Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » You can get 11/8 on Corbyn not being leader at general elec

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited November 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » You can get 11/8 on Corbyn not being leader at general election. Why I’m not tempted

Ladbroke make it longer than evens, 11/8, that Corbyn will still be leader at GE2020

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,080
    What does the sane centre left do then? Break away and start a new party?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    edited November 2015
    The most likely next GE date is 2020:
    seq http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/corbyn-labour-leader-exit-date 9-2 2020 Corbyn exit.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    I'm confused, Mike. You say you can get 11/8 on Corbyn not being leader at the 2020 GE and that you're not tempted, but then the tweet says that you can get 11/8 on Corbyn still being leader at the election.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986
    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,640
    If Corbyn 'triumphs', Labour loses

    It is as simple as that.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Oh please, NO!

    Not again, I think it was @taffys who noted it as Top Trumps.

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

  • Says it all really.

    34% of those who voted for Jez think he will be never be PM

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUkeoXDWwAAas6u.jpg
  • First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    Oh please, NO!

    Not again, I think it was @taffys who noted it as Top Trumps.

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    Misprint methinks Miss P, it's more Top Turnips
  • As well as the odds on him being removed, that's over four years to wait (if you win), which diminishes the value.

    Putin's statement on the plane will be of significant interest.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    HMS Jeremy Corbyn could be quite amusing.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    edited November 2015
    Mr. Brooke, armed with daffodils and powered by wind turbines?

    Edited extra bit: incidentally, one can neither confirm nor deny that 'frigate' is code for 'elite enormo-haddock attack squad', as referred to in the SDSR.

    Enormo-haddock deployment and procurement remains Top Secret.
  • Corbynism sweeping the nation...oh wait..
  • First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    HMS Margaret Thatcher has a ring to it. And crippled by Tory defence cuts, so that fits too.
  • First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    HMS Jeremy Corbyn could be quite amusing.
    HMS Gerry Adams in tribute to his contributions to peace in Northern Ireland would be great too
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,931
    edited November 2015
    I see "The Donald" might have been caught shall we say embellishing his experience of 9/11. The likes of him and Carson are doing the Democrats job for them, and I hate to think what they will find when they really go digging.
  • Thats the killer stat really. Labour won't get back into power until they tire of losing again, and i;ll take them several elections to get there.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    HMS Jeremy Corbyn could be quite amusing.
    That has to be for a new nuclear submarine.
  • My headline was faulty now correcte. The 11/8 on on Corbyn NOT being leader at GE20
  • Thats the killer stat really. Labour won't get back into power until they tire of losing again, and i;ll take them several elections to get there.
    Took the Tories three defeats in a row to come back to sanity.
  • My headline was faulty now correcte. The 11/8 on on Corbyn NOT being leader at GE20

    Happens to the best of us.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    Guido has found "Evidence of how (Tory A-lister) Clarke was let in through the back door" apparently.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,244
    @PCollinsTimes: The Times poll doesn't say what it says. Even with no named rival, just 57% think Corbyn should lead Labour in 2020. That means he won't.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,516

    Thats the killer stat really. Labour won't get back into power until they tire of losing again, and i;ll take them several elections to get there.
    Took the Tories three defeats in a row to come back to sanity.
    From what I can see they are still on that journey.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    DavidL said:

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    HMS Jeremy Corbyn could be quite amusing.
    That has to be for a new nuclear submarine.
    Easy gig being crew on the HMS Jeremy Corbyn, knowing it will never even leave port.....
  • DanSmith said:

    What does the sane centre left do then? Break away and start a new party?

    Pointless under FPTP. There's more chance of bringing Labour back to sanity than of a new party getting close to power. See UKIP: four million votes, one MP. Sane Labour might get a few more than that as a few MPs will have strong personal votes, but no more than a handful.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,244
    @theobertram: WE ARE MILLWALL! NOBODY LIKES US! WE DON'T CARE! https://t.co/ZzJ97zr4rX
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited November 2015
    I think Bush has it right myself - until the Sensible Left has a strategy and a leadership contender nothing is changing.

    I'd be unsurprised if Jezza was still in place a year from now. And if he's replaced, it's going to be a cookie cutter hard-Lefter.
    Scott_P said:

    @PCollinsTimes: The Times poll doesn't say what it says. Even with no named rival, just 57% think Corbyn should lead Labour in 2020. That means he won't.

  • I've just added a great spot by Hopi Sen. 71% of Coryn voters don't care of LAB's policies stop them from winning.

