Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Yvette Cooper could come 3rd on 1st preferences yet sti

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Yvette Cooper could come 3rd on 1st preferences yet still end up as winner

In the last 2 big LAB selections the person top on 1st round hasn’t won. This happened with Harriet Harman in the 2007 deputy race and, of course, when EdM beat his brother five years ago. This was all, of course, because of the party’s alternative voting system when electors are asked to give their second and third choices as well as their first one.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • First! Insomnia rules OK :o:
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all - Clever widget.

    Tough call on how people will cast their alternative votes - could be wrong, but I'd imagine many Ist preference Jeremy Corbyn voters will not bother with a 2nd or 3rd nominee.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,300
    Glorious third!
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    One of the key factors in the above would seem to be how many people in each camp actually bother expressing a preference beyond their favourite. If Corbyn has any significant number of "Corbyn and no one else" voters, such as you might expect from the new intake of hard-lefties that might be critical.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,164
    Morning. Surely if Corbyn is in the final two candidates then it matters not what else is on the ballot paper of his voters. The key to this seems to be whether those who vote Kendall in the first round go sufficiently to Cooper over Burnham to put her (Cooper) into the 'final' against Corbyn.

    Mike and Mark above both have their figures with around 95% of votes counting in the final round, do we know from the previous contests in 2010 and 2007 if this is approximately the number to expect this time?
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    I agree with this except I don't expect Burnham to be even in second place in the first ballot as he is a very poor campaigner and dreadfully uninspiring candidate ; the voters don't like him as in the last Labour election he almost came last , just ahead of Abbot ...I expect Burnham to come a poor third , just in front of Kendall
    I think Corbyns best chance is to win outright in the first ballot like Tony Blair did , but I doubt he will do that ....Corbynmania has already peaked and reached its high water mark ; it has spooked the Labour voters and will unify them behind the eventual winner , who I believe will be Yvette Cooper

    The influx of new voters is worrysome as most of these must be Corbynites , but I suspect there will be just enough sensible sober minded voters to see off the threat of Corbynism ; I just don't think the LP are willing to throw in the towel and become an unelectable fringe /protest party just yet
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236

    Morning all - Clever widget.

    Tough call on how people will cast their alternative votes - could be wrong, but I'd imagine many Ist preference Jeremy Corbyn voters will not bother with a 2nd or 3rd nominee.

    ================================

    I agree , they are burning with the zeal of the converted and want their candidate alone to win , but that doesn't matter if he comes second

    I have tried manfully to imagine Corbyn as leader , trying to put a shadow cabinet together and asking for party unity , But I have failed ...the person who voted against his own whip 500 times is hardly going to inspire unity , it's like asking the arsonist to give a speech on fire prevention

    Corbynmania has taken on characteristics of a religious revival but it just seems to me that folks will sober up and come to their senses , sooner or later

  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236



    Corbynism may appear optimistic , indeed it has some characteristics of a religious revival , but it is primarily defeatist and pessimistic ; it is about giving up and acknowledging that the LP is now incapable of winning elections ..

    This is what Corbynism is at heart , indeed it attempts to wear defeat as a badge of honour , to make un-electability into a political virtue , to become proud principled losers and so it's hardly surprising that Corbyn has attracted many followers because defeat , like misery , just loves company !

    It is in fact the Left of the Labour Party throwing in the towel and accepting that they are hopelessly anachronistic and completely unsuitable for government in the postmodern UK and are resigned to their fate as a mere fringe /protest party something like UKIP or the Greens ..THIS IS CORBYNISM !
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236



    If Politics is the art of compromise then Corbyn's achilees heel is his dogmatic inability to compromise and it's sure to be his downfall ..with him it's all or nothing ! In that regard he is just typical of so many two dimensional ,quasi Marxists insomuch that he sees the world in absolutes

    Corbyn represents the politics of the 1970's student union with the iconic poster of CHE and a mawkishly romantic view of socialism ..his politics have not evolved or matured with age , indeed he is still the same Leftist radical he was in the late 1970s ; a professional protester and iconoclast , a Peter Pan like figure whose political views refused to grow up AND YET this is the person who has deluded himself into believing that he can lead the LP to victory with support from about 10% of Labour MPs
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Whoever of this sad lot comes top, Labour are going to be ground down over the next four years. If Corbyn loses there will be a mass exodus of most, if not all, the new members who signed up to vote for Corbyn. Then the rot will set in.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The prospect of Yvette slipping through to win would just discredit the whole process more. She has said nothing of interest over the course of the campaign.

