Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the eve of the LAB ballots going out – a party at war

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the eve of the LAB ballots going out – a party at war

The front page of today's "I" sums up Labour's crisis pic.twitter.com/A8HSVmtAoK

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Indie headline.

    "Things can only get bitter..."
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,501
    [Popcorn]
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,501
    When will BROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN intervene?
  • holy repetition batman! Did each tweet need repeating - not as bad as when i saw this on the homepage each tweet was there 4 times, now only twice each...
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited August 2015
    Comrade McCluskey was candid enough, five years ago.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7488359/British-Airways-strike-The-rise-of-Red-Len-McCluskey.html

    "I will set out a clear strategy designed to reconstruct the Labour Party so that it speaks with our voice and is committed to our values," he says.

    He has spoken of "reclaiming the Labour Party for our class", and told the Morning Star that he would, in the paper's words, "finance Unite members to take over constituency Labour Parties".

    The union grouping Mr McCluskey represents, United Left, says its purpose is the "achievement of a socialist economic, social and political system, by means of both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary approaches".
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,872
    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning
  • Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,432
    edited August 2015
    Quote from an Early Day Motion signed by Jeremy Corbyn in 2004 (on the subject of pigeons used as flying bombs by MI5):

    "Humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again."

    http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/1255
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,736
    On the subject (from the previous thread) about whether Jeremy Corbyn is thick (or not): in Croydon last week he said that he couldn't, as leader of the party, write every detail of a manifesto or list of policies on his own. They would have to be worked out by masses of ordinary people discussing in community halls, not posh people in focus groups in exclusive hotels.

    Maybe that's subconscious lefty code meaning that he's a thicko who hasn't got a clue about any details? He just knows a few lefty slogans of the type which are enough to get a rebellious backbencher on TV, but not enough to build proper policies for being LOTO or PM.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,266
    If the Labour Party's at war, then it's more Dad's Army than the Longest Day.

    Although if Corbyn is elected leader, the party might face apocalypse now through a grand illusion. The Blairites might find they were expendable. Will Corbyn form a cabinet of the dirty dozen (the only MPs who will support him), or will the cabinet be platoon-sized?

    In fact, would a Corbyn-led party be a bunch of inglorious basterds?
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 860
    edited August 2015
    There were 48 welfare rebels, and my own personal list of evil lefties who would probably stand for public shadow cabinet elections to serve under corbyn:

    Diane Abbott (fanatical left - "white people love playing divide and rule")
    Ronnie Campbell (leftie disgusted by blairites)
    Richard Burgon (hard leftie)
    Dennis Skinner (veteran left)
    Jon Trickett (leftie)
    Kelvin Hopkins (eurosceptic and homoeopathy support, so probably crazy leftie)
    Imran Hussain (at a corbyn rally introduced corbyn as "next PM")
    John McDonnell ('would swim through vomit to oppose sickening welfare bill')
    Grahame Morris (“a very strong prospect” of Mr Corbyn winning the contest)
    Michael Meacher ("The arrogance and intolerance of the Blairites is breathtaking." his blog)
    Cat Smith ("Prior to entering Parliament she worked for Jeremy Corbyn MP" wikipedia)

    Plus any non-supporters who bite their tongue, hold their nose and serve their rebellious leader loyally against their best judgement.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,736
    What if Chuka Umunna had been a candidate but Jeremy Corbyn not?
    Would Umunna now be getting an Umunnagasm of support?
    Or would Andy Burnham be the lefty grassroots favourite?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Pauly said:

    There were 48 welfare rebels, and my own personal list of evil lefties who would probably stand for public shadow cabinet elections to serve under corbyn:

    Diane Abbott (fanatical left - "white people love playing divide and rule")
    etc.

    Plus any non-supporters who bite their tongue, hold their nose and serve their rebellious leader loyally against their best judgement.

    These and other "interesting" MPs were discussed in exactly this context in today's Telegraph. One of the problem of editorial team of this site obsessing about interesting people on the right like Farage and Reckless, is we have completely overlooked a group of people on the left that are at least as interesting like John McDonnell

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11796735/Jeremy-Corbyns-shadow-cabinet-who-could-serve.html
    He entered Parliament in 1997 and quickly established his maverick credentials, voting against the 2003 Iraq war and praising the IRA. "Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process," he said. McDonnell chairs the left-wing "Labour Representation Committee" pressure group, supports homeopathy and was suspended from the Commons for five days in 2009 after kicking off during a debate on the expansion of Heathrow airport.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878

    Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    Clearly, competence is overrated.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 860
    Indigo said:

    Pauly said:

    There were 48 welfare rebels, and my own personal list of evil lefties who would probably stand for public shadow cabinet elections to serve under corbyn:

    Diane Abbott (fanatical left - "white people love playing divide and rule")
    etc.

    Plus any non-supporters who bite their tongue, hold their nose and serve their rebellious leader loyally against their best judgement.

    These and other "interesting" MPs were discussed in exactly this context in today's Telegraph. One of the problem of editorial team of this site obsessing about interesting people on the right like Farage and Reckless, is we have completely overlooked a group of people on the left that are at least as interesting like John McDonnell

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11796735/Jeremy-Corbyns-shadow-cabinet-who-could-serve.html
    He entered Parliament in 1997 and quickly established his maverick credentials, voting against the 2003 Iraq war and praising the IRA. "Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process," he said. McDonnell chairs the left-wing "Labour Representation Committee" pressure group, supports homeopathy and was suspended from the Commons for five days in 2009 after kicking off during a debate on the expansion of Heathrow airport.
    Thanks for sharing, don't know how I missed that article - seems the author thinks along the same lines as I do. Corbyn's cabinet will serve only to amplify his loony nature and dogmatic stubbornness on almost all issues.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,450
    Really is quite unfathomable as to who might appear in Corbyn's shadow cabinet. I'm sure he'll try for a fairly broad spread, but in the same way that he was always regarded as not cabinet material I presume that he'll regard some of the current MPs in the same way. So could we have the possibility of (just to choose an example) Chukka having to bide his time on the back benches? And what might Corbyn do with Ed !?