  • This is Corbyn's anthem:

    The people's flag is deepest red,
    It shrouded oft our martyred dead
    And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
    Their hearts' blood dyed its every fold.
    So raise the scarlet standard high,
    Beneath its shade we'll live and die,
    Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
    We'll keep the red flag flying here

    Note the last two lines. That's how he sees things and it's why he will not go peacefully.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    edited November 2015
    Don't forget Ed Miliband increased Labour's votes in 2015, particularly so in England.

    Corbyn could well increase them yet again in inner London.

    You don't need to be a clairvoyant to work the rest of it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    DavidL said:

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    HMS Jeremy Corbyn could be quite amusing.
    That has to be for a new nuclear submarine.
    Easy gig being crew on the HMS Jeremy Corbyn, knowing it will never even leave port.....
    I think a case can be made. Trident submarines are the ultimate in gestures, they are never intended to actually do anything. If they do come into use, it is the ultimate disaster: just like Corbyn really.
  • Jonathan said:

    Thats the killer stat really. Labour won't get back into power until they tire of losing again, and i;ll take them several elections to get there.
    Took the Tories three defeats in a row to come back to sanity.
    From what I can see they are still on that journey.
    We are indeed, if the final two in the Tory leadership contest is between Boris and George I know we've completed that journey.

    I still have a fear the contest will be between Liam Fox and Owen Paterson (that still gives me nightmares)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    HMS Jeremy Corbyn could be quite amusing.
    That has to be for a new nuclear submarine.
    Easy gig being crew on the HMS Jeremy Corbyn, knowing it will never even leave port.....
    I think a case can be made. Trident submarines are the ultimate in gestures, they are never intended to actually do anything. If they do come into use, it is the ultimate disaster: just like Corbyn really.
    Test 0.0000001 alpha A0.000000001:

    Russian jets violate Turkey (And so NATO) airspace. Trident not used.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    edited November 2015

    Jonathan said:

    Thats the killer stat really. Labour won't get back into power until they tire of losing again, and i;ll take them several elections to get there.
    Took the Tories three defeats in a row to come back to sanity.
    From what I can see they are still on that journey.
    We are indeed, if the final two in the Tory leadership contest is between Boris and George I know we've completed that journey.

    I still have a fear the contest will be between Liam Fox and Owen Paterson (that still gives me nightmares)
    The badgers outwitted Patterson, but I think he'll get the better of Liam Fox if it comes to that particular battle.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,516

    Jonathan said:

    Thats the killer stat really. Labour won't get back into power until they tire of losing again, and i;ll take them several elections to get there.
    Took the Tories three defeats in a row to come back to sanity.
    From what I can see they are still on that journey.
    We are indeed, if the final two in the Tory leadership contest is between Boris and George I know we've completed that journey.

    I still have a fear the contest will be between Liam Fox and Owen Paterson (that still gives me nightmares)
    The 2020 General Election: Fox vs. Corbyn

    At least net immigration will no longer be a problem.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Given that many of them appear to be arrivistes from SWPland and Greenies - I'm not at all surprised - getting Corbyn elected was the biggest coup of their political lives. They're busy annexing Labour and enjoying themselves.

    I've just added a great spot by Hopi Sen. 71% of Coryn voters don't care of LAB's policies stop them from winning.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    HMS Jeremy Corbyn could be quite amusing.
    HMS Gerry Adams in tribute to his contributions to peace in Northern Ireland would be great too
    I think we have named two of the new Trident subs.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,984
    Corbynites turning Labour into a noisy, ineffectual pressure group. What a bunch of witless clowns.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986
    DavidL said:

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    HMS Jeremy Corbyn could be quite amusing.
    That has to be for a new nuclear submarine.
    Yes, alongside HMS Nicola Sturgeon
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,383
    edited November 2015
    FPT Nick

    "The absence of an alternative who has a clear path to victory over the Tories makes the choice easy. If such an alternative appeared, people would consider it, but at present the choice is someone who speaks for us and...not very much. Certainly I am not minded ever to vote for one of the people who are indulging in whinging and sniping without a coherent idea of their own, and I suspect others feel the same."

    Though I take your point Labour supporters above all want an effective opposition. I find nothing more frustrating than watching the Tories prance around like peacocks with no opposition because Corbyn's Labour Party don't know how to oppose
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,601
    Cyclefree on the last thread correctly points out that plenty of people have sincerely followed their principles and caused disaster because their principles turned out to be wrong (Savanorola and Robespierre, say). That's a sufficient argument not to vote for someone merely because they are people of principle.

    But it's not an argument to abandon principle. Eventually you have to decide what you think, after as much input and discussion as you can (or are willing to) handle. Once you've decided what it is, you should argue the case for it, and I don't see a case for pretending to believe something else in order to get elected and then either do what you privately think is wrong, or get elected and then renege.