    But Corbyn looks nailed on, it would not surprise me if he won on first preferences.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,164
    The MPs that 'lent' Corbyn their vote in the nomination must be feeling a little uneasy right now.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Jeremy Corbyn: - I come to bury Blairism, not to praise it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,339
    We had a good example of this in the Faculty of Advocates a few years ago in the election of a Dean. As in the examples above the candidate who came second last in the first round came through to win. He did so because he was the consensus candidate, perfectly acceptable to the majority and not promising anything radical. Bit like Yvette Cooper really.

    I do agree that those who support Corbyn with religious fervour will be seriously ticked off if he is ahead for rounds 1 and 2 and then is pipped at that post. Unlike David Miliband supporters they are unlikely to just accept it. Labour have not been united by this process, quite the reverse.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,339

    Jeremy Corbyn: - I come to bury Blairism, not to praise it.

    That is clearly part of the appeal to his supporters. He has got more and more blatant about it. The restoration of clause IV was as clear a piece of signalling that you will see.

    Is there really a majority in Labour now who wants to reject their most successful electoral period in their history? I don't believe so but the way the electorate has been distorted by the Union sign ups and blatant entryism does make you pause.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,939
    I've covered myself on Cooper already. She's great value on Betfair.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,939
    DavidL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn: - I come to bury Blairism, not to praise it.

    Is there really a majority in Labour now who wants to reject their most successful electoral period in their history?
    Yes.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,616
    AV is a good system for choosing a candidate who has the widest possible support. That is generally a good idea when picking a party leader.

    It doesn't work so well when there is a large body of opinion that would only accept one candidate.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015
    DavidL said:

    Is there really a majority in Labour now who wants to reject their most successful electoral period in their history? I don't believe so but the way the electorate has been distorted by the Union sign ups and blatant entryism does make you pause.

    The unions may well argue, with some justification, that since they are the ones paying for most of the piper, they are entitled to call the bulk of the tunes!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,616
    I'm hugely green on Jeremy Corbyn, light green on Yvette Cooper, mid red on Andy Burnham and approaching Macbeth levels of incarnadination on Liz Kendall. I'm not anticipating changing this unless the odds or the information we have change substantially.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,339
    Indigo said:

    DavidL said:

    Is there really a majority in Labour now who wants to reject their most successful electoral period in their history? I don't believe so but the way the electorate has been distorted by the Union sign ups and blatant entryism does make you pause.

    The unions may well argue, with some justification, that since they are the ones paying for most of the piper, they are entitled to call the bulk of the tunes!
    True.

    And they might also argue that it was them that created the Labour party to represent their interests in the first place. It is just that in the modern world trade unionism is almost entirely a public sector phenomenon and it distorts the thinking and the perspective in a way that is unacceptable to a majority of the population. We saw a lot of this under Ed and it looks like we might see a lot more.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015
    Looking at Mike's guestimate in the app, it appears that Cooper would be winning by the third place preferences of something around 100 voters, that doesn't sound like a recipe for party unity to me. Partly because his supporters will be incandescent that their man lost because of 100ish people who thought that Cooper was crap, but not quite as bad as the alternative, and partly because their is going to be endless recrimination (a la Hanging Chads) over the exact meaning of every spoiled ballot or unclear response.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Non Brits who have received a British Health card . No wonder the NHS is always shouting for more money despite billions being poured in. We are virtually giving away our health service while other EU countries citizens have to pay in their own countries.


    "How I signed up for five years free medical treatment in Hungary - at YOUR expense."

