Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember Starmer only got 31% of first choices in the YouGov L

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 15 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember Starmer only got 31% of first choices in the YouGov LAB members’ poll

A fair amount has happened in the LAB leadership race since the YouGov members’ poll which was carried out over Christmas. The big number that people recall is that after six rounds of lower preference distribution Starmer was beating RLB by 61% to 39%. The first preferences were:

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,290
    edited January 15
    First! Like Starmer or Nandy. Can't see anybody else winning.
  • First ... yet again!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,775
    Second!
  • eekeek Posts: 7,052
    edited January 15
    Fourth as Jess will be.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 38,509
    Another PMQs done in just over 30 minutes - and all MPs down to ask questions did so.....
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,807

    Sheffield is in the Midlands?

    Ferfuxakes how can Yorkshire be in the Midlands? We’re the most Northern county you can find!
    The station is called Sheffield Midland. It is on the Midland Mainline.

    Must be in the Midlands then.
    Nope just Sheffield:

    https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/shf/details.html

    image
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 13,898

    Another PMQs done in just over 30 minutes - and all MPs down to ask questions did so.....

    But zero answers, rendering the event pointless.
  • Andrea Leadsom has joined the RLB camp.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,187
    2000 Syrian mercenaries deployed by Turkey in Libya in support of the government, taking on Russian and Sudanese mercenaries backing the rebel warlord Haftar (who is also supported by France...):
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/15/exclusive-2000-syrian-troops-deployed-to-libya-to-support-regime

    Not the most stable of situations.

    Imagine if Trump’s semi-random efforts do succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime.
    What then ?
  • isamisam Posts: 30,546
    edited January 15
    Good header.. Starmer a lay it seems

    Is it better to back Nandy and RLB at 28% ish rather than lay Starmer at 67%? @MikeSmithson
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,187
    Meanwhile the Iranians ramp up the rhetoric:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/15/european-troops-may-be-at-risk-after-dispute-process-triggered-iran
    Iran’s president has warned that European soldiers in the Middle East could be in danger after the UK, France and Germany triggered a dispute mechanism in a nuclear agreement that could lead to the reimposition of international sanctions on the country.

    Hassan Rouhani’s remarks on Wednesday were the first direct threat he has made against European powers as tensions have grown between Tehran and Washington since Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the nuclear deal more than 18 months ago.

    “Today, the American soldier is in danger, tomorrow the European soldier could be in danger,” Rouhani said in a televised address to his cabinet....


    And he’s the moderate ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,345
    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,505
    edited January 15
    Imprtant FTPT
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:
    And the Tories won a UK wide majority on their manifesto commitment to block indyref2 in that UK wide election
    No, clearly the only option was to elect Stephen Kerr. He was not elected, thus IndyRef 2 is Conservative policy.

    Checkmate.
    Stephen Kerr was standing to be a candidate for the UK Parliament on the same no to indyref2 Tory manifesto policy as every other Tory Westminster candidate.

    The Tories got a majority of seats in the Commons, thus a mandate for no to indyref2 as per their policy.

    Checkmate
    I'm sorry, I had already declared Checkmated. Your mate had been checked. There is no comeback.

    I don't make the rules.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 22,122
    edited January 15
    fpt for @Dura_Ace

    It was indeed faster than 122mph. When's the investiture?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,320
    If it comes down to 3 then I expect the winner (whomever it is) will get an absolute majority in round 1. Remember that Corbyn won with an absolute majority in round 1 with 4 contenders (or 3 plus Liz Kendall).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,290
    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Yes Starmer must be 1st or 2nd. Long Bailey can be 2nd or 3rd. Nandy can be 1st or 3rd.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    HYUFD said:
    Why? Surely the 350m a week that has been promised will sort the waiting times right out.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,345
    edited January 15
    Alistair said:

    Imprtant FTPT

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:
    And the Tories won a UK wide majority on their manifesto commitment to block indyref2 in that UK wide election
    No, clearly the only option was to elect Stephen Kerr. He was not elected, thus IndyRef 2 is Conservative policy.

    Checkmate.
    Stephen Kerr was standing to be a candidate for the UK Parliament on the same no to indyref2 Tory manifesto policy as every other Tory Westminster candidate.

    The Tories got a majority of seats in the Commons, thus a mandate for no to indyref2 as per their policy.

    Checkmate
    I'm sorry, I had already declared Checkmated. Your mate had been checked. There is no comeback.

    I don't make the rules.
    Far from it, my point was absolute as the election was for the UKwide Parliament to which the Tories won a majority on a manifesto commitment for no indyref2. You cannot declare checkmate if you have not achieved it, you have not
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,320
    Alistair said:

    Imprtant FTPT

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:
    And the Tories won a UK wide majority on their manifesto commitment to block indyref2 in that UK wide election
    No, clearly the only option was to elect Stephen Kerr. He was not elected, thus IndyRef 2 is Conservative policy.

    Checkmate.
    Stephen Kerr was standing to be a candidate for the UK Parliament on the same no to indyref2 Tory manifesto policy as every other Tory Westminster candidate.

    The Tories got a majority of seats in the Commons, thus a mandate for no to indyref2 as per their policy.

    Checkmate
    I'm sorry, I had already declared Checkmated. Your mate had been checked. There is no comeback.

    I don't make the rules.
    But your Checkmate was false.

    The way to prevent Indyref2 was for the Tories to win a majority (not an individual candidate to be an MP). The Tories won a majority. Checkmate.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,514
    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Dura_Ace

    It was indeed faster than 122mph. When's the investiture?