    The way that Tony Blair squared the circle was to find plenty of things that we positively liked - minimum wage, action against discrimination, investment in the NHS, FOIA (even if he later regretted it himself), the Northern Ireland agreement - which allowed us to feel the package as a whole was good. That started to break down after Iraq and by 2015 we'd really run pretty dry on consensus improvements - I wasn't against an electricity price freeze, for instance, but it wasn't worth getting excited about. Centrists need a new project with positively attractive content.




  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,494
    dr_spyn said:

    Corbynites turning Labour into a noisy, ineffectual pressure group. What a bunch of witless clowns.

    Good morning all. At the risk of repeating myself, Corbyn and his fellow travellers are playing the long game. No government lasts forever - the Tories are bound to screw things up, or mishandle a recession. If Corbyn is ousted, he'll be replaced by another of his coterie.

    What they need to ensure is that Labour aren't replaced by the Lib Dems as the natural opposition. That seems like an easy task, or at least easier than going from a crushing defeat in 2015 to winning in 2020.

    The wild card is going to be whether the unions continue to financially support Corbynite Labour. An army marches on its stomach etc.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,516

    Centrists need a new project with positively attractive content.

    YES, YES YES!
    Wasting time mucking about with Corbyn stops us all getting there.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    I've topped up with Skybet on Corbyn out in 2020:

    First up the next GE must be around a 1-2 shot (Or lower) to take place in 2020.

    Secondly, the Conservatives simply must be favourites to win the particular contest in terms of getting in the next Prime Minister. Push comes to shove, you can add the DUP and UUP onto the Tory numbers.

    Just like Ed Miliband, Corbyn will exit with a General Election defeat. People always speculate when will such and such go. Most of the time it is after a GE defeat.

    All logically adds up to him leaving in 2020.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    The implications of the Trades Union Bill is another big factor - even if the implementation isn't until GE2020 - things are about to change in a fairly significant way.
    John_M said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Corbynites turning Labour into a noisy, ineffectual pressure group. What a bunch of witless clowns.

    Good morning all. At the risk of repeating myself, Corbyn and his fellow travellers are playing the long game. No government lasts forever - the Tories are bound to screw things up, or mishandle a recession. If Corbyn is ousted, he'll be replaced by another of his coterie.

    What they need to ensure is that Labour aren't replaced by the Lib Dems as the natural opposition. That seems like an easy task, or at least easier than going from a crushing defeat in 2015 to winning in 2020.

    The wild card is going to be whether the unions continue to financially support Corbynite Labour. An army marches on its stomach etc.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,516
    Roger said:

    FPT Nick

    "The absence of an alternative who has a clear path to victory over the Tories makes the choice easy. If such an alternative appeared, people would consider it, but at present the choice is someone who speaks for us and...not very much. Certainly I am not minded ever to vote for one of the people who are indulging in whinging and sniping without a coherent idea of their own, and I suspect others feel the same."

    Though I take your point Labour supporters above all want an effective opposition. I find nothing more frustrating than watching the Tories prance around like peacocks with no opposition because Corbyn's Labour Party don't know how to oppose

    Hear, hear. I expect Labour to expose them for the shower they are. What's tragic is that it's not that hard.
  • MikeK said:
    What are Turkey playing at? Trying to send Putin a signal? I am not sure they would like him to signal back.
  • In The Sunday Times a Labour MP said something along the lines that Labour are such a shambles that Cameron could announce a £10 million plane for himself and present it as a saving and Labour couldn't land a punch on him
  • Labour is way too unstable right now to be taking 11/8 bets on the identity of its leader at a distance of 4 1/2 years. Some of the longshots for next Labour leader might well be worth sniffing around though.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,984
    @John_M Corbynites fighting a long game, most of them will be dead in the long run. given that Corbyn's core beliefs have been rejected time and time again since he entered politics. How much more time does he need?
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,681

    Cyclefree on the last thread correctly points out that plenty of people have sincerely followed their principles and caused disaster because their principles turned out to be wrong (Savanorola and Robespierre, say). That's a sufficient argument not to vote for someone merely because they are people of principle.

    But it's not an argument to abandon principle. Eventually you have to decide what you think, after as much input and discussion as you can (or are willing to) handle. Once you've decided what it is, you should argue the case for it, and I don't see a case for pretending to believe something else in order to get elected and then either do what you privately think is wrong, or get elected and then renege.

    The way that Tony Blair squared the circle was to find plenty of things that we positively liked - minimum wage, action against discrimination, investment in the NHS, FOIA (even if he later regretted it himself), the Northern Ireland agreement - which allowed us to feel the package as a whole was good. That started to break down after Iraq and by 2015 we'd really run pretty dry on consensus improvements - I wasn't against an electricity price freeze, for instance, but it wasn't worth getting excited about. Centrists need a new project with positively attractive content.