    She's never lived in the UK or paid tax here... but NHS is liable for this Hungarian mother's health bills
    Undercover reporter Ani Horvath lives in Budapest and has no links to UK
    Given European Health Insurance Card for free without seeing a UK doctor
    Local optician and dermatologist said treatment would be covered by NHS
    Birth centre manager said EHIC would cover appointments while she was pregnant in Hungary

    "Healthcare is expensive in Eastern Europe and increasing numbers are charging their treatment to Britain. They are doing so using UK-registered European Health Insurance Cards.
    These cards are meant to be used only by British tourists and entitle them to public healthcare while travelling in European Economic Area countries and Switzerland.
    But there is no requirement to prove you work in Britain to get one. All you need is an NHS number – which anyone can get by signing up at a GP surgery, even if you are a failed asylum seeker."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191573/How-signed-five-years-free-medical-treatment-Hungary-expense-s-never-lived-UK-paid-tax-NHS-liable-Hungarian-mother-s-health-bills.html#ixzz3iOEExJNv
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,374
    DavidL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn: - I come to bury Blairism, not to praise it.

    That is clearly part of the appeal to his supporters. He has got more and more blatant about it. The restoration of clause IV was as clear a piece of signalling that you will see.

    Is there really a majority in Labour now who wants to reject their most successful electoral period in their history? I don't believe so but the way the electorate has been distorted by the Union sign ups and blatant entryism does make you pause.
    I think there's now a majority in the party who regard it as a shameful period in the party's history.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015
    Moses_ said:

    Non Brits who have received a British Health card . No wonder the NHS is always shouting for more money despite billions being poured in. We are virtually giving away our health service while other EU countries citizens have to pay in their own countries.

    Where as people that apply for say a settlement visa through the regular channels have to pay for their NHS care in advance before their visa is processed, even if they have no expectation of even needing any NHS services. Once more if you follow the rules you get screwed, and if you break them you do fine.
    https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,034
    Indigo said:

    Looking at Mike's guestimate in the app, it appears that Cooper would be winning by the third place preferences of something around 100 voters, that doesn't sound like a recipe for party unity to me. Partly because his supporters will be incandescent that their man lost because of 100ish people who thought that Cooper was crap, but not quite as bad as the alternative, and partly because their is going to be endless recrimination (a la Hanging Chads) over the exact meaning of every spoiled ballot or unclear response.

    I believe that the counting will be done by the Electoral Reform Society, so less chance of recriminations.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited August 2015
    So Labour could end up with the least worst person as leader. Not the best way to inspire a party to try and win in 2020 - let alone inspiring the electorate.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,487
    edited August 2015
    Indigo said:

    One of the key factors in the above would seem to be how many people in each camp actually bother expressing a preference beyond their favourite. If Corbyn has any significant number of "Corbyn and no one else" voters, such as you might expect from the new intake of hard-lefties that might be critical.

    I put a large number of Corbyn supporters to have no second preference; 90% go to nobody.

    But it doesn't matter, as if he makes it through to the last round, they are never considered anyway.



  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Incidentally, what is the feeling for how the Corbynites are going to break for their second preferences, are they going to be more for Cooper or Burnham ? Are the unions dropping any hints to their members ? One can't help thinking that is there was only one "Continuity Brown" candidate they would be romping away with a win.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,355
    Good morning, everyone.

    Good tool, Mr. Hopkins.

    AV, as we know, leads to depression, loneliness, and Ed Miliband.
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    So Corbyn either wins outright in round one, or loses. Can't see many second/third preferences going to Corbyn from the others, and has been said down thread, if he is still in the race, his second/third preferences won't count anyway.

    I can see him being stuck just below the 50% point and being pipped by Cooper/Burnham in the third round.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2015
    BBC - Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn campaigns in Wales.

    Jeremy Corbyn brings his Labour leadership campaign to Wales as a fierce battle for the support of party members continues. -The veteran left-winger has won the backing of more local constituency parties in Wales and the UK than the other three candidates.

    He will visit Llandudno and Connah's Quay on Monday and Tredegar and Cardiff on Tuesday.


    Credit where it's due, Corbyn's media circus hasn’t let up for a second since the hustings. Are the other three on their Summer holidays?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-33819019
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,724
    edited August 2015
    Not sure why Kendall's people should put any second preference. None of the other 3 are facing up to the issues the Party has in the years ahead. As for giving them to Cooper - well, Yvette's "as a mother" schtick could turn off many.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    So Corbyn either wins outright in round one, or loses. Can't see many second/third preferences going to Corbyn from the others, and has been said down thread, if he is still in the race, his second/third preferences won't count anyway.