    As it says on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Kremlin wall... Your name is unknown but your deeds are immortal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,345

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
  • isamisam Posts: 30,546
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    That's what my Corbynite friend who tipped RLB says too
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,320

    HYUFD said:
    Why? Surely the 350m a week that has been promised will sort the waiting times right out.
    The problem with A&E is not the 4 hour wait time or the billions of funding that the NHS gets.

    The problem is it is abused as a first rather than last point of call by far too many who have neither had a serious accident nor are having an emergency.

    If more people got told by A&E "sorry your issue is one for your GP, go book an appointment with them" then A&E would be better. Going to A&E because you can't be bothered to get an appointment and wait for it is not the solution.

    Hell, some issues could be dealt with by telling people to go speak to a pharmacist.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890

    HYUFD said:
    Why? Surely the 350m a week that has been promised will sort the waiting times right out.
    The problem with A&E is not the 4 hour wait time or the billions of funding that the NHS gets.

    The problem is it is abused as a first rather than last point of call by far too many who have neither had a serious accident nor are having an emergency.

    If more people got told by A&E "sorry your issue is one for your GP, go book an appointment with them" then A&E would be better. Going to A&E because you can't be bothered to get an appointment and wait for it is not the solution.

    Hell, some issues could be dealt with by telling people to go speak to a pharmacist.
    I agree but what has that got to do with A&E waiting targets?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    That's what my Corbynite friend who tipped RLB says too
    I agree that Corbynistas are probably more willing to put their EU views aside in pursuit of ideological purity but I don’t see how that helps Nandy. She’s not exactly a devoted Corbynista.

    In my experience on ‘the ground’ Corbynistas are just as pro EU as moderates.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    Richard Tice misleading people again. Classic Brexit.

  • isamisam Posts: 30,546

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    That's what my Corbynite friend who tipped RLB says too
    I agree that Corbynistas are probably more willing to put their EU views aside in pursuit of ideological purity but I don’t see how that helps Nandy. She’s not exactly a devoted Corbynista.

    In my experience on ‘the ground’ Corbynistas are just as pro EU as moderates.
    The far left are much more likely to be Brexiteers than moderates are. So if it came down to Starmer vs Nandy, their votes might go to the one who was less of a Brexblocker
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,811

    HYUFD said:
    Why? Surely the 350m a week that has been promised will sort the waiting times right out.
    Doubtless he plans to set a more ambitious target.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,505
    edited January 15

    Alistair said:

    Imprtant FTPT

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:
    And the Tories won a UK wide majority on their manifesto commitment to block indyref2 in that UK wide election
    No, clearly the only option was to elect Stephen Kerr. He was not elected, thus IndyRef 2 is Conservative policy.

    Checkmate.
    Stephen Kerr was standing to be a candidate for the UK Parliament on the same no to indyref2 Tory manifesto policy as every other Tory Westminster candidate.

    The Tories got a majority of seats in the Commons, thus a mandate for no to indyref2 as per their policy.

    Checkmate
    I'm sorry, I had already declared Checkmated. Your mate had been checked. There is no comeback.

    I don't make the rules.
    But your Checkmate was false.

    The way to prevent Indyref2 was for the Tories to win a majority (not an individual candidate to be an MP). The Tories won a majority. Checkmate.
    That's not what they said in their leaflets.

    Double checkmate no backsies.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    isam said:

    isam said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    That's what my Corbynite friend who tipped RLB says too
    I agree that Corbynistas are probably more willing to put their EU views aside in pursuit of ideological purity but I don’t see how that helps Nandy. She’s not exactly a devoted Corbynista.

    In my experience on ‘the ground’ Corbynistas are just as pro EU as moderates.
    The far left are much more likely to be Brexiteers than moderates are. So if it came down to Starmer vs Nandy, their votes might go to the one who was less of a Brexblocker
    Agreed but you can’t describe all “Corbynistas” as the “far left”. I am willing to bet that the “far left” are still a big minority in the Labour party.

    Corbyn supporters as a whole are not all raging trots. See @NickPalmer ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,345

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Labour members who voted Leave prefer Long Bailey to Starmer 60% to 40%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/02/keir-starmer-comfortably-leads-labour-leader-race
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    HYUFD said:
    So i’m going to put my @HYUFD hat on:

    Removing don’t knows, 72% of the British public want rid of the House of Lords and therefore think the appointment of Zak Goldsmith and Nicky Morgan to said chamber is a disgrace.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,546
    HYUFD said:
    If fewer people attend than went on the "Peoples March", is that a mandate for a second referendum?

    Or just straight revoke?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,557
    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Agree with that analysis. What about if the final two are Lisa and Sir Keir (highly unlikely I know)?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Labour members who voted Leave prefer Long Bailey to Starmer 60% to 40%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/02/keir-starmer-comfortably-leads-labour-leader-race
    So you’re saying that 40% of the tiny amount of Labour members who back Brexit support Starmer?

    God that’s bad for RLB and basically disproves your point.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,345
    edited January 15

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Labour members who voted Leave prefer Long Bailey to Starmer 60% to 40%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/02/keir-starmer-comfortably-leads-labour-leader-race
    So you’re saying that 40% of the tiny amount of Labour members who back Brexit support Starmer?

    God that’s bad for RLB and basically disproves your point.
    It completely and utterly proves my point and shows you were completely and utterly wrong.