    Funny how you 'discovered' your real deep sincere beliefs after being stuffed by Soubry in Broxtowe - twice.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,663

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    No problem with "Margaret Thatcher" (of blessed memory) registering but I think Longshanks will go over the heads of most Scots. To be fair, I think the significance of both would be lost on most English too.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,244

    Yes, alongside HMS Nicola Sturgeon

    Pictured here in her prime...

    http://www.scotland-pictures.com/images/vital-spark.jpg
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,635
    edited November 2015

    Labour is way too unstable right now to be taking 11/8 bets on the identity of its leader at a distance of 4 1/2 years. Some of the longshots for next Labour leader might well be worth sniffing around though.

    Theoretical market - how many MPs will Labour have at their next leadership election?

    0-100 8/1
    101-200 11/5
    201+ 1/2
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,888

    Cyclefree on the last thread correctly points out that plenty of people have sincerely followed their principles and caused disaster because their principles turned out to be wrong (Savanorola and Robespierre, say). That's a sufficient argument not to vote for someone merely because they are people of principle.

    But it's not an argument to abandon principle. Eventually you have to decide what you think, after as much input and discussion as you can (or are willing to) handle. Once you've decided what it is, you should argue the case for it, and I don't see a case for pretending to believe something else in order to get elected and then either do what you privately think is wrong, or get elected and then renege.

    The way that Tony Blair squared the circle was to find plenty of things that we positively liked - minimum wage, action against discrimination, investment in the NHS, FOIA (even if he later regretted it himself), the Northern Ireland agreement - which allowed us to feel the package as a whole was good. That started to break down after Iraq and by 2015 we'd really run pretty dry on consensus improvements - I wasn't against an electricity price freeze, for instance, but it wasn't worth getting excited about. Centrists need a new project with positively attractive content.


    This isn't just a problem with positioning. Enough floating voters believe that some of the core beliefs of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are morally wrong, and won't vote Labour however bad the Tories are, as a result. They don't look at Corbyn and think "I don't agree with him, but at least he's got principles." They think he's a bad man.
  • First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    No problem with "Margaret Thatcher" (of blessed memory) registering but I think Longshanks will go over the heads of most Scots. To be fair, I think the significance of both would be lost on most English too.
    As the King of Subtleness, I prefer subtle jokes/references that go over the heads of most people.

    Makes me feel all smug and superior
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    Cyclefree on the last thread correctly points out that plenty of people have sincerely followed their principles and caused disaster because their principles turned out to be wrong (Savanorola and Robespierre, say). That's a sufficient argument not to vote for someone merely because they are people of principle.

    But it's not an argument to abandon principle. Eventually you have to decide what you think, after as much input and discussion as you can (or are willing to) handle. Once you've decided what it is, you should argue the case for it, and I don't see a case for pretending to believe something else in order to get elected and then either do what you privately think is wrong, or get elected and then renege.

    The way that Tony Blair squared the circle was to find plenty of things that we positively liked - minimum wage, action against discrimination, investment in the NHS, FOIA (even if he later regretted it himself), the Northern Ireland agreement - which allowed us to feel the package as a whole was good. That started to break down after Iraq and by 2015 we'd really run pretty dry on consensus improvements - I wasn't against an electricity price freeze, for instance, but it wasn't worth getting excited about. Centrists need a new project with positively attractive content.




    Given your support for Corbyn, you're hardly placed to be a centrist.
  • Mr. Eagles, you're about as subtle as Li Kui.

    On the plane: Sky News had a radar graphic released by the Turks which appeared to show the plane briefly crossing (perhaps twice) into Turkish territory.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,244
    Interesting

    @JohnRentoul: / @hopisen Time for the Labour Party to have a Clause I moment https://t.co/SEMXcbd4uU

    Could Corbyn be in breach of Labour Party rules?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    No problem with "Margaret Thatcher" (of blessed memory) registering but I think Longshanks will go over the heads of most Scots. To be fair, I think the significance of both would be lost on most English too.
    but I think Longshanks will go over the heads of most Scots.

    So you're suggesting HMS Natty Shortcock ?
  • Not quite right from Hopi:

    71% of Corbyn voters didn't mind if their policies stop them winning elections.

    Whether that's still true now would be an interesting question.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077

    Labour is way too unstable right now to be taking 11/8 bets on the identity of its leader at a distance of 4 1/2 years. Some of the longshots for next Labour leader might well be worth sniffing around though.

    Theoretical market - how many MPs will Labour have at their next leadership election?