    I can see him being stuck just below the 50% point and being pipped by Cooper/Burnham in the third round.

    Indeed. The question then being who his supporters will be saddling the Labour Party with when their man loses. I think given the level of religious fervour, probably most of them wont have a second preference. Could lead to a mass flounce ;)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,355
    Mr. Barber, there is a third way (ahem).

    Corbyn gets 48% or so of first preferences, but those who don't offer second or third preferences for Kendall and the second candidate to leave the stage reduce the voter pool to such an extent that initial 48% tips over into an outright majority in round 3.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,135
    Indigo said:

    Incidentally, what is the feeling for how the Corbynites are going to break for their second preferences, are they going to be more for Cooper or Burnham ? Are the unions dropping any hints to their members ? One can't help thinking that is there was only one "Continuity Brown" candidate they would be romping away with a win.

    Well the Corbyn second preferences don't matter. But it's true that, despite what people say about AV, it's perfectly possible that Yvette or Burnham will cause the other to lose by splitting their vote.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    The vapid careerist's pitch


    The ability to use a keyboard is apparently very important...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,355
    Mr. Crosby, she's got the Rick Wakeman vote sewn up, then.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,487

    Not sure why Kendall's people should put any second preference. None of the other 3 are facing up to the issues the Party has in the years ahead. As for giving them to Cooper - well, Yvette's "as a mother" schtick could turn off many.

    and

    Mr. Barber, there is a third way (ahem).

    Corbyn gets 48% or so of first preferences, but those who don't offer second or third preferences for Kendall and the second candidate to leave the stage reduce the voter pool to such an extent that initial 48% tips over into an outright majority in round 3.


    That's why this tool exists - add a new entry and put your estimates for the votes and transfer percentages in, and see what happens.

    Then we can see directly the result of your scenarios.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520
    When Dennis Healey hung on to the deputy leadership ahead of Tony Benn by, as he put it, 'the hair of his eyebrow' thanks to Labour's electoral system and a crucial abstention by Kinnock's faction, it didn't unite the party. It split it further because the left went with the We Wuz Robbed meme for the next four years (regardless of the fact that they held the leadership and virtually the entire shadow cabinet).

    This time around, bearing in mind they have no candidate to be deputy leader, and will hold very few (no?) Shadow Cabinet positions, matters will be worse if the third placed candidate comes through to beat the Jezziah in the last round. They will go absolutely ballistic. Indeed, if it's very close it wouldn't surprise me if they launched a legal challenge.

    The only way Labour can be saved from prolonged chaos and infighting at this point would appear to be for Cooper or Burnham to emerge the clear winner on first preferences, which would hammer into the head of even so dense a gentleman as Len McCluskey that the good ol' days have gone. Since it is more likely that Alex Salmond will come out as a closet Unionist than that one of those two will manage such a thing, anyone who has bets on Labour continuing to go backwards in 2020 is probably on a good thing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520

    Not sure why Kendall's people should put any second preference. None of the other 3 are facing up to the issues the Party has in the years ahead. As for giving them to Cooper - well, Yvette's "as a mother" schtick could turn off many.

    The best of reasons - if they don't, Corbyn will almost certainly win by default.

    Old Naval saying: 'Always choose the lesser of two evils.'
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,308

    Morning all - Clever widget.

    Tough call on how people will cast their alternative votes - could be wrong, but I'd imagine many Ist preference Jeremy Corbyn voters will not bother with a 2nd or 3rd nominee.

    Corbyn voters won't need a second preference: he's all but guaranteed to make the final round (which may not be the third round).