    While Starmer leads with all Labour members against Long Bailey 61% to 39% with Leavers Long Bailey leads 60% to 40% so Long Bailey's supporters are far more pro Brexit than the average Labour member and therefore more likely to back Nandy if she is eliminated
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,211
    edited January 15
    HYUFD said:

    twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1217427830943948800?s=20

    Andrew Adonis was on Sky yesterday and it was clear he felt the same. It was half time and it was a game of two halves, which he would be doing everything possible "to hold the government to account" during this time...i.e. going to try and do everything to frustrate it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910

    HYUFD said:
    Why? Surely the 350m a week that has been promised will sort the waiting times right out.
    The problem with A&E is not the 4 hour wait time or the billions of funding that the NHS gets.

    The problem is it is abused as a first rather than last point of call by far too many who have neither had a serious accident nor are having an emergency.

    If more people got told by A&E "sorry your issue is one for your GP, go book an appointment with them" then A&E would be better. Going to A&E because you can't be bothered to get an appointment and wait for it is not the solution.

    Hell, some issues could be dealt with by telling people to go speak to a pharmacist.
    This has cropped up before. The problems with that approach are

    1) your ability to get a GP appointment is very dependent on the practice. In mine the waiting list for an appointment is approx three weeks.
    2) illness and pain do not keep office hours. The illness/injury may strike in the middle of the night or on weekends when the GP is shut.
    3) pharmacists are not GPS. Pharmacists are skilled individuals who can advise but they don't diagnose nor prescribe and cases that require something not over the counter or grey-market stuff they cannot help with
    4) pharmacists don't do tests. Many symptoms may have trivial or serious causes and a blood test or other tests are necessary for differential diagnosis.

    There are ways to defend against this - yearly or six-monthly checkups are a good one - but none that cure the problem entirely. Even 111 can go wrong. One good solution is having GPs in A&E for the minor cases.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Labour members who voted Leave prefer Long Bailey to Starmer 60% to 40%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/02/keir-starmer-comfortably-leads-labour-leader-race
    So you’re saying that 40% of the tiny amount of Labour members who back Brexit support Starmer?

    God that’s bad for RLB and basically disproves your point.
    It completely and utterly proves my point and shows you were completely and utterly wrong.
    The numbers don't lie mate. Have some humility.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,466
    Jonathan said:

    Another PMQs done in just over 30 minutes - and all MPs down to ask questions did so.....

    But zero answers, rendering the event pointless.
    Have there been answers given for years? Its the archetypal, eternal complaint. A long session with no answers is worse than a shorter one with no answers, if the same number of questions are made.

    Personally I think an hour should be the minimum, doubling the number of questions. Through sheer volume some answers may slip through.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,345

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Agree with that analysis. What about if the final two are Lisa and Sir Keir (highly unlikely I know)?
    Long Bailey and Nandy voters likely go to Starmer
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,557
    edited January 15
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Labour members who voted Leave prefer Long Bailey to Starmer 60% to 40%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/02/keir-starmer-comfortably-leads-labour-leader-race
    Really? I'm stunned by how popular (40%??) Sir Keir is with Lexiteers.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,639

    Sheffield is in the Midlands?

    Ferfuxakes how can Yorkshire be in the Midlands? We’re the most Northern county you can find!
    The station is called Sheffield Midland. It is on the Midland Mainline.

    Must be in the Midlands then.
    Nope just Sheffield:

    https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/shf/details.html

    image
    Fake news!

    You'll be claiming next that there aren't stations called:

    - Carlisle Citadel
    - Hull Paragon
    - Darlington Bank Top
    - etc.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,345
    edited January 15

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Labour members who voted Leave prefer Long Bailey to Starmer 60% to 40%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/02/keir-starmer-comfortably-leads-labour-leader-race
    So you’re saying that 40% of the tiny amount of Labour members who back Brexit support Starmer?

    God that’s bad for RLB and basically disproves your point.
    It completely and utterly proves my point and shows you were completely and utterly wrong.
    The numbers don't lie mate. Have some humility.
    Yes do, you were completely wrong I was completely right
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,466
    HYUFD said:
    And afterwards it will be it's no time to change a successful team. Election cliches are so dull.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,415
    kinabalu said:

    First! Like Starmer or Nandy. Can't see anybody else winning.

    Hmm I dont think the labour membership is that sensible.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,466

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Labour members who voted Leave prefer Long Bailey to Starmer 60% to 40%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/02/keir-starmer-comfortably-leads-labour-leader-race
    Really? I'm stunned by how popular (40%??) Sir Keir is with Lexiteers.
    He looks like a PM. Might be enough.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,517
    Anyone else wondering what Sunil did to get banned? :)
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 302

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Problem is you're both viewing so-called Corbynistas as a homogeneous group (use of that word already gives this away). The young university-based part tend to be at the most Remain end. The ones who have been socialists for decades are (on average) more accepting of Brexit. And there are plenty who don't fit neatly into either of these categories.

    If I were to guess, I think that a lower proportion of Phillips supporters than Long-Bailey supporters have moved on from Brexit. Not so sure about Starmer supporters. They were probably more uniformly Remain in the first place, but they are probably also more pragmatic.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,159
    edited January 15
    I broadly agree with Mike's analysis, though I'm aware of several colleagues who I'd think of as floating voters all plumping for Starmer. I also know Corbyn supporters who are plumping for Long-Bailey because they want left-wing continuity above all, but other Corbynites feel that Starmer has done enough (cf. the McDonalds case and Brent Spar) to count as "green left". I don't actually know anyone at all who has said they plan to vote for Nandy or Thornberry (my unscientific sample is colleagues in Broxtowe and SW Surrey on various wings of the party), and just a few who are going for Phillips, who is getting a subset of the anti-Corbyn members.