    0-100 8/1
    101-200 11/5
    201+ 1/2
    Value depends on whether you can bet on credit methinks !
  • Pulpstar said:

    Labour is way too unstable right now to be taking 11/8 bets on the identity of its leader at a distance of 4 1/2 years. Some of the longshots for next Labour leader might well be worth sniffing around though.

    Theoretical market - how many MPs will Labour have at their next leadership election?

    0-100 8/1
    101-200 11/5
    201+ 1/2
    Value depends on whether you can bet on credit methinks !
    What would you back if you could?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,494
    dr_spyn said:

    @John_M Corbynites fighting a long game, most of them will be dead in the long run. given that Corbyn's core beliefs have been rejected time and time again since he entered politics. How much more time does he need?

    Much of the hard Left's thought process is opaque to me, but my abiding impression is that they just think the electorate is wrong. They're waiting for us to wake up and get with the program. The only thing that's delaying that moment is the sad fact that we're sheeple eternally duped by the right wing MSM.
  • Cyclefree on the last thread correctly points out that plenty of people have sincerely followed their principles and caused disaster because their principles turned out to be wrong (Savanorola and Robespierre, say). That's a sufficient argument not to vote for someone merely because they are people of principle.

    But it's not an argument to abandon principle. Eventually you have to decide what you think, after as much input and discussion as you can (or are willing to) handle. Once you've decided what it is, you should argue the case for it, and I don't see a case for pretending to believe something else in order to get elected and then either do what you privately think is wrong, or get elected and then renege.

    The way that Tony Blair squared the circle was to find plenty of things that we positively liked - minimum wage, action against discrimination, investment in the NHS, FOIA (even if he later regretted it himself), the Northern Ireland agreement - which allowed us to feel the package as a whole was good. That started to break down after Iraq and by 2015 we'd really run pretty dry on consensus improvements - I wasn't against an electricity price freeze, for instance, but it wasn't worth getting excited about. Centrists need a new project with positively attractive content.




    This is a deceptively attractive argument, but it's self-justification. The other candidates at the leadership election all put forward such policies - whether it was Liz on early years and decentralisation, or Yvette on Infrastructure/investment/childcare or Andy on supporting small business and improving opportunities for those who didn't go to university.

    It's just that Corbyn supporters preferred what he was offering, and derided the alternatives as empty.

    To argue that 'Centrists' need to offer members such policies just after having rejected them in favour of something more radical is merely refusing to take responsibility for your own choices.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Labour is way too unstable right now to be taking 11/8 bets on the identity of its leader at a distance of 4 1/2 years. Some of the longshots for next Labour leader might well be worth sniffing around though.

    Theoretical market - how many MPs will Labour have at their next leadership election?

    0-100 8/1
    101-200 11/5
    201+ 1/2
    Value depends on whether you can bet on credit methinks !
    What would you back if you could?
    I'd go for the 101-200 band
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/12013227/Manhunt-for-Salah-Abdeslam-as-Brussels-on-high-alert-after-Paris-attacks-Tuesday-live.html#update-20151124-1117
    The Prime Minister will set out a plan on Thursday to tackle Isil - also known as Isis or Daesh - in its Syrian stronghold.

    He told the Commons on Monday that he would let MPs consider his proposals over the weekend before a debate and vote on British military involvement in Syria.

    "I do not want anyone to feel that they are being bounced into a decision," he said. "I want this House to take the decision deliberately, but we should not take too long over it."
  • Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    FPT Nick

    "The absence of an alternative who has a clear path to victory over the Tories makes the choice easy. If such an alternative appeared, people would consider it, but at present the choice is someone who speaks for us and...not very much. Certainly I am not minded ever to vote for one of the people who are indulging in whinging and sniping without a coherent idea of their own, and I suspect others feel the same."

    Though I take your point Labour supporters above all want an effective opposition. I find nothing more frustrating than watching the Tories prance around like peacocks with no opposition because Corbyn's Labour Party don't know how to oppose

    Hear, hear. I expect Labour to expose them for the shower they are. What's tragic is that it's not that hard.

    Spot on - the Tories do not deserve the free ride they are getting and will continue to get with Corbyn and his mates in charge. Even in the few months since the Tories were elected there has been plenty of meat for a half decent opposition to feed on, with more on the way. But we don't have a half decent opposition, so the Tories genuinely have absolutely nothing to worry about except who will take over from Dave and win the 2020 GE. It's this abrogation of responsibility that I find most unforgiveable about Nick and the other Corbynistas. It's all about them, not the people that need a sensible alternative to the Tories.