    The more relevant and open question is how many Kendall, Cooper and Burnham voters won't use their full preferences either. I'm surprised that Mike has Cooper winning on just 22% to Corbyn's 41%. That feels to me like just too big a split. She would have to pick up three-quarters of reallocated Burnham / Kendall votes. Or, if we assume a 10% drop-out from non-transferable votes on each transfer (and it might well be higher than that), then she'd need around 3.75 transfers from Burnham and Kendall for every one that Corbyn takes, which is a huge proportion. She might well take that from Kendall but there aren't too many votes there. But Burnham? Corbyn has made clear inroads into the mainstream Labour vote. Why wouldn't other mainstream Labour voters who've gone for Cooper or Burnham first then at least consider the bearded one?

    My gut feeling is that 40 is about the tipping point: Corbyn will struggle to get over the line with a score in the thirties. On the other side, 42+ should see him comfortably home.

    One other aspect of Mike's figures. The Labour leader looks set for a crisis of legitimacy either way. Either he doesn't have the support of his MPs (Corbyn) or s/he receieved at best around a quarter of the membership's vote - and quite possibly less - (Burnham / Cooper). Some might say that this doesn't matter and it's how the system works. Fair enough: it is. But that won't stop Labour's opponents making the (for example) "third choice" claim all the same.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,355
    Mr. Hopkins, reminds me, writ small, of some cool medieval demographics calculators that are/were up on the internet. You put in various factors (type of climate/land, age of kingdom, etc) and huge swathes of useful data would be spat out (including things like numbers of derelict forts, major cities, towns and villages and so on).

    Now that I ramble that, it makes me wonder if demographic calculators (of the real world) are considered by parties when putting together long term positioning/policies.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813
    Cromwell said:

    I agree with this except I don't expect Burnham to be even in second place in the first ballot as he is a very poor campaigner and dreadfully uninspiring candidate ; the voters don't like him as in the last Labour election he almost came last , just ahead of Abbot ...I expect Burnham to come a poor third , just in front of Kendall
    I think Corbyns best chance is to win outright in the first ballot like Tony Blair did , but I doubt he will do that ....Corbynmania has already peaked and reached its high water mark ; it has spooked the Labour voters and will unify them behind the eventual winner , who I believe will be Yvette Cooper

    The influx of new voters is worrysome as most of these must be Corbynites , but I suspect there will be just enough sensible sober minded voters to see off the threat of Corbynism ; I just don't think the LP are willing to throw in the towel and become an unelectable fringe /protest party just yet

    Burnham polls well ahead of Cooper
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    ydoethur said:

    Not sure why Kendall's people should put any second preference. None of the other 3 are facing up to the issues the Party has in the years ahead. As for giving them to Cooper - well, Yvette's "as a mother" schtick could turn off many.

    The best of reasons - if they don't, Corbyn will almost certainly win by default.

    Old Naval saying: 'Always choose the lesser of two evils.'
    Or schism

    If Corbyn wins, or if he loses by a slim margin, a split could be a real possibility.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520


    One other aspect of Mike's figures. The Labour leader looks set for a crisis of legitimacy either way. Either he doesn't have the support of his MPs (Corbyn) or s/he receieved at best around a quarter of the membership's vote - and quite possibly less - (Burnham / Cooper). Some might say that this doesn't matter and it's how the system works. Fair enough: it is. But that won't stop Labour's opponents making the (for example) "third choice" claim all the same.

    I think under such circumstances that would be pretty clear evidence that Labour's system doesn't work.

    Is there any market on Labour adopting the Conservative system of the PLP selecting two and then putting that choice to the membership? Because even allowing for some poor choices, so far as I know nobody has ever seriously questioned the legitimacy of winners under that system (leaving aside that uncited wikipedia entry).
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,490
    MikeK

    "If Corbyn loses there will be a mass exodus of most, if not all, the new members who signed up to vote for Corbyn"

    I thought they were all fifth collumist Tories anyway so wouldn't they leave after the vote whatever the result?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520

    ydoethur said:

    Not sure why Kendall's people should put any second preference. None of the other 3 are facing up to the issues the Party has in the years ahead. As for giving them to Cooper - well, Yvette's "as a mother" schtick could turn off many.

    The best of reasons - if they don't, Corbyn will almost certainly win by default.

    Old Naval saying: 'Always choose the lesser of two evils.'
    Or schism

    If Corbyn wins, or if he loses by a slim margin, a split could be a real possibility.
    Agreed. It won't be pretty to watch (except for George Osborne).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813
    edited August 2015
    .

