between that small minority in the party who really are right-wing on principle and truly believe "Blairite" policies are the best in an ideal world, and the larger group of pragmatists who's heart is with Corbyn but worry about whether it could win elections.
I like it particularly when I stand to make a substantial chunk of dosh from it!
I'm not counting my chickens because I've been very committal on this. If anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn wins now, it's cornflakes for the rest of September chez antifrank.
I haven't gone all in because I fear that JC will stand down and say "debate had, point proven". He must realise that he would lead the party to electoral oblivion and might decide to stick to his original idea of just opening up the debate.
How could he do that? It would make the whole thing a complete farce.
It's not as if any of the other candidates have taken on his views in any way so if he stood aside now it would have achieved nothing (other making Labour look even more of a shambles than before).
''Still, more entertainment to come, that's for sure.''
Its difficult to see an outcome where labour doesn't either split, or loses at least one MP to independent.
It's difficult to see an outcome where Labour continues to exist.
They are already virtually extinct in Scotland and now they are facing oblivion in England and Wales. And not because of Corbyn but because of the ridiculous infighting and panic.
Anti-Toryism is still strong, the floor of Labour support still seems something most parties would be happy with, unless we are expecting the LDs, UKIP or someone else to rise in England.
The problem for Labour moderates trying to get rid of Corbyn in two or three years' time is that they'd need the polls to be disastrous and there's a chance that while they might be bad they won't be all that bad. The same thing happened with Michael Foot in 1980-83. He was always behind but not so far behind that it was obvious he needed to stand down from his or his supporters' point of view.
"Michael Dugher, Toby Perkins, Vernon Coaker", Kendall, Cooper and Burnham don't even have the courage to write the letter themselves
The letter looks less dramatic than the spin - it doesn't claim the election is unfair, and it's essentially raising two technical points for consideration by the committee meeting tomorrow. In context there's an implication that they feel they're at a disadvantage unless these points are taken into account, but it's more appropriate for campaign managers than candidates to raise the issues.
They shot themselves on the foot and for nothing. The perception now for the anti-Corbyn 3 is that they are a bunch of coward bad losers.
They should never have made a big fuss about it, amateurs, they make Corbyn look like he has the campaign skills of Peter Mandelson, compared with them at least.
@RuthDavidsonMSP: "If the Labour Party can't run its own leadership election, how the hell can it claim that it can run the country?" http://t.co/MvvpPanOU0
The last three Labour leadership campaigns have all been rather odd and, in their own ways, undemocratic. Firstly Brown's coronation after years of plotting by his supporters; then Miliband's election-by-union; finally this messy business.
Oh, and thanks to Antifrank for this piece; utterly fascinating.
If Corbyn picks up 60-62% of the vote, there can't be any question about his legitimacy within the Labour movement. His position within parliament will be somewhat less secure but would MP's openly revolt against their own members?
Considering what most Labour MPs are like (and what they think of their electorate)... yes.
Corbyn cannot expect others to hold his line, not with his own track record of rebellion. The question is whether he can persuade enough people to form a shadow cabinet. The final straw for the Gang of four (looking very young above) was mandatory re-selection. Openly fighting the leader may not go down well with the CLP's if that was brought back.
@RuthDavidsonMSP: "If the Labour Party can't run its own leadership election, how the hell can it claim that it can run the country?" http://t.co/MvvpPanOU0
The last three Labour leadership campaigns have all been rather odd and, in their own ways, undemocratic. Firstly Brown's coronation after years of plotting by his supporters; then Miliband's election-by-union; finally this messy business.
Oh, and thanks to Antifrank for this piece; utterly fascinating.
If Corbyn picks up 60-62% of the vote, there can't be any question about his legitimacy within the Labour movement. His position within parliament will be somewhat less secure but would MP's openly revolt against their own members?
At this stage Labour could do absolutely anything. It will self-harm a lot more in the coming weeks, months and years.
Best thing to happen in UK politics in maybe forever. Or at least a century.
''Still, more entertainment to come, that's for sure.''
Its difficult to see an outcome where labour doesn't either split, or loses at least one MP to independent.
It's difficult to see an outcome where Labour continues to exist.
They are already virtually extinct in Scotland and now they are facing oblivion in England and Wales. And not because of Corbyn but because of the ridiculous infighting and panic.
Mr D I owe you an apology of sorts re Glasgow.