  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,640
    Corbyn would clearly find some justification as to why ISIS discrimination is a progressive decision by these valiant freedom fighters. Something necessary in their campaign to defeat their oppressors.
  • Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree on the last thread correctly points out that plenty of people have sincerely followed their principles and caused disaster because their principles turned out to be wrong (Savanorola and Robespierre, say). That's a sufficient argument not to vote for someone merely because they are people of principle.

    But it's not an argument to abandon principle. Eventually you have to decide what you think, after as much input and discussion as you can (or are willing to) handle. Once you've decided what it is, you should argue the case for it, and I don't see a case for pretending to believe something else in order to get elected and then either do what you privately think is wrong, or get elected and then renege.

    The way that Tony Blair squared the circle was to find plenty of things that we positively liked - minimum wage, action against discrimination, investment in the NHS, FOIA (even if he later regretted it himself), the Northern Ireland agreement - which allowed us to feel the package as a whole was good. That started to break down after Iraq and by 2015 we'd really run pretty dry on consensus improvements - I wasn't against an electricity price freeze, for instance, but it wasn't worth getting excited about. Centrists need a new project with positively attractive content.


    This isn't just a problem with positioning. Enough floating voters believe that some of the core beliefs of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are morally wrong, and won't vote Labour however bad the Tories are, as a result. They don't look at Corbyn and think "I don't agree with him, but at least he's got principles." They think he's a bad man.

    Precisely. Corbyn Labour will not ever get a hearing on the economy and other day-to-day issues because of the views the party leadership holds on national security, the UK's role in the world and the country's history. You can't spend 30 years hanging out with apologists for terrorism and expect the British electorate to give you the time of day.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,986

    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    FPT Nick

    "The absence of an alternative who has a clear path to victory over the Tories makes the choice easy. If such an alternative appeared, people would consider it, but at present the choice is someone who speaks for us and...not very much. Certainly I am not minded ever to vote for one of the people who are indulging in whinging and sniping without a coherent idea of their own, and I suspect others feel the same."

    Though I take your point Labour supporters above all want an effective opposition. I find nothing more frustrating than watching the Tories prance around like peacocks with no opposition because Corbyn's Labour Party don't know how to oppose

    Hear, hear. I expect Labour to expose them for the shower they are. What's tragic is that it's not that hard.

    Spot on - the Tories do not deserve the free ride they are getting and will continue to get with Corbyn and his mates in charge. Even in the few months since the Tories were elected there has been plenty of meat for a half decent opposition to feed on, with more on the way. But we don't have a half decent opposition, so the Tories genuinely have absolutely nothing to worry about except who will take over from Dave and win the 2020 GE. It's this abrogation of responsibility that I find most unforgiveable about Nick and the other Corbynistas. It's all about them, not the people that need a sensible alternative to the Tories.

    Quite so.

    This is a government getting an easy ride , long term this isn't actually good for the Tories either.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    edited November 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour is way too unstable right now to be taking 11/8 bets on the identity of its leader at a distance of 4 1/2 years. Some of the longshots for next Labour leader might well be worth sniffing around though.

    Theoretical market - how many MPs will Labour have at their next leadership election?

    0-100 8/1
    101-200 11/5
    201+ 1/2
    Value depends on whether you can bet on credit methinks !
    What would you back if you could?
    200+ 1-2 on credit.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Just ploughing through the 42-27 Comres.

    * Labour third among pensioners.
    * Nearly third among soon to be pensioners (55+)
    * Third in Scotland
    * Nearly third among C2 voters
    * Third in East England, and close to third in West Mids and SE.

  • Well I never, ISIS are a bunch of racists.
  • I'd go for the 101-200 band

    Pulpstar said:

    200+ 1-2 on credit.

    Sort it out between yourselves and send me a cheque if 0-100 comes in :)
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,663

    Cyclefree on the last thread correctly points out that plenty of people have sincerely followed their principles and caused disaster because their principles turned out to be wrong (Savanorola and Robespierre, say). That's a sufficient argument not to vote for someone merely because they are people of principle.

    But it's not an argument to abandon principle. Eventually you have to decide what you think, after as much input and discussion as you can (or are willing to) handle. Once you've decided what it is, you should argue the case for it, and I don't see a case for pretending to believe something else in order to get elected and then either do what you privately think is wrong, or get elected and then renege.

    The way that Tony Blair squared the circle was to find plenty of things that we positively liked - minimum wage, action against discrimination, investment in the NHS, FOIA (even if he later regretted it himself), the Northern Ireland agreement - which allowed us to feel the package as a whole was good. That started to break down after Iraq and by 2015 we'd really run pretty dry on consensus improvements - I wasn't against an electricity price freeze, for instance, but it wasn't worth getting excited about. Centrists need a new project with positively attractive content.