    This time around, bearing in mind they have no candidate to be deputy leader, and will hold very few (no?) Shadow Cabinet positions, matters will be worse if the third placed candidate comes through to beat the Jezziah in the last round. They will go absolutely ballistic. Indeed, if it's very close it wouldn't surprise me if they launched a legal challenge.

    The only way Labour can be saved from prolonged chaos and infighting at this point would appear to be for Cooper or Burnham to emerge the clear winner on first preferences, which would hammer into the head of even so dense a gentleman as Len McCluskey that the good ol' days have gone. Since it is more likely that Alex Salmond will come out as a closet Unionist than that one of those two will manage such a thing, anyone who has bets on Labour continuing to go backwards in 2020 is probably on a good thing.

    Rules are rules and if the left fail to get more than 50% tough. Heatley was deputy for the duration and Burnham has said he would give Cornyn a job anyway and he was second after preferences with yougov. By 2020 the Torries will have had their own post eu ref leadership election anyway
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Corbyn gets 48% or so of first preferences, but those who don't offer second or third preferences for Kendall and the second candidate to leave the stage reduce the voter pool to such an extent that initial 48% tips over into an outright majority in round 3.

    One of the joys of AV is that you can end up with a worse vote (from your own perspective) than by staying at home.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,616
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Not sure why Kendall's people should put any second preference. None of the other 3 are facing up to the issues the Party has in the years ahead. As for giving them to Cooper - well, Yvette's "as a mother" schtick could turn off many.

    The best of reasons - if they don't, Corbyn will almost certainly win by default.

    Old Naval saying: 'Always choose the lesser of two evils.'
    Or schism

    If Corbyn wins, or if he loses by a slim margin, a split could be a real possibility.
    Agreed. It won't be pretty to watch (except for George Osborne).
    Who would leave, how and where would they go?

    (I have some ideas on this as it happens, but a split still looks a fairly distant possibility to me at present.)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,416
    Current prices:

    Cooper 4.3/4.5 Buy
    Corbyn 2.8 Buy
    Burnham 2.54/2.56 Sell.
    Kendall 95/100 Neutral.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520
    antifrank said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Not sure why Kendall's people should put any second preference. None of the other 3 are facing up to the issues the Party has in the years ahead. As for giving them to Cooper - well, Yvette's "as a mother" schtick could turn off many.

    The best of reasons - if they don't, Corbyn will almost certainly win by default.

    Old Naval saying: 'Always choose the lesser of two evils.'
    Or schism

    If Corbyn wins, or if he loses by a slim margin, a split could be a real possibility.
    Agreed. It won't be pretty to watch (except for George Osborne).
    Who would leave, how and where would they go?

    (I have some ideas on this as it happens, but a split still looks a fairly distant possibility to me at present.)
    I was agreeing it was possible, not that it was likely. I was also bearing in mind the possibility of a split, and bello civilia, within Labour, which I think is the most likely option and arguably brings bets about the leader at the 2020 election into play. The weakness of the Liberal Democrats makes it rather implausible that the Right would leave. However, are there any hard-left MPs who might join Caroline Lucas?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520
    HYUFD said:


    Rules are rules and if the left fail to get more than 50% tough. Heatley was deputy for the duration and Burnham has said he would give Cornyn a job anyway and he was second after preferences with yougov

    Yes, they are rules. And they should be followed. But sometimes people who are very passionate about such things forget small details like that. Look at Syriza, who didn't so much ignore the rules as smash the board and decide they were playing a different game entirely (with predictably disastrous results).
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    HYUFD said:

    Cromwell said:

    I agree with this except I don't expect Burnham to be even in second place in the first ballot as he is a very poor campaigner and dreadfully uninspiring candidate ; the voters don't like him as in the last Labour election he almost came last , just ahead of Abbot ...I expect Burnham to come a poor third , just in front of Kendall
    I think Corbyns best chance is to win outright in the first ballot like Tony Blair did , but I doubt he will do that ....Corbynmania has already peaked and reached its high water mark ; it has spooked the Labour voters and will unify them behind the eventual winner , who I believe will be Yvette Cooper