"Glasgow has the largest economy in Scotland and is at the hub of the metropolitan area of West Central Scotland. Glasgow also has the third highest GDP Per capita of any city in the UK (after London and Edinburgh).[110] The city itself sustains more than 410,000 jobs in over 12,000 companies. Over 153,000 jobs were created in the city between 2000 and 2005 — a growth rate of 32%.[111] Glasgow's annual economic growth rate of 4.4% is now second only to that of London."
The of sorts is that this applies to greater Glasgow region rather than the City :
Despite Glasgow's economic renaissance, the East End of the city remains the focus of social deprivation.[28] A Glasgow Economic Audit report published in 2007 stated that the gap between prosperous and deprived areas of the city is widening.[29] In 2006, 47% of Glasgow's population lived in the most deprived 15% of areas in Scotland,[29] while the Centre for Social Justice reported 29.4% of the city's working-age residents to be "economically inactive".[28] Although marginally behind the UK average, Glasgow still has a higher employment rate than Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.[29]
The problem for Labour moderates trying to get rid of Corbyn in two or three years' time is that they'd need the polls to be disastrous and there's a chance that while they might be bad they won't be all that bad. The same thing happened with Michael Foot in 1980-83. He was always behind but not so far behind that it was obvious he needed to stand down from his or his supporters' point of view.
Even if things are bad, at least half of the party will want to blame Blairites and other running-dog splittists, rather than the loony-left nature of the leader. 'One more heave' to get rid of the virus of Blairism and all will be sweetness, light and electoral triumph.
Mr. (Miss? Sorry for forgetting) Sulphate, those factors seem very possible but you missed off another: UKIP being rubbish at campaigning. They were rubbish last time, in 2010, in 2005 etc etc.
They campaign too widely, and get broad but shallow support, which is worthless. A focused campaign this year could've netted them 6-12 seats. Instead they racked up over 100 second places and got 1 MP.
However, if we had a purple tsunami, (a bit like the SNP in Scotland this time), that would shift things a hell of a lot. But I think that's very unlikely.
No worries it's Mr thanks.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Sure they may have got more seats at the last election if they'd been more focused, but then they'd have far fewer realistic targets next time to aim at. Also bear in mind that parties get better at campaigning as they gain more experience.
The Tories need some sort of opposition and if Labour and the Lib Dems aren't going to provide it then someone else will.
Plus as more right-wing parties gain ground elsewhere in Europe it will lend more credibility to UKIP being a party capable of government.
Comments
Although of course, the electorate figures this is all based on will be entirely different - I recall Loughborough in particular was one of those constituencies which lost a lot of its electorate due to the requirement for voters to be registered.
Basically, we don't know. A lot of MPs from all parties will be defending quite different seats.
"Meanwhile, insiders report that the details of trade union members have been passed onto party headquarters with their telephone numbers scrubbed, preventing either the party or the candidates from contacting them"
Latest New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary poll has Hillary 7 points behind Sanders http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html
Well... if you're Joe Biden or A N Other wanting a sign that Hillary can be beaten...
Hmmm....
On second thoughts...go on Hattie, you know you want to....
"But, they allege, the Jeremy Corbyn campaign has been given direct access to these members, handing them an advantage."
Some weeks ago the work of the call centres such as Unite's have been reported on the radio and recently in the Independent etc. How naive are ABC?
From the YouGov members poll:
Which of the candidates does NOT share your political outlook?
Jeremy Corbyn: 16%
Andy Burnham: 16%
Yvette Cooper: 19%
Liz Kendall: 47%
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning
There are still many pragmatists, who have doubts whether Corbyn's platform can win elections, but the overwhelming majority agree with him on principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heligoland
I have to confess I've found the Labour Party leadership election process curious. The Liberal Democrats, admittedly with fewer members, got to a decision in mid-July with the time from the issuing of ballot papers to the result in three weeks which isn't unreasonable allowing for holidays and the like..
The role of the Unions is one I've always struggled with but that's the Labour Party's roots and so they have to have some say - the registered supporter was just asking for trouble. I wonder if we'll ever know how many Conservatives paid £3 to vote for Corbyn. I know this has been masked by the allegations the "hard left" (whatever that means) have got in on the act but we know (or at least we have been led to believe) a number of Conservatives have opted in to the election.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ndp-quebec-unions-1.3187046
That the ABCers either didn't notice or have taken this long to respond is pitiful.
Accrding to Wikipedia (caveat applies) on 18th April 1945 969 aircraft: 617 Lancasters, 332 Halifaxes, 20 Mosquitoes bombed the Naval base, airfield, & town into crater-pitted moonscapes. 3 Halifaxes were lost. The islands were evacuated the following day.
3 weeks later later, my father as an RAF weapons man went past the area on his way to throw all the German armamments he could find in “his" area of Denmark into the North Sea.