    "New project" = "new kinda politics". We can see what that means to Corbynistas - playing to lose without having been bribed to do so. Hold on, the bribe is possession of the Labour party.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,984
    John_M said:

    dr_spyn said:

    @John_M Corbynites fighting a long game, most of them will be dead in the long run. given that Corbyn's core beliefs have been rejected time and time again since he entered politics. How much more time does he need?

    Much of the hard Left's thought process is opaque to me, but my abiding impression is that they just think the electorate is wrong. They're waiting for us to wake up and get with the program. The only thing that's delaying that moment is the sad fact that we're sheeple eternally duped by the right wing MSM.
    Perhaps the time has come to change the sheeple.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,663
    John_M said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Corbynites turning Labour into a noisy, ineffectual pressure group. What a bunch of witless clowns.

    Good morning all. At the risk of repeating myself, Corbyn and his fellow travellers are playing the long game. No government lasts forever - the Tories are bound to screw things up, or mishandle a recession. If Corbyn is ousted, he'll be replaced by another of his coterie.

    What they need to ensure is that Labour aren't replaced by the Lib Dems as the natural opposition. That seems like an easy task, or at least easier than going from a crushing defeat in 2015 to winning in 2020.

    The wild card is going to be whether the unions continue to financially support Corbynite Labour. An army marches on its stomach etc.
    Uncle Len rules OK
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,931
    edited November 2015
    chestnut said:

    Just ploughing through the 42-27 Comres.

    * Labour third among pensioners.
    * Nearly third among soon to be pensioners (55+)
    * Third in Scotland
    * Nearly third among C2 voters
    * Third in East England, and close to third in West Mids and SE.

    Corbynism sweeping the nation...unless you are old or working class or Scottish or live south of Manchester (excluding London)....Sounds like back to the days of the People's Republic of South Yorkshire and the GLC.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077

    I'd go for the 101-200 band

    Pulpstar said:

    200+ 1-2 on credit.

    Sort it out between yourselves and send me a cheque if 0-100 comes in :)
    I'll go £50 at 1-2 200+ if you like.
  • Pulpstar said:

    I'd go for the 101-200 band

    Pulpstar said:

    200+ 1-2 on credit.

    Sort it out between yourselves and send me a cheque if 0-100 comes in :)
    I'll go £50 at 1-2 200+ if you like.
    Done. Didn't take long for it not to be a theoretical market...
  • I'd go for the 101-200 band

    Pulpstar said:

    200+ 1-2 on credit.

    Sort it out between yourselves and send me a cheque if 0-100 comes in :)
    I'll go for £50 on the 101-200 @11/5
  • I'd go for the 101-200 band

    Pulpstar said:

    200+ 1-2 on credit.

    Sort it out between yourselves and send me a cheque if 0-100 comes in :)
    I'll go for £50 on the 101-200 @11/5
    Also done.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    FPT Nick

    "The absence of an alternative who has a clear path to victory over the Tories makes the choice easy. If such an alternative appeared, people would consider it, but at present the choice is someone who speaks for us and...not very much. Certainly I am not minded ever to vote for one of the people who are indulging in whinging and sniping without a coherent idea of their own, and I suspect others feel the same."

    Though I take your point Labour supporters above all want an effective opposition. I find nothing more frustrating than watching the Tories prance around like peacocks with no opposition because Corbyn's Labour Party don't know how to oppose

    Hear, hear. I expect Labour to expose them for the shower they are. What's tragic is that it's not that hard.
    Exposing Cameron and his clique for what they are shouldn't be that hard I agree, though not many people seem to manage it. However, that is a necessary but not sufficient activity of you want to get the Conservatives out of government. Surely it is also necessary to offer a coherent, convincing and attractive alternative. Labour are so far away from doing that as to be in fairy land.

    There is of course no rule that says a party cannot continue to be elected to govern for decades. It has happened, with greater or lesser success, in other countries and I see no reason why it could not happen here.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/the-corbyn-show-is-already-over-but-let-s-keep-laughing-9e65520adaaf#.thaoyjt87
    The Corbyn leadership is the most farcical, ill-advised and embarrassing episode in British political history. Everything about it is wrong. And, as I say, it is already over. Until he and his motley crew understand this and remove their sorry backsides from the stage, it is incumbent upon the rest of us to point, to jeer, and, most of all, to laugh.

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree on the last thread correctly points out that plenty of people have sincerely followed their principles and caused disaster because their principles turned out to be wrong (Savanorola and Robespierre, say). That's a sufficient argument not to vote for someone merely because they are people of principle.