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,572

    Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    You'd rather someone they don't consider honest?
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 860
    Omnium said:

    Really is quite unfathomable as to who might appear in Corbyn's shadow cabinet. I'm sure he'll try for a fairly broad spread, but in the same way that he was always regarded as not cabinet material I presume that he'll regard some of the current MPs in the same way. So could we have the possibility of (just to choose an example) Chukka having to bide his time on the back benches? And what might Corbyn do with Ed !?

    I'm pretty damn confident Ed gets the Energy/climate role. He has done it previously and Corbyn has praised his performance on a radio hustings previously.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,572
    Omnium said:

    Really is quite unfathomable as to who might appear in Corbyn's shadow cabinet. I'm sure he'll try for a fairly broad spread, but in the same way that he was always regarded as not cabinet material I presume that he'll regard some of the current MPs in the same way. So could we have the possibility of (just to choose an example) Chukka having to bide his time on the back benches? And what might Corbyn do with Ed !?

    The reason Corbyn is leading is that no new stars emerged from five years of saying nothing in the Shadow Cabinet under Ed Miliband. Any half-way ambitious Labour MP must serve in order to be the next leader.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Omnium said:

    And what might Corbyn do with Ed !?

    According to the Telegraph article I linked below he was at least suggested to him that he might want to pick up his old gig as Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015

    Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    You'd rather someone they don't consider honest?
    In terms of getting elected, yes. The broader electorate will assume he is not honest anyway, by virtue of him being a politician, they will however me interested in the level of competence exhibited. Cast Iron Dave is conspicuously economical with the actualité, but he still got to run the country because the voters think he is competent, or at least more competent than Ed Miliband.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited August 2015
    RodCrosby said:

    Comrade McCluskey was candid enough
    He has spoken of "reclaiming the Labour Party for our class", and told the Morning Star that he would, in the paper's words, "finance Unite members to take over constituency Labour Parties".
    The union grouping Mr McCluskey represents, United Left, says its purpose is the "achievement of a socialist economic, social and political system, by means of both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary approaches".

    Quite true. United Left and Unite are making this happen for Corbyn.
    OH Look they say to Labour HQ. We have just found in one day another 97,000 to register. Fancy that what a surprise. ....
  • Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    You'd rather someone they don't consider honest?
    That's the problem nutshelled. There is no candidate whom the relevant electorate see as both.

  • Pauly said:

    There were 48 welfare rebels, and my own personal list of evil lefties who would probably stand for public shadow cabinet elections to serve under corbyn:

    Diane Abbott (fanatical left - "white people love playing divide and rule")
    Ronnie Campbell (leftie disgusted by blairites)
    Richard Burgon (hard leftie)
    Dennis Skinner (veteran left)
    Jon Trickett (leftie)
    Kelvin Hopkins (eurosceptic and homoeopathy support, so probably crazy leftie)
    Imran Hussain (at a corbyn rally introduced corbyn as "next PM")
    John McDonnell ('would swim through vomit to oppose sickening welfare bill')
    Grahame Morris (“a very strong prospect” of Mr Corbyn winning the contest)
    Michael Meacher ("The arrogance and intolerance of the Blairites is breathtaking." his blog)
    Cat Smith ("Prior to entering Parliament she worked for Jeremy Corbyn MP" wikipedia)

    Plus any non-supporters who bite their tongue, hold their nose and serve their rebellious leader loyally against their best judgement.

    Imagine that any one of them died suddenly, violently and that you were on the coroner's jury. Would you, having regard to their political views and general contribution to public life, bring in a verdict of "justifiable homicide"?

  • FPT OGH can puff that Harvard prof all he likes. The guy looks weird and therefore has no chance. To say nothing of what Murdoch and all points right will say and do to him.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    An extremely effective coup of an ailing and hollowed out party does indeed seem to be leaving the lunatics in charge of the asylum. What will they do with it and how many of the staff will want to remain in case they can help? These are the relevant questions now. This race is done.

    Those who thought political insanity and mass delusion was purely a Scottish phenomenon are going to have to recalibrate.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878
    DavidL said:

    An extremely effective coup of an ailing and hollowed out party does indeed seem to be leaving the lunatics in charge of the asylum. What will they do with it and how many of the staff will want to remain in case they can help? These are the relevant questions now. This race is done.

    Those who thought political insanity and mass delusion was purely a Scottish phenomenon are going to have to recalibrate.

    You should take a look at the abuse being heaped upon Blair, in response to his article on CIF. It's awesome.

    The old order is passing, across Western democracies. What will the new order bring?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,085
    Us PBtories have said for many years now that labour where more and more in hock to the unions, and this was the ultimate outcome. Remember Falkirk which led to some of the leadership election changes....guess just another thing we were wrong about.

    All labour pigeons are coming home to roost.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878

    Us PBtories have said for many years now that labour where more and more in hock to the unions, and this was the ultimate outcome. Remember Falkirk which led to some of the leadership election changes....guess just another thing we were wrong about.

    All labour pigeons are coming home to roost.

    It's not so much the unions. This is a genuinely popular contest. Tens of thousands have joined Labour or registered as supporters.
  • madmacsmadmacs Posts: 25
    If we like headlines. In 1983 the Labour Manifesto was the longest suicide note in history, in 2015 Labour offers the longest suicide vote in history.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015
    Sean_F said:

    Us PBtories have said for many years now that labour where more and more in hock to the unions, and this was the ultimate outcome. Remember Falkirk which led to some of the leadership election changes....guess just another thing we were wrong about.

    All labour pigeons are coming home to roost.

    It's not so much the unions. This is a genuinely popular contest. Tens of thousands have joined Labour or registered as supporters.
    Watch all the kippers sign up for the Conservative Party if its a BOO member verses Osborne when Cameron steps down ;) It might even happen if Boris comes out as a leader of the BOO campaign.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    Too little, too late. Corbyn will win.
  • Corbyn's friendship with the IRA, Hamas and all other anti-British state/anti-US organisations, combined with major defeats in 2026 elections - will see him go sooner rather than later. That makes the Deputy race very important. Who is going to win that? Tom Watson.