Which does make one wonder whether the raid of 18th April was a bit of overkill!
Corbyn pearl of wisdom.
From 1945 to 1952 the uninhabited Heligoland islands were used as a bombing range. On 18 April 1947, the Royal Navy detonated 6,700 tonnes of explosives ("Big Bang" or "British Bang"), creating one of the biggest single non-nuclear detonations in history. While aiming at the fortifications, the island's total destruction would have been accepted. The blow shook the main island several miles down to its base, changing its shape (the Mittelland was created).
If it goes ahead they must lose.
Any possibility of legal challenge - if they can show unions have acted improperly then could they get any result ruled invalid?
Back Harman £2 @550
Lay Hilary £50 @ 1.34
Lay Tessa £50 @ 3.15
Oh and I've got a little bit against Hillary, which I'm sticking with.
Does anyone know more about this remarkable bit of technology?
Even going as far to coordinate timings to top the ‘trending charts’ - Can’t believe no one spotted this at ABC HQ.
If I was 100% certain I'd be taking the bet all the way down to 1.05. I agree with Pulpstar and Antifrank that the price should now be not far off 1.10.
The big risk I face now is the race being suspended, called off or Corbyn falling under a bus. Otherwise he will win handsomely.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11798359/Call-me-a-Tory-if-you-like-but-the-fact-is-that-real-Tories-want-Corbyn-to-win.html
The market is "Next Permanent Lab Leader" so if election is postponed the market still runs.
And I'm there wondering how much it would all cost.
But I don't think there's any chance of that because he's a colossal prat.
If the SDP hadn't formed then David Owen would had become Labour leader after Foot instead of Kinnock.
Out of topic:
The 3 "losers" writing a joint letter to protest that's unfair for them that voters are not voting for them is a sure way to convince people that yep from those 4 only Corbyn is the most capable and decent enough to do the job.
It certainly has convinced me, once I felt gravitating towards Cooper but over the past month I felt more and more convinced that those 3 are all crap, and Corbyn is the only one that has put any effort at winning people over, that letter is the final draw.
Instead of getting out there trying to convince people to vote for them they moan why no one is voting for them.
Kendall, Cooper and Burnham are officially too crap to be leader of the Labour party any time any place.
Could there be a split along regional lines? The North of Watford Labour Party? NOWLP
If there was a round of re-nominations and she was sole candidate then she would be leader by acclimation
What you're really saying is that there's a large chunk of Labour Party who can't abide Kendall, but could tolerate the others, and that her victory could split the party. Valid, but not quite the same thing.
http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/content/filerepository/CMP/00/000/029/Making_aircraft_from_seaweed.pdf
ISTR there was also a drive to get schoolchildren to collect conkers in WW1, as there was a chemical process by which one of the components of an explosive could be made, which otherwise could only be obtained from ?South America? .
Edit:
http://www.historyextra.com/conker
http://bit.ly/1MknNTL
The Liberal revival seems to be hitting the Conservatives hardest while the NDP are also benefiting from the collapse of BQ. Could wee see an NDP-Liberal Coalition emerge ?
In any case, how could it be justified, other than on the basis that the wrong candidate was going to win? I doubt if the unions have actually broken the letter of any rules, any more than they did last time.
Still, more entertainment to come, that's for sure.
I can cash out at the moment (anytime) for a small 3-figure profit. So I'd prob try and bale out.
@RuthDavidsonMSP: "If the Labour Party can't run its own leadership election, how the hell can it claim that it can run the country?"
http://t.co/MvvpPanOU0
EDIT I didn't know about conkers!
We are writing following the meeting with campaign teams yesterday morning. There are two issues we wish to follow-up on.
Lists of members/registered supporters/affiliated supporters
We are concerned we will only receive accurate lists in around 10 day’s time, which hinders each campaign’s effort. It would appear unreasonable for an election to be taking place without the provision of a full list of voters. If you are sharing the information with ERS, then it is reasonable for the campaign teams to also be provided with it. It was mentioned in the meeting that the data could contain individuals who have not been fully validated, however, if ERS are able to use this data then I believe the campaign teams should also be able to use it, on the understanding that individuals may later be excluded. We believe it is essential that campaign teams have maximum ability to contact potential voters, especially as the affiliated supporters data is likely to be made available to candidates who have the respective union support. This would not be a level playing field for all candidates. We would ask that the Procedures Committee consider making this data available to campaign teams 48 hours before it is provided to the ERS. It is likely that people receiving their ballot details will vote within 48 hours of receiving them and so campaign teams will be hugely disadvantaged if they are not in receipt of the data until some 5 days later.