    But it's not an argument to abandon principle. Eventually you have to decide what you think, after as much input and discussion as you can (or are willing to) handle. Once you've decided what it is, you should argue the case for it, and I don't see a case for pretending to believe something else in order to get elected and then either do what you privately think is wrong, or get elected and then renege.

    The way that Tony Blair squared the circle was to find plenty of things that we positively liked - minimum wage, action against discrimination, investment in the NHS, FOIA (even if he later regretted it himself), the Northern Ireland agreement - which allowed us to feel the package as a whole was good. That started to break down after Iraq and by 2015 we'd really run pretty dry on consensus improvements - I wasn't against an electricity price freeze, for instance, but it wasn't worth getting excited about. Centrists need a new project with positively attractive content.


    This isn't just a problem with positioning. Enough floating voters believe that some of the core beliefs of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are morally wrong, and won't vote Labour however bad the Tories are, as a result. They don't look at Corbyn and think "I don't agree with him, but at least he's got principles." They think he's a bad man.

    Precisely. Corbyn Labour will not ever get a hearing on the economy and other day-to-day issues because of the views the party leadership holds on national security, the UK's role in the world and the country's history. You can't spend 30 years hanging out with apologists for terrorism and expect the British electorate to give you the time of day.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,077
    @Tissue_Price You must be praying for Labour annihilation now :)
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,966
    Personally, I think Corbynite Labour are likely to get hammered in London. Here of all places being equivocal on terrorism is going to repel voters. In 2015 I voted for Rupa Huq in Ealing Central and Acton. She nominated Corbyn, despite supporting Cooper; she's going to have to give me a damned good reason for voting for her ever again.
  • MikeK said:
    What are Turkey playing at? Trying to send Putin a signal? I am not sure they would like him to signal back.
    I hope Washington is on the phone pronto explaining that NATO is a mutual defence organisation. It doesn't necessarily provide protection for adventurism.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,663

    First ,

    to mention aircraft carriers on this thread !

    They've named the new Aircraft Carriers badly.

    They should be named the Longshanks and the Margaret Thatcher
    No problem with "Margaret Thatcher" (of blessed memory) registering but I think Longshanks will go over the heads of most Scots. To be fair, I think the significance of both would be lost on most English too.
    As the King of Subtleness, I prefer subtle jokes/references that go over the heads of most people.

    Makes me feel all smug and superior
    I tried to think of something suitably obscure to respond with but I couldn't so I haven't.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited November 2015
    The BMG 37-30 poll, is 38-29 using Ipsos-Mori Certain to Vote.
  • Pulpstar said:

    @Tissue_Price You must be praying for Labour annihilation now :)

    I'm praying for the 600 seat reduction to go through now
  • Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Thats the killer stat really. Labour won't get back into power until they tire of losing again, and i;ll take them several elections to get there.
    Took the Tories three defeats in a row to come back to sanity.
    From what I can see they are still on that journey.
    We are indeed, if the final two in the Tory leadership contest is between Boris and George I know we've completed that journey.

    I still have a fear the contest will be between Liam Fox and Owen Paterson (that still gives me nightmares)
    The badgers outwitted Patterson, but I think he'll get the better of Liam Fox if it comes to that particular battle.
    Patterson, the only Tory who could lose to Corbyn.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    @haynesdeborah

    Extraordinary session of @NATO's North Atlantic Council will be held today following Turkey's downing of a Russian jet

    MikeK said:
    What are Turkey playing at? Trying to send Putin a signal? I am not sure they would like him to signal back.
    I hope Washington is on the phone pronto explaining that NATO is a mutual defence organisation. It doesn't necessarily provide protection for adventurism.
  • @stephenkb: Just 53 Labour MPs have majorities bigger than Michael Meacher's was in 2015

    @NickCohen4: @stephenkb People I spoke to in Oldham thought Lab would squeak it. Mind you that was last week

    @stephenkb: @NickCohen4 Consensus at the moment seems to be Labour by 1000 votes. Hoping to go up later this week.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,966
    edited November 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    Thats the killer stat really. Labour won't get back into power until they tire of losing again, and i;ll take them several elections to get there.
    Took the Tories three defeats in a row to come back to sanity.
    From what I can see they are still on that journey.
    We are indeed, if the final two in the Tory leadership contest is between Boris and George I know we've completed that journey.

    I still have a fear the contest will be between Liam Fox and Owen Paterson (that still gives me nightmares)
    The badgers outwitted Patterson, but I think he'll get the better of Liam Fox if it comes to that particular battle.
    Patterson, the only Tory who could lose to Corbyn.
    There is no such Tory. It'd even be a cakewalk for Nadine Dorries.
This discussion has been closed.