    The influx of new voters is worrysome as most of these must be Corbynites , but I suspect there will be just enough sensible sober minded voters to see off the threat of Corbynism ; I just don't think the LP are willing to throw in the towel and become an unelectable fringe /protest party just yet

    Burnham polls well ahead of Cooper
    With what pool of voters ?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,308
    ydoethur said:


    One other aspect of Mike's figures. The Labour leader looks set for a crisis of legitimacy either way. Either he doesn't have the support of his MPs (Corbyn) or s/he receieved at best around a quarter of the membership's vote - and quite possibly less - (Burnham / Cooper). Some might say that this doesn't matter and it's how the system works. Fair enough: it is. But that won't stop Labour's opponents making the (for example) "third choice" claim all the same.

    I think under such circumstances that would be pretty clear evidence that Labour's system doesn't work.

    Is there any market on Labour adopting the Conservative system of the PLP selecting two and then putting that choice to the membership? Because even allowing for some poor choices, so far as I know nobody has ever seriously questioned the legitimacy of winners under that system (leaving aside that uncited wikipedia entry).
    The Conservative membership has only had two choices under this system - IDS and Cameron - as it was introduced during Hague's leadership and Howard was elected unopposed, so only one who had a legitimacy problem. Generally, it's served the needs of the Conservative party well when taken in conjunction with the ejection system that also exists. Whether that means it would work for Labour is another matter.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Only Corbyn and Kendall have any ideas at all - good or bad. Both Cooper and Burnham are absolutely clueless and would be hopeless in any form of minor crisis, let alone a major one. This leadership contest is a farce and should be stopped.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,416
    Roger said:

    MikeK

    "If Corbyn loses there will be a mass exodus of most, if not all, the new members who signed up to vote for Corbyn"

    I thought they were all fifth collumist Tories anyway so wouldn't they leave after the vote whatever the result?

    Greens and communists, troskyists, militant and marxists in there too.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,135
    Did the Yougov poll say where Burnham's second preferences went? I feel like the Labour figures backing Cooper as the ABC candidate could be shooting themselves in the foot if they manage to get her to second place on first/second preferences, in the case that Burnham's second preferences go much more for Corbyn than Cooper's do.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Roger said:

    MikeK

    "If Corbyn loses there will be a mass exodus of most, if not all, the new members who signed up to vote for Corbyn"

    I thought they were all fifth collumist Tories anyway so wouldn't they leave after the vote whatever the result?

    Hardly, a couple of hundred Tories maybe, and several tens of thousands of union members being called up by UNITE and UNISON and asked to vote for Uncle Jeremy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813
    ydoethur said:


    One other aspect of Mike's figures. The Labour leader looks set for a crisis of legitimacy either way. Either he doesn't have the support of his MPs (Corbyn) or s/he receieved at best around a quarter of the membership's vote - and quite possibly less - (Burnham / Cooper). Some might say that this doesn't matter and it's how the system works. Fair enough: it is. But that won't stop Labour's opponents making the (for example) "third choice" claim all the same.

    I think under such circumstances that would be pretty clear evidence that Labour's system doesn't work.

    Is there any market on Labour adopting the Conservative system of the PLP selecting two and then putting that choice to the membership? Because even allowing for some poor choices, so far as I know nobody has ever seriously questioned the legitimacy of winners under that system (leaving aside that uncited wikipedia entry).
    That system elected IDS
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,355
    Mr. Financier, stopping it would not help questions of legitimacy for whoever ends up leader.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Indigo said:

    Corbyn gets 48% or so of first preferences, but those who don't offer second or third preferences for Kendall and the second candidate to leave the stage reduce the voter pool to such an extent that initial 48% tips over into an outright majority in round 3.

    One of the joys of AV is that you can end up with a worse vote (from your own perspective) than by staying at home.
    The "no show" paradox...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,490
    Simon


    "Jeremy Corbyn: - I come to bury Blairism, not to praise it."

    He could have continued......