    People asking why Brown is not speaking out should consider that this whole process is working out pretty well for him.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532
    JC: I maintained contact with SF and believed that there had to be a political, not a military, solution to the situation in Northern Ireland. The British government developed that process, the Labour Party developed that process and eventually we had agreement between the SDLP and SF which was the important step forward and then the historic agreement between the generality of the unionists and the generality of the republican movement. We got the two ceasefires and eventually the Belfast Agreement. NI has taught the whole world an awful lot about resolving conflict by understanding the historical process of both communities.

    SN: But let me understand what you stand for and (what) your attitude is, for example, towards the IRA? Are you sympathetic to what they were doing?

    JC: My point was always that there had to be a political peace process to avoid the violence, to avoid the bloodshed and avoid the deaths. It was that whole direction I wanted things moved in and, as I said earlier, the great achievement of the two ceasefires and then the Belfast Agreement is something that we can all move forward on.

    SN: But do you condemn what the IRA did?

    JC: I condemn all bombing, it is not a good idea, and it is terrible what happened.

    SN: The question is do you condemn what the IRA did?

    JC: Look I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides as well. What happened in Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well.

    SN: Do you distinguish between State forces like the British Army and the IRA?

    JC: Well in a sense the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political prisoners suggested that the British government and the State saw some kind of almost equivalency. My point is that the whole violence was terrible, was appalling, and came out of a process that had been allowed to fester in Northern Ireland for a very long time and surely we can move on a bit and look towards the achievements of the peace process in moving things forward.

    SN: But if you are a potential candidate for the Prime Minister of the UK Jeremy it is fair for me to push you one more time. Are you prepared to condemn what the IRA did?

    JC: What it is fair to push me on is how we take the peace process forward

    SN: Are you prepared to condemn what the IRA did?

    JC Can I answer the question in this way? We gained ceasefires, they were important and a huge step forward. Those ceasefires brought about the peace process, brought about the reconciliation process which we should all be pleased about. Can we take the thing forward rather than backward?

    SN: Are you refusing to condemn what the IRA did?

    JC: (RAILWAY NOISE) Sorry I couldn't hear that

    SN: (more noise) Are you refusing to condemn what the IRA did?

    JC: I feel we will have to do this later you know (NOISE STOPS)

    SN: Well let me just ask you this last question while it is quiet there. Are you refusing to condemn what the IRA did? (line goes dead)
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,085
    Sean_F said:

    Us PBtories have said for many years now that labour where more and more in hock to the unions, and this was the ultimate outcome. Remember Falkirk which led to some of the leadership election changes....guess just another thing we were wrong about.

    All labour pigeons are coming home to roost.

    It's not so much the unions. This is a genuinely popular contest. Tens of thousands have joined Labour or registered as supporters.
    Its a perfect storm, both the unions and the activest left, with people like Owen Jones (whos supported by the unions as well).

    Its been labour pandering and flirting with these guys. Compare Camerons dealing with UKIP and his 'loony fruitcake' comment, with Miliband rushing to Russell Brands side.

    The activist left are without doubt passionate, they are also organised. Labour opening up their voting to them is utter madness.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    An extremely effective coup of an ailing and hollowed out party does indeed seem to be leaving the lunatics in charge of the asylum. What will they do with it and how many of the staff will want to remain in case they can help? These are the relevant questions now. This race is done.

    Those who thought political insanity and mass delusion was purely a Scottish phenomenon are going to have to recalibrate.

    You should take a look at the abuse being heaped upon Blair, in response to his article on CIF. It's awesome.

    The old order is passing, across Western democracies. What will the new order bring?
    It is indeed.

    But surely, just like the irrational fury and contempt poured on Cameron under the line in the Telegraph, this ultimately means very little?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    Jesus is not on the ballot paper, unfortunately.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,981

    Danny565 said:
    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    Jesus is not on the ballot paper, unfortunately.
    If Jesus were on the ballot paper and won, the Mail headline would be "Labour elect convicted criminal."
  • Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    Jesus is not on the ballot paper, unfortunately.
    Neither is the Buddha. I doubt most of us would vote for a Party led by either of them.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,878
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    An extremely effective coup of an ailing and hollowed out party does indeed seem to be leaving the lunatics in charge of the asylum. What will they do with it and how many of the staff will want to remain in case they can help? These are the relevant questions now. This race is done.

    Those who thought political insanity and mass delusion was purely a Scottish phenomenon are going to have to recalibrate.

    You should take a look at the abuse being heaped upon Blair, in response to his article on CIF. It's awesome.

    The old order is passing, across Western democracies. What will the new order bring?
    It is indeed.

    But surely, just like the irrational fury and contempt poured on Cameron under the line in the Telegraph, this ultimately means very little?
    Corbyn is about to win. That could result in the implosion of one of the two main political parties. I think that means a great deal.

    As I said previously, this isn't the equivalent of the Tories choosing IDS. It's the equivalent of choosing Teresa Gorman or Harvey Proctor.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 860

    Danny565 said:
    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    Jesus is not on the ballot paper, unfortunately.
    If Jesus were on the ballot paper and won, the Mail headline would be "Labour elect convicted criminal."
    "Labour will be crucified at the next election."
    "MP iscariot threatens betrayal on day 1"
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    Indigo said:

    Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    You'd rather someone they don't consider honest?
    In terms of getting elected, yes. The broader electorate will assume he is not honest anyway, by virtue of him being a politician, they will however me interested in the level of competence exhibited. Cast Iron Dave is conspicuously economical with the actualité, but he still got to run the country because the voters think he is competent, or at least more competent than Ed Miliband.
    The electorate may actually conclude that Corbyn is honest and open in what he says and what he believes. That, however, will be the problem.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,037
    A huge number of my facebook friends, who are not left wing activists but by and large natural labour material being young (in spirit if not in body), intelligent, and minded towards a better world, but have lost any interest in labour as it was, have been signing up in droves at the last minute. The sheer uniformity of this response suggests that this can't be an anomaly. This isn't some terrifying plot by the evil unions and reds under the bed, it's genuine interest from people who were sick of mainstream Westminster politics as was.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    I still find the Corbyn price extraordinary. He should certainly be no more than 1.1 and probably well below. The ballot papers go out tomorrow and he had a thirty point lead on the first round, before a huge and beneficial influx. Game over.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,057
    DavidL said:


    Those who thought political insanity and mass delusion was purely a Scottish phenomenon are going to have to recalibrate.