    I've not made up my mind yet (I'd like to see a debate first) and I think people could shift if the debates show Starmer stumbling, but he will need to make a serious mistake to lose this. The deputy race is pretty sewn up for Rayner: consider that she has a big PLP lead AND Momentum support, a unique feat worthy of more attention than it's had. If she'd stood for leader we'd be seeing a more uncertain race IMO.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910

    HYUFD said:
    Why? Surely the 350m a week that has been promised will sort the waiting times right out.
    They may have been fibbing. Who expected that, eh? :(
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    edited January 15
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Labour members who voted Leave prefer Long Bailey to Starmer 60% to 40%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/02/keir-starmer-comfortably-leads-labour-leader-race
    So you’re saying that 40% of the tiny amount of Labour members who back Brexit support Starmer?

    God that’s bad for RLB and basically disproves your point.
    It completely and utterly proves my point and shows you were completely and utterly wrong.
    The numbers don't lie mate. Have some humility.
    Yes do
    There’s no point have any reasoned debate with you because you find it impossible to deviate from your talking points.

    Your premise is that RLB voters are more likely to go to Nandy than Starmer right?

    You assert that the reason for this is because of Brexit?

    First let’s remember that the overwhelming majority of Labour members are pro Remain.

    Based on your data, nearly 4 in 10 of that small amount of Brexit supporting members are already backing Starmer over RLB. That’s a huge amount for “Mr Remain” which essentially wipes out the relevancy of that cohort.

    Therefore I say that the argument has nothing to do with Brexit and is more down to left wing right wing. RLB may transfer to Nandy because shes seen as more left wing. Not because of anything to do with Brexit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,345
    rpjs said:

    Anyone else wondering what Sunil did to get banned? :)

    Insufficient loyalty to the Crown
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,415
    I watched the Dem debate last night, and have to say Amy Klobuchar really came across well, and I'm someone who thought America is so unequal it needs a radical like Sanders. I believe she could actually get things done.

    I dont know what the pundits reaction to the debate is yet, but I think she will have another surge. Enough to put her into double digits. I'm saying this as someone who was really turned off by her in the bullying allegations.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,580
    isam said:

    HYUFD said:
    If fewer people attend than went on the "Peoples March", is that a mandate for a second referendum?

    Or just straight revoke?
    At a minimum. Probably a grovelling apology as well. This is how democracy works, isn’t it?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,637
    HYUFD said:
    I'll be wearing a black ribbon when I'm out and about that infamous day.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    kicorse said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Problem is you're both viewing so-called Corbynistas as a homogeneous group (use of that word already gives this away). The young university-based part tend to be at the most Remain end. The ones who have been socialists for decades are (on average) more accepting of Brexit. And there are plenty who don't fit neatly into either of these categories.

    If I were to guess, I think that a lower proportion of Phillips supporters than Long-Bailey supporters have moved on from Brexit. Not so sure about Starmer supporters. They were probably more uniformly Remain in the first place, but they are probably also more pragmatic.
    No I agree with you. I’m just questioning the premise that Nandy will get loads of transfers “cos Brexit” which I just don’t agree with.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,546
    Only £9.34ph? They might as well ask the students to call them ‘Massa’

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,580
    nunu2 said:

    I watched the Dem debate last night, and have to say Amy Klobuchar really came across well, and I'm someone who thought America is so unequal it needs a radical like Sanders. I believe she could actually get things done.

    I dont know what the pundits reaction to the debate is yet, but I think she will have another surge. Enough to put her into double digits. I'm saying this as someone who was really turned off by her in the bullying allegations.

    @rcs1000 summary for Klobucher was “meh” and he has been a bit of a fan. Personally I’m just appalled that the Democrats are screwing this up so badly and at risk of having that ignorant buffoon in the White House for another 4 long years.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 302

    kicorse said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Problem is you're both viewing so-called Corbynistas as a homogeneous group (use of that word already gives this away). The young university-based part tend to be at the most Remain end. The ones who have been socialists for decades are (on average) more accepting of Brexit. And there are plenty who don't fit neatly into either of these categories.

    If I were to guess, I think that a lower proportion of Phillips supporters than Long-Bailey supporters have moved on from Brexit. Not so sure about Starmer supporters. They were probably more uniformly Remain in the first place, but they are probably also more pragmatic.
    No I agree with you. I’m just questioning the premise that Nandy will get loads of transfers “cos Brexit” which I just don’t agree with.
    I agree with you there. Her Brexit position - a passionate Remainer in 2016, who equally passionately believed that the result needed to be respected - won't directly help her with either group, and will do her plenty of harm.

    Indirectly, it might help her, because she is seen as having more foresight than the other candidates, and because it is evidence that she puts principle ahead of self-interest.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,580
    kicorse said:

    kicorse said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Problem is you're both viewing so-called Corbynistas as a homogeneous group (use of that word already gives this away). The young university-based part tend to be at the most Remain end. The ones who have been socialists for decades are (on average) more accepting of Brexit. And there are plenty who don't fit neatly into either of these categories.