Lists of members still to vote
We also feel it would be reasonable to provide lists of members, affiliated supporters and registered supporters who have voted. This will help us focus our effort on voters who have yet to cast their ballots. It would also mean that we are not calling members who have already voted.
We understand the Procedures Committee is in the tomorrow and believe that these are important agenda items for discussion at that meeting. We would be grateful if you would ensure this email is tabled at the meeting, and would ask for a response afterwards.
Kind regards
Michael Dugher, Toby Perkins, Vernon Coaker"
What loads of rubbish.
"Michael Dugher, Toby Perkins, Vernon Coaker", Kendall, Cooper and Burnham don't even have the courage to write the letter themselves
Oh, and thanks to Antifrank for this piece; utterly fascinating.
Its difficult to see an outcome where labour doesn't either split, or loses at least one MP to independent.
@paulhutcheon: Diane Abbott to be Corbyn's shadow chancellor? @UKLabour
'We understand the Procedures Committee is in the tomorrow'
In theory, a new SDP and the Lib Dems could each have much to gain from linking with each other but in practice it'd be more likely to be 1983 all over again but with lower vote shares.
When they extended the deadline to 3 pm I couldn't help but join the rolling bandwagon though.
2005 GE - Lab vote lead 3% = Lab seat lead 160
Now, on UNS - Lab vote lead 3% = Lab seat lead zero, ie seats level
I know Scotland accounts for a bit of this but only a bit. And we had boundary changes in 2010.
But the main factor is that centre ground voters WIN YOU SEATS.
Blair and Cameron - the masters of optimising votes to seats.
I'm wondering whether we're going to have the perfect storm in favour of UKIP in 2020:
Labour + Corbyn
Lib Dems slowly dying
Tories unpopular after 10 years in power
Ongoing immigration crisis that no one else wants to deal with
Can see them winning a lot of MPs especially up North next time.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/trump-leads-republicans-in-mo-gop-field-leads-clinton.html
Trump naturally leads the GOP primary, the interesting part is this:
Trump 48%
Hillary 39%
In a 3 way race:
Hillary 34%
Trump 30%
Bush 29%
They are already virtually extinct in Scotland and now they are facing oblivion in England and Wales. And not because of Corbyn but because of the ridiculous infighting and panic.
They campaign too widely, and get broad but shallow support, which is worthless. A focused campaign this year could've netted them 6-12 seats. Instead they racked up over 100 second places and got 1 MP.
However, if we had a purple tsunami, (a bit like the SNP in Scotland this time), that would shift things a hell of a lot. But I think that's very unlikely.
It's not as if any of the other candidates have taken on his views in any way so if he stood aside now it would have achieved nothing (other making Labour look even more of a shambles than before).
The perception now for the anti-Corbyn 3 is that they are a bunch of coward bad losers.
They should never have made a big fuss about it, amateurs, they make Corbyn look like he has the campaign skills of Peter Mandelson, compared with them at least.
https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/631509831103434752
Best thing to happen in UK politics in maybe forever. Or at least a century.
"Glasgow has the largest economy in Scotland and is at the hub of the metropolitan area of West Central Scotland. Glasgow also has the third highest GDP Per capita of any city in the UK (after London and Edinburgh).[110] The city itself sustains more than 410,000 jobs in over 12,000 companies. Over 153,000 jobs were created in the city between 2000 and 2005 — a growth rate of 32%.[111] Glasgow's annual economic growth rate of 4.4% is now second only to that of London."
The of sorts is that this applies to greater Glasgow region rather than the City :
Despite Glasgow's economic renaissance, the East End of the city remains the focus of social deprivation.[28] A Glasgow Economic Audit report published in 2007 stated that the gap between prosperous and deprived areas of the city is widening.[29] In 2006, 47% of Glasgow's population lived in the most deprived 15% of areas in Scotland,[29] while the Centre for Social Justice reported 29.4% of the city's working-age residents to be "economically inactive".[28] Although marginally behind the UK average, Glasgow still has a higher employment rate than Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.[29]
score draw :-)
I'm not sure I agree with this. Sure they may have got more seats at the last election if they'd been more focused, but then they'd have far fewer realistic targets next time to aim at. Also bear in mind that parties get better at campaigning as they gain more experience.
The Tories need some sort of opposition and if Labour and the Lib Dems aren't going to provide it then someone else will.
Plus as more right-wing parties gain ground elsewhere in Europe it will lend more credibility to UKIP being a party capable of government.