    But the Scots got the 'big question' right!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,216

    Game over.

    Not at all.

    Don't forget the Ice Pixie is going to call him [drumroll] Unelectable! today
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170

    Corbyn's friendship with the IRA, Hamas and all other anti-British state/anti-US organisations, combined with major defeats in 2026 elections - will see him go sooner rather than later. That makes the Deputy race very important. Who is going to win that? Tom Watson.

    People asking why Brown is not speaking out should consider that this whole process is working out pretty well for him.

    I wouldn't assume he will do disastrously in 2016. Scottish Labour will but that's hardly his fault. Welsh Labour might do poorly but again, local issues. London? Got to be a good chance Labour will take it. Locals? Probably net losses coming off 2012 but unless the Conservatives are still ahead in the national share, that will still be a sufficiently mixed message to get by. PCCs? Too many local issue to know but they're big areas and you wouldn't expect many to change hands without significant independent intervention (which may happen but should affect the two main parties similarly).

    Besides, Labour doesn't to coups.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736

    Corbyn's friendship with the IRA, Hamas and all other anti-British state/anti-US organisations, combined with major defeats in 2026 elections - will see him go sooner rather than later. That makes the Deputy race very important. Who is going to win that? Tom Watson.

    People asking why Brown is not speaking out should consider that this whole process is working out pretty well for him.

    I wouldn't assume he will do disastrously in 2016. Scottish Labour will but that's hardly his fault. Welsh Labour might do poorly but again, local issues. London? Got to be a good chance Labour will take it. Locals? Probably net losses coming off 2012 but unless the Conservatives are still ahead in the national share, that will still be a sufficiently mixed message to get by. PCCs? Too many local issue to know but they're big areas and you wouldn't expect many to change hands without significant independent intervention (which may happen but should affect the two main parties similarly).

    Besides, Labour doesn't to coups.
    Corbyn could boost Labour in Scotland at least
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,057
    JWisemann said:

    A huge number of my facebook friends, who are not left wing activists but by and large natural labour material being young (in spirit if not in body), intelligent, and minded towards a better world, but have lost any interest in labour as it was, have been signing up in droves at the last minute. The sheer uniformity of this response suggests that this can't be an anomaly. This isn't some terrifying plot by the evil unions and reds under the bed, it's genuine interest from people who were sick of mainstream Westminster politics as was.

    I don't doubt it - we saw in Scotland what an engaged electorate can do to politicians who take them for granted.

    I also wouldn't be quite so sanguine about Labourgeddon in 2020 - we've seen in Scotland how far populist economic illiteracy can carry you.....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,216
    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn could boost Labour in Scotland at least

    Unlikely.

    They barely voted for a son of the manse. They didn't vote for weird Ed. Why would they vote for an Islington beardy?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,216
    @DPJHodges: The Scotsman: "Kezia Dugdale backtracks on Jeremy Corbyn criticism". Criticising Jeremy Corbyn has become a thought-crime.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn could boost Labour in Scotland at least

    Unlikely.

    They barely voted for a son of the manse. They didn't vote for weird Ed. Why would they vote for an Islington beardy?
    He has said that he would strike a deal with the Nats. If so then he has a 56 seat gain right there. It is unlikely but not impossible that he could have a government in 2020.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,477
    edited August 2015

    Corbyn's friendship with the IRA, Hamas and all other anti-British state/anti-US organisations, combined with major defeats in 2026 elections - will see him go sooner rather than later. That makes the Deputy race very important. Who is going to win that? Tom Watson.

    People asking why Brown is not speaking out should consider that this whole process is working out pretty well for him.

    I wouldn't assume he will do disastrously in 2016. Scottish Labour will but that's hardly his fault. Welsh Labour might do poorly but again, local issues. London? Got to be a good chance Labour will take it. Locals? Probably net losses coming off 2012 but unless the Conservatives are still ahead in the national share, that will still be a sufficiently mixed message to get by. PCCs? Too many local issue to know but they're big areas and you wouldn't expect many to change hands without significant independent intervention (which may happen but should affect the two main parties similarly).

    Besides, Labour doesn't to coups.
    I can imagine Welsh Labour deepening their spiritual Offa's dike between Cardiff and London pdq. The Valley heartlands are a long long way from North Islington shall we say. Carwyn has called a JC victory "an unusual choice" and even old lefty Hain is having a fit of the vapours at the prospect. I doubt support for Hamas is going to go down well in Tonyerfail or Nantyfyllon. Still what does Wales matter- there's only 25 Labour seats after all a revived Tory party here, a Nationalist threat, and UKIP already third. What could go wrong?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    An extremely effective coup of an ailing and hollowed out party does indeed seem to be leaving the lunatics in charge of the asylum. What will they do with it and how many of the staff will want to remain in case they can help? These are the relevant questions now. This race is done.

    Those who thought political insanity and mass delusion was purely a Scottish phenomenon are going to have to recalibrate.

    You should take a look at the abuse being heaped upon Blair, in response to his article on CIF. It's awesome.

    The old order is passing, across Western democracies. What will the new order bring?
    It is indeed.

    But surely, just like the irrational fury and contempt poured on Cameron under the line in the Telegraph, this ultimately means very little?
    Corbyn is about to win. That could result in the implosion of one of the two main political parties. I think that means a great deal.

    As I said previously, this isn't the equivalent of the Tories choosing IDS. It's the equivalent of choosing Teresa Gorman or Harvey Proctor.
    Labour is very fortunate that neither UKIP nor the Lib Dems are in a position to capitalise significantly at the moment. But politics can change quickly and come 2017 and the EU referendum, that may well be different.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Listening to the news this morning reveals the depth of the panic in Labour circles. Apparently the 3 other leader candidates (not Corbyn) are to write a joint letter - to say what?