    If I were to guess, I think that a lower proportion of Phillips supporters than Long-Bailey supporters have moved on from Brexit. Not so sure about Starmer supporters. They were probably more uniformly Remain in the first place, but they are probably also more pragmatic.
    No I agree with you. I’m just questioning the premise that Nandy will get loads of transfers “cos Brexit” which I just don’t agree with.
    I agree with you there. Her Brexit position - a passionate Remainer in 2016, who equally passionately believed that the result needed to be respected - won't directly help her with either group, and will do her plenty of harm.

    Indirectly, it might help her, because she is seen as having more foresight than the other candidates, and because it is evidence that she puts principle ahead of self-interest.
    So, in fairness, did Corbyn. Boris on the other hand...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,345

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Labour members who voted Leave prefer Long Bailey to Starmer 60% to 40%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/02/keir-starmer-comfortably-leads-labour-leader-race
    So you’re saying that 40% of the tiny amount of Labour members who back Brexit support Starmer?

    God that’s bad for RLB and basically disproves your point.
    It completely and utterly proves my point and shows you were completely and utterly wrong.
    The numbers don't lie mate. Have some humility.
    Yes do
    There’s no point have any reasoned debate with you because you find it impossible to deviate from your talking points.

    Your premise is that RLB voters are more likely to go to Nandy than Starmer right?

    You assert that the reason for this is because of Brexit?

    First let’s remember that the overwhelming majority of Labour members are pro Remain.

    Based on your data, nearly 4 in 10 of that small amount of Brexit supporting members are already backing Starmer over RLB. That’s a huge amount for “Mr Remain” which essentially wipes out the relevancy of that cohort.

    Therefore I say that the argument has nothing to do with Brexit and is more down to left wing right wing. RLB may transfer to Nandy because shes seen as more left wing. Not because of anything to do with Brexit.
    60% of all Labour Leave members are backing Long Bailey, just 39% of Labour members overall, that is an astonishing discrepancy so you can rant and whinge as much as you like but my point stands absolutely and you were wrong, there is no difference at all between Nandy and Starmer on a left right axis, the difference is all over their previous attitude to Brexit so my point that RLB voters are more likely to transfer to Nandy than Starmer is correct.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    kicorse said:

    kicorse said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If the final 2 are Starmer and Long Bailey then most Nandy votes will go to Starmer, the final 2 are Starmer and Phillips then most Long Bailey and Nandy votes will go to Starmer however if Nandy got to the final 2 she could win Long Bailey voters as having been less supportive of EUref2 before the election

    Most Corbynistas are very pro Remain. Ergo most RLB voters are very pro Remain.

    Nandy’s stance on Brexit is not likely to be an advantage.
    Corbynistas are actually less pro Remain and more accepting of Brexit than Starmer and certainly Phillips voters
    Got evidence for that ludicrous statement?
    Problem is you're both viewing so-called Corbynistas as a homogeneous group (use of that word already gives this away). The young university-based part tend to be at the most Remain end. The ones who have been socialists for decades are (on average) more accepting of Brexit. And there are plenty who don't fit neatly into either of these categories.

    If I were to guess, I think that a lower proportion of Phillips supporters than Long-Bailey supporters have moved on from Brexit. Not so sure about Starmer supporters. They were probably more uniformly Remain in the first place, but they are probably also more pragmatic.
    No I agree with you. I’m just questioning the premise that Nandy will get loads of transfers “cos Brexit” which I just don’t agree with.
    I agree with you there. Her Brexit position - a passionate Remainer in 2016, who equally passionately believed that the result needed to be respected - won't directly help her with either group, and will do her plenty of harm.

    Indirectly, it might help her, because she is seen as having more foresight than the other candidates, and because it is evidence that she puts principle ahead of self-interest.
    Perhaps. The issue is that there is no agreement within Labour on why they lost the election. RLB supporters are probably more likely to blame Brexit than Corbyn and therefore it follows they would respect Nandy’s foresight.

    But if actual Leave voters are still plumping 40% to Starmer then he must he doing something right with that cohort.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 38,509
    rpjs said:

    Anyone else wondering what Sunil did to get banned? :)

    Has he? I think his avatar looks like the 'Banned' one but says "Keep Calmer and Vote Starmer"
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,580
    Was PMQs really that dull? The only comment on it was that it finished almost on time. Did Corbyn have nothing to say at all?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    HYUFD said:


    60% of all Labour Leave members are backing Long Bailey, just 39% of Labour members overall, that is an astonishing discrepancy so you can rant and whinge as much as you like but my point stands absolutely and you were wrong, there is no difference at all between Nandy and Starmer on a left right axis, the difference is all over their previous attitude to Brexit so my point that RLB voters are more likely to transfer to Nandy than Starmer is correct.

    Your position is incoherent. Remember we’re talking about labour members not voters.

    Only 17% of Labour members voted Leave according to this poll: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/labour-members-love-corbyn-but-hate-brexit/

    So if 60% of them are backing RLB over Starmer that’s only 10% of the membership. And we don’t even know it they’d vote for Nandy over Starmer as a second choice anyway.

    I think the fact that 40% of Labour’s tiny Leave constituent are happy to back Mr Remain over RLB anyway shows that he’s clearly appealing to Leave members anyway. Certainly not the kryptonite you’re saying he is.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,059

    rpjs said:

    Anyone else wondering what Sunil did to get banned? :)

    Has he? I think his avatar looks like the 'Banned' one but says "Keep Calmer and Vote Starmer"
    I do a double take each time.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,197
    DavidL said:

    nunu2 said:

    I watched the Dem debate last night, and have to say Amy Klobuchar really came across well, and I'm someone who thought America is so unequal it needs a radical like Sanders. I believe she could actually get things done.