    Labour party is saying that they are concerned that only genuine Labour people will vote in this election. Well, how do you define a GENUINE Labour person - they may not have voted for Labour this May because they did not like EdM, but feel that Corbyn represents genuine Labour. Are they expecting to see a track record of voting Labour and for how many years or a defined time of being a Labour member (which would include most members - who have not opted out - of the unions that back Labour financially)?

    Do they wish to eliminate the floating voters who wish to support Corbyn but not the other three.

    Also now the Electoral Reform Society has asked for the election to be stopped - but has not put forward a good and valid reason.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170
    Scott_P said:

    Game over.

    Not at all.

    Don't forget the Ice Pixie is going to call him [drumroll] Unelectable! today
    Yes. Of course. Sorry.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,200
    Labour appears to be a party at war with common sense.

    I see FPT that some think that "Iran is a more inclusive democracy" for instance. Well of course JC has shilled for Iran's propaganda TV station, Press TV. So in a few weeks we could have as Leader of the official Opposition a man who has appeared on the propaganda arm of a country which ordered the murder of a British citizen. A British citizen our security services then had to spend years and much money protecting.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,532

    I still find the Corbyn price extraordinary. He should certainly be no more than 1.1 and probably well below. The ballot papers go out tomorrow and he had a thirty point lead on the first round, before a huge and beneficial influx. Game over.

    I agree - and he's back out to 1.4 this morning.

    I've lapped up as much as I dare. I've even been using my credit card.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Financier said:

    Are they expecting to see a track record of voting Labour and for how many years or a defined time of being a Labour member (which would include most members - who have not opted out - of the unions that back Labour financially)?

    The whole thing is descending into a farce. There is no actual checking of the identity of people signing up with their three quid. People are applying with their wife's name, their neighbours name, probably their cousin's dogs name.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/597895/Labour-Party-leadership-contest-MPs-warn-legal-challenge
    THE Labour Party is facing the threat of a legal challenge from its own MPs over claims the leadership contest has been infiltrated by political opponents seeking to ambush the race.
    But Graham Stringer said legal action could be taken against the party unless it pauses the process, joining colleagues Barry Sheerman, John Mann and Simon Danczuk.
    Snigger.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    JWisemann said:

    A huge number of my facebook friends, who are not left wing activists but by and large natural labour material being young (in spirit if not in body), intelligent, and minded towards a better world, but have lost any interest in labour as it was, have been signing up in droves at the last minute. The sheer uniformity of this response suggests that this can't be an anomaly. This isn't some terrifying plot by the evil unions and reds under the bed, it's genuine interest from people who were sick of mainstream Westminster politics as was.

    My Facebook feed is pretty similar from my old med school mates. Clearing out the private sector parasites in the NHS counts for a lot with them. The IRA is history, of little more interest to them than the Chartists or Jacobites.
    JohnLoony said:

    On the subject (from the previous thread) about whether Jeremy Corbyn is thick (or not): in Croydon last week he said that he couldn't, as leader of the party, write every detail of a manifesto or list of policies on his own. They would have to be worked out by masses of ordinary people discussing in community halls, not posh people in focus groups in exclusive hotels.

    Maybe that's subconscious lefty code meaning that he's a thicko who hasn't got a clue about any details? He just knows a few lefty slogans of the type which are enough to get a rebellious backbencher on TV, but not enough to build proper policies for being LOTO or PM.

    Labour policy is obviously influenced by the leader, but as I understand, settled by the National Executive Committee after discussions with the National Policy Forums and shadow cabinet. Control of the NEC will be the key.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170

    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn could boost Labour in Scotland at least

    Unlikely.

    They barely voted for a son of the manse. They didn't vote for weird Ed. Why would they vote for an Islington beardy?
    He has said that he would strike a deal with the Nats. If so then he has a 56 seat gain right there. It is unlikely but not impossible that he could have a government in 2020.
    Those seats were already in Ed's total. That's one reason that so many in England ended up not.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn could boost Labour in Scotland at least

    Unlikely.

    They barely voted for a son of the manse. They didn't vote for weird Ed. Why would they vote for an Islington beardy?
    He has said that he would strike a deal with the Nats. If so then he has a 56 seat gain right there. It is unlikely but not impossible that he could have a government in 2020.
    So let me get this right. The Tories picked up a shedload of votes of the fear of the possibility that Labour might do a deal with the SNP, how do you think the voters are going to react when Corbyn and Salmond are slapping each other on the back like old comrades and working out a plan for governing together.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    Yougov had Corbyn at +7% in Scotland, -4% in England and Wales
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,713
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Abroad, Buddha's a nice guy but his Defence policy is complacent.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,200

    JC: I maintained contact with SF and believed that there had to be a political, not a military, solution to the situation in Northern Ireland. The British government developed that process, the Labour Party developed that process and eventually we had agreement between the SDLP and SF which was the important step forward and then the historic agreement between the generality of the unionists and the generality of the republican movement. We got the two ceasefires and eventually the Belfast Agreement. NI has taught the whole world an awful lot about resolving conflict by understanding the historical process of both communities.

    SN: But let me understand what you stand for and (what) your attitude is, for example, towards the IRA? Are you sympathetic to what they were doing?

    JC: My point was always that there had to be a political peace process to avoid the violence, to avoid the bloodshed and avoid the deaths. It was that whole direction I wanted things moved in and, as I said earlier, the great achievement of the two ceasefires and then the Belfast Agreement is something that we can all move forward on.

    SN: But do you condemn what the IRA did?

    JC: I condemn all bombing, it is not a good idea, and it is terrible what happened.

    SN: The question is do you condemn what the IRA did?

    JC: Look I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides as well. What happened in Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well.

    SN: Do you distinguish between State forces like the British Army and the IRA?

    JC: Well in a sense the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political prisoners suggested that the British government and the State saw some kind of almost equivalency. My point is that the whole violence was terrible, was appalling, and came out of a process that had been allowed to fester in Northern Ireland for a very long time and surely we can move on a bit and look towards the achievements of the peace process in moving things forward.

    SN: But if you are a potential candidate for the Prime Minister of the UK Jeremy it is fair for me to push you one more time. Are you prepared to condemn what the IRA did?

    JC: What it is fair to push me on is how we take the peace process forward

    SN: Are you prepared to condemn what the IRA did?

    JC Can I answer the question in this way? We gained ceasefires, they were important and a huge step forward. Those ceasefires brought about the peace process, brought about the reconciliation process which we should all be pleased about. Can we take the thing forward rather than backward?

    SN: Are you refusing to condemn what the IRA did?



    [Snipped]

    )

    What's most terrifying about that is his apparent delusional belief that the government carried on a peace process he started and that this justified his contact with the IRA.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    In 2001 John Major came out against IDS at about this time too, another former PM trying to stop a former backbench rebel
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692

    Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    You'd rather someone they don't consider honest?
    I'm curious why they don't think Kendall is honest - the other two are well known and high profile, so I understand people thinking they are dishonest as that's what we think about senior politicians, but Kendall was practically unknown.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,981
    I am really struck by just how unpredictable this whole thing has been. I hadn't heard of Corbyn since the eighties and didn't realise he was still an MP. The initial price of 100 to 1 seemed generous, I just assumed that any left wing candidate would crash and burn. I am still finding it hard to accept that he is anywhere near sweeping the board - just being in with a chance still seems beyond probability. And the idea that Labour would roughly double its nominal activist base a few months after such a poor showing in the general election? If I had to predict that a left wing candidate was ever going to lead the Labour Party I would have plumped for it being due to a catastrophic fall rather than rise in paid up members.

    So people who are confidently predicting the effect of a Corbyn leadership - good or bad - either know a lot more than I do or are simply deluding themselves.

    From now on my working assumption is going to be that neither I nor anybody else knows anything.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    JWisemann said:

    A huge number of my facebook friends, who are not left wing activists but by and large natural labour material being young (in spirit if not in body), intelligent, and minded towards a better world, but have lost any interest in labour as it was, have been signing up in droves at the last minute. The sheer uniformity of this response suggests that this can't be an anomaly. This isn't some terrifying plot by the evil unions and reds under the bed, it's genuine interest from people who were sick of mainstream Westminster politics as was.

    Beware the counter reformation.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,713
    Mr. kle4, but Corbyn's a new hope. Are you saying the Blairites will strike back?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    It's a shame Farage had to unresign. A UKIP that had become less of a personality cult with a less marmite leader could have serious challenged a Corbyn led Labour as the opposition party.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692

    Danny565 said:
    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    Jesus is not on the ballot paper, unfortunately.
    If Jesus were on the ballot paper and won, the Mail headline would be "Labour elect convicted criminal."
    Ha!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,200

    JWisemann said:

    A huge number of my facebook friends, who are not left wing activists but by and large natural labour material being young (in spirit if not in body), intelligent, and minded towards a better world, but have lost any interest in labour as it was, have been signing up in droves at the last minute. The sheer uniformity of this response suggests that this can't be an anomaly. This isn't some terrifying plot by the evil unions and reds under the bed, it's genuine interest from people who were sick of mainstream Westminster politics as was.

    My Facebook feed is pretty similar from my old med school mates. Clearing out the private sector parasites in the NHS counts for a lot with them. The IRA is history, of little more interest to them than the Chartists or Jacobites.

    But the older electorate do remember the IRA and they do vote.

    And what happens if/when there is an Islamist atrocity targeted at a synagogue, as has happened in Belgium, cheered on by his Hamas "friends" and JC finds himself unable - as with the IRA - to condemn it? Might your Facebook friends wake up then?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,713
    Mr. JEO, 'had to'?

    I agree with you that UKIP would be better off as a political party rather than the cult of Farage [I know some Kippers want him out too, but he's clearly the predominant figure by a long way].
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,200
    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    A huge number of my facebook friends, who are not left wing activists but by and large natural labour material being young (in spirit if not in body), intelligent, and minded towards a better world, but have lost any interest in labour as it was, have been signing up in droves at the last minute. The sheer uniformity of this response suggests that this can't be an anomaly. This isn't some terrifying plot by the evil unions and reds under the bed, it's genuine interest from people who were sick of mainstream Westminster politics as was.

    Beware the counter reformation.
    Or indeed beware the young following a charismatic leader. It's not as if we haven't had plenty of examples in recent history.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,216
    @politicshome: "Tony Blair clearly hasn’t read Jeremy Corbyn’s manifesto," says Ken Livingston. @BBCr4today
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,170

    I am really struck by just how unpredictable this whole thing has been. I hadn't heard of Corbyn since the eighties and didn't realise he was still an MP. The initial price of 100 to 1 seemed generous, I just assumed that any left wing candidate would crash and burn. I am still finding it hard to accept that he is anywhere near sweeping the board - just being in with a chance still seems beyond probability. And the idea that Labour would roughly double its nominal activist base a few months after such a poor showing in the general election? If I had to predict that a left wing candidate was ever going to lead the Labour Party I would have plumped for it being due to a catastrophic fall rather than rise in paid up members.

    So people who are confidently predicting the effect of a Corbyn leadership - good or bad - either know a lot more than I do or are simply deluding themselves.

    From now on my working assumption is going to be that neither I nor anybody else knows anything.

    Your working assumption is wrong.

    Several polls all point in the same direction. Polls can be wrong but never by this margin. The surge in membership has to be prompted by something. It certainly isn't a rush of ex-Blair centrists returning to save their party. They no longer see it as their party - why would they? By contrast, there's a class of people who sign every petition against the government and Like every Facebook post from 38 degrees. This is who Corbyn and the unions have engaged. For £3, you can see why. His is the voice of that movement. Burnham and Cooper are the voice of a scared SpAdocracy. The unions are pushing hard for Corbyn.