    I dont know what the pundits reaction to the debate is yet, but I think she will have another surge. Enough to put her into double digits. I'm saying this as someone who was really turned off by her in the bullying allegations.

    @rcs1000 summary for Klobucher was “meh” and he has been a bit of a fan. Personally I’m just appalled that the Democrats are screwing this up so badly and at risk of having that ignorant buffoon in the White House for another 4 long years.
    She wasn't terrible. She just didn't stand out. Really, no one did. It was a terrible debate, with the candidates largely competing to prove their left wing credentials.

    The interesting part to me was Warren Vs Sanders, where she drew blood. That being said, "drawing blood" is not necessarily a winning strategy. Most people believe Buttigieg drew Warren's blood last debate, and that resulted in then both going backwards.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,197
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    nunu2 said:

    I watched the Dem debate last night, and have to say Amy Klobuchar really came across well, and I'm someone who thought America is so unequal it needs a radical like Sanders. I believe she could actually get things done.

    I dont know what the pundits reaction to the debate is yet, but I think she will have another surge. Enough to put her into double digits. I'm saying this as someone who was really turned off by her in the bullying allegations.

    @rcs1000 summary for Klobucher was “meh” and he has been a bit of a fan. Personally I’m just appalled that the Democrats are screwing this up so badly and at risk of having that ignorant buffoon in the White House for another 4 long years.
    She wasn't terrible. She just didn't stand out. Really, no one did. It was a terrible debate, with the candidates largely competing to prove their left wing credentials.

    The interesting part to me was Warren Vs Sanders, where she drew blood. That being said, "drawing blood" is not necessarily a winning strategy. Most people believe Buttigieg drew Warren's blood last debate, and that resulted in then both going backwards.
    As an aside, 538 thinks the debate was a positive (in Iowa) for Buttigieg: "Buttigieg, who I thought was generally strong, both when he was making the case that a health care plan doesn’t have to have a huge price tag to represent a big change or when he was openly referencing his faith"
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,290
    nunu2 said:

    Hmm I dont think the labour membership is that sensible.

    But I am one!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 38,509
    DavidL said:

    Was PMQs really that dull? The only comment on it was that it finished almost on time. Did Corbyn have nothing to say at all?

    Corbyn: NHS!
    Johnson: Money for the NHS

    rinse, repeat....
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    kinabalu said:

    nunu2 said:

    Hmm I dont think the labour membership is that sensible.

    But I am one!
    I’m still waiting for my membership card. Getting nervous I won’t get a vote...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,159

    kicorse said:


    Problem is you're both viewing so-called Corbynistas as a homogeneous group (use of that word already gives this away). The young university-based part tend to be at the most Remain end. The ones who have been socialists for decades are (on average) more accepting of Brexit. And there are plenty who don't fit neatly into either of these categories.

    If I were to guess, I think that a lower proportion of Phillips supporters than Long-Bailey supporters have moved on from Brexit. Not so sure about Starmer supporters. They were probably more uniformly Remain in the first place, but they are probably also more pragmatic.

    No I agree with you. I’m just questioning the premise that Nandy will get loads of transfers “cos Brexit” which I just don’t agree with.
    FWIW I'm struck by how little Brexit is coming up in discussions on the leadership - HYUFD sees it as a crucial swing issue, which I'm sure it is in Tory elections, but the Labour debate is (as usual) 90% about (a) leftiness and (b) likelihood to become PM. Members mostly want reasonably left-leaning leaders who weren't nasty to Jeremy but can win. At present, most seem to see that as Starmer/Rayner.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,320
    edited January 15

    HYUFD said:
    Why? Surely the 350m a week that has been promised will sort the waiting times right out.
    The problem with A&E is not the 4 hour wait time or the billions of funding that the NHS gets.

    The problem is it is abused as a first rather than last point of call by far too many who have neither had a serious accident nor are having an emergency.

    If more people got told by A&E "sorry your issue is one for your GP, go book an appointment with them" then A&E would be better. Going to A&E because you can't be bothered to get an appointment and wait for it is not the solution.

    Hell, some issues could be dealt with by telling people to go speak to a pharmacist.
    I agree but what has that got to do with A&E waiting targets?
    Its a self-reinforcing issue.

    If all the resources get thrown at A&E so you can be seen quickly at A&E then people with minor ailments go to A&E rather than the proper channels in order to beat the queues elsewhere. Which adds to the pressure at A&E making the time longer.

    A&E does and should have a triage system for visits, urgent accidents should be seen as quickly as possible but then again it really should all be urgent issues there. But by saying that everyone should be seen quickly you're putting pressure on the wrong issue - you are rewarding those who go with minor ailments who are doing the wrong thing and diverting A&E from properly triaging the patients because they're trying to "beat the clock" on someone who shouldn't even be there rather than prioritising the real issues.

    If you go with a minor ailment that is more suitable for a GP visit then you should be left waiting all day if you're not a priority. I'd far rather a real emergency is seen immediately if need be than worry about percentages that don't say anything about real emergencies. Real emergencies shouldn't be left waiting for 4 hours if need be!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,290

    I broadly agree with Mike's analysis, though I'm aware of several colleagues who I'd think of as floating voters all plumping for Starmer. I also know Corbyn supporters who are plumping for Long-Bailey because they want left-wing continuity above all, but other Corbynites feel that Starmer has done enough (cf. the McDonalds case and Brent Spar) to count as "green left". I don't actually know anyone at all who has said they plan to vote for Nandy or Thornberry (my unscientific sample is colleagues in Broxtowe and SW Surrey on various wings of the party), and just a few who are going for Phillips, who is getting a subset of the anti-Corbyn members.