    On the effect of a Corbyn leadership, that is, of course, far more open to doubt. He has, after all, absolutely no experience and we have nothing to go on except his record as a backbencher. However, what is absolutely clear is that there is a massive division between the PLP and the activist base - indeed, one so large it's unprecedented in British political history. MPs might talk about a coup against him but how? What is to prevent him from winning again? (Nominations won't be an issue second time round).
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    kle4 said:

    Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    You'd rather someone they don't consider honest?
    I'm curious why they don't think Kendall is honest - the other two are well known and high profile, so I understand people thinking they are dishonest as that's what we think about senior politicians, but Kendall was practically unknown.
    That is an instinctive political response as they do not like her telling the truth - a traitor to the cause!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    Maybe the timing was not conducive to her campaign, but Corbyn is certainly illustrating what a terrible job Abbott did in her effort in 2010.
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236

    I am really struck by just how unpredictable this whole thing has been. I hadn't heard of Corbyn since the eighties and didn't realise he was still an MP. The initial price of 100 to 1 seemed generous, I just assumed that any left wing candidate would crash and burn. I am still finding it hard to accept that he is anywhere near sweeping the board - just being in with a chance still seems beyond probability. And the idea that Labour would roughly double its nominal activist base a few months after such a poor showing in the general election? If I had to predict that a left wing candidate was ever going to lead the Labour Party I would have plumped for it being due to a catastrophic fall rather than rise in paid up members.

    So people who are confidently predicting the effect of a Corbyn leadership - good or bad - either know a lot more than I do or are simply deluding themselves.

    From now on my working assumption is going to be that neither I nor anybody else knows anything.

    This mania belongs more in the realm of religion than politics ; the vacuous Facebook users are the worst of all ; these folks have a short attention span and use the same criteria for voting that they use when voting on the X Factor or Big Brother ; they will elect a complete idiot like Corbyn and then return to their empty lives of trash TV and music

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,100

    Us PBtories have said for many years now that labour where more and more in hock to the unions, and this was the ultimate outcome. Remember Falkirk which led to some of the leadership election changes....guess just another thing we were wrong about.

    All labour pigeons are coming home to roost.

    With MI5 bombs strapped to them....
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,085
    I think the only thing anyone can say with certainity is that no one knows how this will end.

    This is a sea-change in British politics.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,692
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    A huge number of my facebook friends, who are not left wing activists but by and large natural labour material being young (in spirit if not in body), intelligent, and minded towards a better world, but have lost any interest in labour as it was, have been signing up in droves at the last minute. The sheer uniformity of this response suggests that this can't be an anomaly. This isn't some terrifying plot by the evil unions and reds under the bed, it's genuine interest from people who were sick of mainstream Westminster politics as was.

    Beware the counter reformation.
    Or indeed beware the young following a charismatic leader. It's not as if we haven't had plenty of examples in recent history.
    I've not seen that Corbyn is particularly charismatic, more an ideal cipher at this present moment.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,100
    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: The Scotsman: "Kezia Dugdale backtracks on Jeremy Corbyn criticism". Criticising Jeremy Corbyn has become a thought-crime.

    Nobody Everybody expects the Corbynquisition.....
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Cromwell said:

    I am really struck by just how unpredictable this whole thing has been. I hadn't heard of Corbyn since the eighties and didn't realise he was still an MP. The initial price of 100 to 1 seemed generous, I just assumed that any left wing candidate would crash and burn. I am still finding it hard to accept that he is anywhere near sweeping the board - just being in with a chance still seems beyond probability. And the idea that Labour would roughly double its nominal activist base a few months after such a poor showing in the general election? If I had to predict that a left wing candidate was ever going to lead the Labour Party I would have plumped for it being due to a catastrophic fall rather than rise in paid up members.

    So people who are confidently predicting the effect of a Corbyn leadership - good or bad - either know a lot more than I do or are simply deluding themselves.

    From now on my working assumption is going to be that neither I nor anybody else knows anything.

    This mania belongs more in the realm of religion than politics ; the vacuous Facebook users are the worst of all ; these folks have a short attention span and use the same criteria for voting that they use when voting on the X Factor or Big Brother ; they will elect a complete idiot like Corbyn and then return to their empty lives of trash TV and music

    And will most likely be the first to complain when things go wrong - even though they are still relaxing in their chairs watching trashy TV and drinking their tenth tin.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-mark-steel-becomes-latest-leftwinger-to-be-barred-from-voting-10452628.html


    Latest person to be barred from voting:

    Mark Steel

    Looooooooooooooolz

    This barring is going to make Labour's situation even worse.
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    Cyclefree said:



    JC: I maintained contact with SF and believed that there had to be a political, not a military, solution to the situation in Northern Ireland. The British government developed that process, the Labour Party developed that process and eventually we had agreement between the SDLP and SF which was the important step forward and then the historic agreement between the generality of the unionists and the generality of the republican movement. We got the two ceasefires and eventually the Belfast Agreement. NI has taught the whole world an awful lot about resolving conflict by understanding the historical process of both communities.

    SN: But let me understand what you stand for and (what) your attitude is, for example, towards the IRA? Are you sympathetic to what they were doing?

    JC: My point was always that there had to be a political peace process to avoid the violence, to avoid the bloodshed and avoid the deaths. It was that whole direction I wanted things moved in and, as I said earlier, the great achievement of the two ceasefires and then the Belfast Agreement is something that we can all move forward on.

    SN: But do you condemn what the IRA did?

    JC: I condemn all bombing, it is not a good idea, and it is terrible what happened.

    SN: The question is do you condemn what the IRA did?

    JC: Look I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides as well. What happened in Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well.


    [Snipped]

    )

    What's most terrifying about that is his apparent delusional belief that the government carried on a peace process he started and that this justified his contact with the IRA.

    That's right , he is completely deluded , a real Don Quioxe and Fantasists ...he's a Peter Pan -like figure whose politics have never grown up ...he's the very same student Union type from the failed 1970's promoting ideas that seem ''new'' to gormless people trapped in the prison of the present ...if I had not seen this with my very own eyes I simply would not have believed it possible
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,575
    edited August 2015

    I think the only thing anyone can say with certainity is that no one knows how this will end.

    This is a sea-change in British politics.

    Only in as much that nobody knows how the election will end.

    If you want to know why we are where we are , you have to go back to Brown and what he did with his henchmen...and why there are no senior Barites left. Why have they all gone?
    That's why the candidates list is so poor.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Us PBtories have said for many years now that labour where more and more in hock to the unions, and this was the ultimate outcome. Remember Falkirk which led to some of the leadership election changes....guess just another thing we were wrong about.

    All labour pigeons are coming home to roost.

    With MI5 bombs strapped to them....
    Are you referring to this election as a suicide-bombing mission.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,057
    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: The Scotsman: "Kezia Dugdale backtracks on Jeremy Corbyn criticism". Criticising Jeremy Corbyn has become a thought-crime.

    Some say Treason Never Prospers.
    What's the reason?
    If it prospers, none dare call it treason.....
  • Financier said:

    kle4 said:

    Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    You'd rather someone they don't consider honest?
    I'm curious why they don't think Kendall is honest - the other two are well known and high profile, so I understand people thinking they are dishonest as that's what we think about senior politicians, but Kendall was practically unknown.
    That is an instinctive political response as they do not like her telling the truth - a traitor to the cause!
    So the country would be better off if everyone to the left of Ms Kendall dropped dead, eh?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,100
    Financier said:

    Us PBtories have said for many years now that labour where more and more in hock to the unions, and this was the ultimate outcome. Remember Falkirk which led to some of the leadership election changes....guess just another thing we were wrong about.

    All labour pigeons are coming home to roost.

    With MI5 bombs strapped to them....
    Are you referring to this election as a suicide-bombing mission.
    http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/1255
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,981
    edited August 2015
    JEO said:

    It's a shame Farage had to unresign. A UKIP that had become less of a personality cult with a less marmite leader could have serious challenged a Corbyn led Labour as the opposition party.

    Nobody pleases everybody, but I would say that Farage was still a net asset to UKIP. There are only a handful of politicians who can reliably fill a hall anywhere in the country and it helps UKIP enormously to have one of them. I would say that UKIP are the party best placed to challenge Labour as the opposition. Their election campaign wasn't brilliant, but it would have given some of their erstwhile armchair supporters training and experience. The Greens are likely to be knocked back a little by the emergence of Corbyn in one way - there is now competition on the left. The Lib Dems will be knocked back in another. Their 'fightback' of a few tens of thousands of new members looks pathetic compared to Labour's nearly doubling. And even if things look bad for Labour for a long time, being on the front pages for bad reasons is still preferable to being ignored altogether.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Pulpstar said:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-mark-steel-becomes-latest-leftwinger-to-be-barred-from-voting-10452628.html


    Latest person to be barred from voting:

    Mark Steel

    Looooooooooooooolz

    This barring is going to make Labour's situation even worse.

    This only makes the whole election open to a legal challenge should Corbyn lose - unless the T&Cs of the ability to join up via the £3 are really specific. The Unions have the cash to mount a legal challenge but the rest of the candidates do not.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,750
    Issues like support for Hamas or the IRA are not ones that primarily affect peoples’ votes (rightly or wrongly).

    I think a Corbyn-led, anti-austerity Labour Party will do better in Wales & Scotland & London 2016 than the alternatives (a Cooper or Burnham led party). So, I’d expect Labour to tighten their grip on Wales, and begin to recover slowly in Scotland. What happens in 2020 is too far ahead to predict with any certainty.

    The Guardian have re-opened comments on Tony Blair’s article. There are already 110 pages of rage and anger.

    Could this become the largest outpouring of mass hatred & bile on the web?

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    That and the Pigeon Bombs had me crying with laughter on the last thread.

    And this is just the start of the digging into his decades of Parly votes.

    Talk about humourless and OTT. I notice Lembit didn't sign it :wink:
    AndyJS said:

    Quote from an Early Day Motion signed by Jeremy Corbyn in 2004 (on the subject of pigeons used as flying bombs by MI5):

    "Humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again."

    http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/1255

  • Financier said:

    Pulpstar said:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-mark-steel-becomes-latest-leftwinger-to-be-barred-from-voting-10452628.html


    Latest person to be barred from voting:

    Mark Steel

    Looooooooooooooolz

    This barring is going to make Labour's situation even worse.

    This only makes the whole election open to a legal challenge should Corbyn lose - unless the T&Cs of the ability to join up via the £3 are really specific. The Unions have the cash to mount a legal challenge but the rest of the candidates do not.

    Like various unsuccessful Tory applicants. Cod Cockney Mark Steel actively campaigned against Labour in May.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Financier said:

    kle4 said:

    Danny565 said:

    The supplementary questions from the Labour members' YouGov suggests it's game over. Corbyn has landslide wins on most of the positive characteristic q's which doesn't suggest many of his current supporters wavering...


    Principled
    Corbyn: 81%
    Cooper: 37%
    Burnham: 35%
    Kendall: 24%

    Honest
    Corbyn: 73%
    Burnham: 37%
    Cooper: 37%
    Kendall: 24%

    Courageous
    Corbyn: 56%
    Cooper: 20%
    Kendall: 18%
    Burnham: 17%

    Shares my politics
    Corbyn: 53%
    Burnham: 23%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 9%

    Strong
    Corbyn: 43%
    Cooper: 35%
    Burnham: 28%
    Kendall: 17%

    Competent
    Cooper: 61%
    Burnham: 53%
    Corbyn: 38%
    Kendall: 23%

    Likely to win in 2020
    Corbyn: 26%
    Burnham: 26%
    Cooper: 21%
    Kendall: 7%

    No positive attributes
    Kendall: 38%
    Burnham: 19%
    Cooper: 16%
    Corbyn: 6%

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-jeremy-corbyns-supporters-dont-care-about-winning

    Judging by that, party members are willingly electing a guy who they don't consider competent. Jesus.
    You'd rather someone they don't consider honest?
    I'm curious why they don't think Kendall is honest - the other two are well known and high profile, so I understand people thinking they are dishonest as that's what we think about senior politicians, but Kendall was practically unknown.
    That is an instinctive political response as they do not like her telling the truth - a traitor to the cause!
    So the country would be better off if everyone to the left of Ms Kendall dropped dead, eh?

    Again you try to put meanings to words that are not there. It is not a question of left or right, it is just being realistic to the situation as it is in 2015
Sign In or Register to comment.