    I've not made up my mind yet (I'd like to see a debate first) and I think people could shift if the debates show Starmer stumbling, but he will need to make a serious mistake to lose this. The deputy race is pretty sewn up for Rayner: consider that she has a big PLP lead AND Momentum support, a unique feat worthy of more attention than it's had. If she'd stood for leader we'd be seeing a more uncertain race IMO.

    Why do you think she didn't? Seems she has much affection and respect right across the party - and from other parties too.
  • Following on from yesterday, it seems Stephen Bush has also noticed that Jess Phillips' strong anti-SNP and indyref 2 stance is likely motivated in part by the fact there are 73 CLP nominations to be had in Scotland:

    It'll be amusing if Emily Thornberry to decides join in some Scot Nat bashing in an attempt to court SLAB as well.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,320
    rpjs said:

    Anyone else wondering what Sunil did to get banned? :)

    Every time I see his post!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,320
    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:
    Why? Surely the 350m a week that has been promised will sort the waiting times right out.
    The problem with A&E is not the 4 hour wait time or the billions of funding that the NHS gets.

    The problem is it is abused as a first rather than last point of call by far too many who have neither had a serious accident nor are having an emergency.

    If more people got told by A&E "sorry your issue is one for your GP, go book an appointment with them" then A&E would be better. Going to A&E because you can't be bothered to get an appointment and wait for it is not the solution.

    Hell, some issues could be dealt with by telling people to go speak to a pharmacist.
    This has cropped up before. The problems with that approach are

    1) your ability to get a GP appointment is very dependent on the practice. In mine the waiting list for an appointment is approx three weeks.
    2) illness and pain do not keep office hours. The illness/injury may strike in the middle of the night or on weekends when the GP is shut.
    3) pharmacists are not GPS. Pharmacists are skilled individuals who can advise but they don't diagnose nor prescribe and cases that require something not over the counter or grey-market stuff they cannot help with
    4) pharmacists don't do tests. Many symptoms may have trivial or serious causes and a blood test or other tests are necessary for differential diagnosis.

    There are ways to defend against this - yearly or six-monthly checkups are a good one - but none that cure the problem entirely. Even 111 can go wrong. One good solution is having GPs in A&E for the minor cases.
    1) Absolutely is an issue but if that's the waiting time then that is the waiting time. Why are we telling people that if they do the right thing they'll have to wait weeks or they can go to A&E and they'll be seen within 4 hours whether its an emergency or not?

    2) If its something you can wait weeks for you can wait until morning to book your appointment, if you can't book it online.

    3 and 4) Absolutely in which case the pharmacist if they can't help you can advise you to speak to your GP or go to A&E if it is an emergency.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 491

    DavidL said:

    Was PMQs really that dull? The only comment on it was that it finished almost on time. Did Corbyn have nothing to say at all?

    Corbyn: NHS!
    Johnson: Money for the NHS

    rinse, repeat....
    Its almost as if shovelling ever more money at a monolithic monpoly provider wasn;t the only way to improve care....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,580
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    nunu2 said:

    I watched the Dem debate last night, and have to say Amy Klobuchar really came across well, and I'm someone who thought America is so unequal it needs a radical like Sanders. I believe she could actually get things done.

    I dont know what the pundits reaction to the debate is yet, but I think she will have another surge. Enough to put her into double digits. I'm saying this as someone who was really turned off by her in the bullying allegations.

    @rcs1000 summary for Klobucher was “meh” and he has been a bit of a fan. Personally I’m just appalled that the Democrats are screwing this up so badly and at risk of having that ignorant buffoon in the White House for another 4 long years.
    She wasn't terrible. She just didn't stand out. Really, no one did. It was a terrible debate, with the candidates largely competing to prove their left wing credentials.

    The interesting part to me was Warren Vs Sanders, where she drew blood. That being said, "drawing blood" is not necessarily a winning strategy. Most people believe Buttigieg drew Warren's blood last debate, and that resulted in then both going backwards.
    You’re not selling it. I remember the story on the dust cover of the natural, Joe Kleins book about Clinton. He described how Clinton had had a tough meeting with trade unionists in NH explaining how their traditional jobs were never coming back. It wasn’t a popular message but he didn’t back off. Klein was in the audience with his young daughter (Amy I think). On his way out he bent down to speak to her. He explained that he was the reason she had not been seeing much of her dad, “ but let me tell you something Amy, he talks about you all the time “.

    Where are the politicians who can tell hard truths whilst still charming and persuading their audience? Competing to show how left wing they are? How does that beat Trump?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,664
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    nunu2 said:

    I watched the Dem debate last night, and have to say Amy Klobuchar really came across well, and I'm someone who thought America is so unequal it needs a radical like Sanders. I believe she could actually get things done.

    I dont know what the pundits reaction to the debate is yet, but I think she will have another surge. Enough to put her into double digits. I'm saying this as someone who was really turned off by her in the bullying allegations.

    @rcs1000 summary for Klobucher was “meh” and he has been a bit of a fan. Personally I’m just appalled that the Democrats are screwing this up so badly and at risk of having that ignorant buffoon in the White House for another 4 long years.
    She wasn't terrible. She just didn't stand out. Really, no one did. It was a terrible debate, with the candidates largely competing to prove their left wing credentials.

    The interesting part to me was Warren Vs Sanders, where she drew blood. That being said, "drawing blood" is not necessarily a winning strategy. Most people believe Buttigieg drew Warren's blood last debate, and that resulted in then both going backwards.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,304
    So unless the UK pulls out of the Iran Nuclear Deal it might not get a US trade deal .

    So much for taking back control . When will the UK be adopting the dollar ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,290

    The way to prevent Indyref2 was for the Tories to win a majority (not an individual candidate to be an MP). The Tories won a majority. Checkmate.

    Philip, just taking the long view for a second -

    If Brexit turns out to be a blunder of such clear and monumental proportions as Suez, will you be admitting to your grandkids that you not only voted for the project but spent 3 years on the country's leading political website arguing fervently with all-comers in support of it?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,580
    Someone believes that there may be a vacancy shortly
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,890
    nico67 said:

    So unless the UK pulls out of the Iran Nuclear Deal it might not get a US trade deal .

    So much for taking back control . When will the UK be adopting the dollar ?

    Let’s be honest there’s not going to be a US trade deal.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 32,976

    HYUFD said:
    Why? Surely the 350m a week that has been promised will sort the waiting times right out.
    The problem with A&E is not the 4 hour wait time or the billions of funding that the NHS gets.

    The problem is it is abused as a first rather than last point of call by far too many who have neither had a serious accident nor are having an emergency.

    If more people got told by A&E "sorry your issue is one for your GP, go book an appointment with them" then A&E would be better. Going to A&E because you can't be bothered to get an appointment and wait for it is not the solution.

    Hell, some issues could be dealt with by telling people to go speak to a pharmacist.
    I agree but what has that got to do with A&E waiting targets?
    Its a self-reinforcing issue.

    If all the resources get thrown at A&E so you can be seen quickly at A&E then people with minor ailments go to A&E rather than the proper channels in order to beat the queues elsewhere. Which adds to the pressure at A&E making the time longer.

    A&E does and should have a triage system for visits, urgent accidents should be seen as quickly as possible but then again it really should all be urgent issues there. But by saying that everyone should be seen quickly you're putting pressure on the wrong issue - you are rewarding those who go with minor ailments who are doing the wrong thing and diverting A&E from properly triaging the patients because they're trying to "beat the clock" on someone who shouldn't even be there rather than prioritising the real issues.

    If you go with a minor ailment that is more suitable for a GP visit then you should be left waiting all day if you're not a priority. I'd far rather a real emergency is seen immediately if need be than worry about percentages that don't say anything about real emergencies. Real emergencies shouldn't be left waiting for 4 hours if need be!
    The direction of travel with GPs surgeries suggests that within a couple of decades, the problem will sort itself out - EVERYBODY will be going to hopsital with their ailments. Base all GP's clinics at hospitals. If it requires it - go through that door to A&E. Otherwise, go through that door to Boots with this prescription.

    All health issues on one site. Dentists too.

    Doesn't work for you? Then sorry, you'll have to pay for a Plan B.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,197
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    nunu2 said:

    I watched the Dem debate last night, and have to say Amy Klobuchar really came across well, and I'm someone who thought America is so unequal it needs a radical like Sanders. I believe she could actually get things done.

    I dont know what the pundits reaction to the debate is yet, but I think she will have another surge. Enough to put her into double digits. I'm saying this as someone who was really turned off by her in the bullying allegations.

    @rcs1000 summary for Klobucher was “meh” and he has been a bit of a fan. Personally I’m just appalled that the Democrats are screwing this up so badly and at risk of having that ignorant buffoon in the White House for another 4 long years.
    She wasn't terrible. She just didn't stand out. Really, no one did. It was a terrible debate, with the candidates largely competing to prove their left wing credentials.

    The interesting part to me was Warren Vs Sanders, where she drew blood. That being said, "drawing blood" is not necessarily a winning strategy. Most people believe Buttigieg drew Warren's blood last debate, and that resulted in then both going backwards.
    You’re not selling it. I remember the story on the dust cover of the natural, Joe Kleins book about Clinton. He described how Clinton had had a tough meeting with trade unionists in NH explaining how their traditional jobs were never coming back. It wasn’t a popular message but he didn’t back off. Klein was in the audience with his young daughter (Amy I think). On his way out he bent down to speak to her. He explained that he was the reason she had not been seeing much of her dad, “ but let me tell you something Amy, he talks about you all the time “.

    Where are the politicians who can tell hard truths whilst still charming and persuading their audience? Competing to show how left wing they are? How does that beat Trump?
    The last politician to turn up and tell workers their jobs weren't coming back during an election campaign was Macron.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,580

    DavidL said:

    Was PMQs really that dull? The only comment on it was that it finished almost on time. Did Corbyn have nothing to say at all?

    Corbyn: NHS!
    Johnson: Money for the NHS

    rinse, repeat....
    That’ll be a yes then. Thanks.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,309
    From the Guardian live blog, reporting on the journalists' questions after Lisa Nandy's speech today:

    Q: Why did you not mention the green new deal in your speech?

    Nandy says she did not use the phrase because “it means absolutely nothing to most of my constituents”.

    She says the party needs to find the right language to explain its policies.


    A pretty damned good answer!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,290

    I’m still waiting for my membership card. Getting nervous I won’t get a vote...

    That would be incredibly annoying. I thought you were a Lib Dem though?
This discussion has been closed.