    The evil that men do lives after them;
    The good is oft interrèd with their bones.
    So let it be with Blair..........
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,616
    Pulpstar said:

    Roger said:

    MikeK

    "If Corbyn loses there will be a mass exodus of most, if not all, the new members who signed up to vote for Corbyn"

    I thought they were all fifth collumist Tories anyway so wouldn't they leave after the vote whatever the result?

    Greens and communists, troskyists, militant and marxists in there too.
    Rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:


    One other aspect of Mike's figures. The Labour leader looks set for a crisis of legitimacy either way. Either he doesn't have the support of his MPs (Corbyn) or s/he receieved at best around a quarter of the membership's vote - and quite possibly less - (Burnham / Cooper). Some might say that this doesn't matter and it's how the system works. Fair enough: it is. But that won't stop Labour's opponents making the (for example) "third choice" claim all the same.

    I think under such circumstances that would be pretty clear evidence that Labour's system doesn't work.

    Is there any market on Labour adopting the Conservative system of the PLP selecting two and then putting that choice to the membership? Because even allowing for some poor choices, so far as I know nobody has ever seriously questioned the legitimacy of winners under that system (leaving aside that uncited wikipedia entry).
    That system elected IDS
    The legitimacy of his election has never been questioned, ergo, the system worked. No system is going to stop voters voting for stupid candidates.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520
    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Roger said:

    MikeK

    "If Corbyn loses there will be a mass exodus of most, if not all, the new members who signed up to vote for Corbyn"

    I thought they were all fifth collumist Tories anyway so wouldn't they leave after the vote whatever the result?

    Greens and communists, troskyists, militant and marxists in there too.
    Rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.
    Uh, sorry sir, would you mind repeating that?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,634
    Why is it that Labour have such a habit of electing no hopers as leader?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    RodCrosby said:

    Indigo said:

    Corbyn gets 48% or so of first preferences, but those who don't offer second or third preferences for Kendall and the second candidate to leave the stage reduce the voter pool to such an extent that initial 48% tips over into an outright majority in round 3.

    One of the joys of AV is that you can end up with a worse vote (from your own perspective) than by staying at home.
    The "no show" paradox...
    Indeed, although I was surprised to read that there is a 50% probability that, when IRV elects a different candidate than Plurality, some voters would have been better off not showing up. Sounds like a lot.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,308
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:


    One other aspect of Mike's figures. The Labour leader looks set for a crisis of legitimacy either way. Either he doesn't have the support of his MPs (Corbyn) or s/he receieved at best around a quarter of the membership's vote - and quite possibly less - (Burnham / Cooper). Some might say that this doesn't matter and it's how the system works. Fair enough: it is. But that won't stop Labour's opponents making the (for example) "third choice" claim all the same.

    I think under such circumstances that would be pretty clear evidence that Labour's system doesn't work.

    Is there any market on Labour adopting the Conservative system of the PLP selecting two and then putting that choice to the membership? Because even allowing for some poor choices, so far as I know nobody has ever seriously questioned the legitimacy of winners under that system (leaving aside that uncited wikipedia entry).
    That system elected IDS
    Like I said earlier, any measure of the effectiveness of the Tory system has to also include the ejection system.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,355
    Mr. Root, be fair. Miliband was indeed rubbish, but Brown wasn't elected, and Blair, for all his flaws, did win three elections.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520
    edited August 2015

    Why is it that Labour have such a habit of electing no hopers as leader?

    The key problem - look at the front bench. Tell me who would be a more plausible and effective leader than those on offer.

    Same issue last time around. Ed Miliband was pretty clearly the best of the bunch, even though he only won narrowly and was not personally popular (David is a talented administrator, but no imagination and no drive - he was not a leader). Look what happened to him.

    Because Labour were in power so long, and Gordon Brown hammered any talented rivals to pieces, they were left with a shocking dearth of talent. And none is coming through to replace it as Labour are not currently an attractive political vehicle and politics is not an attractive profession financially or in light of the huge sacrifices of time and privacy that are required of its participants.

    Labour are in a shocking mess, and it may take years to sort out.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,490
    DB

    "If Corbyn wins, or if he loses by a slim margin, a split could be a real possibility"

    Won't happen because it never does. Everyone will be swept away by the avalanche of news stories about Labour electing their first female leader
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520
    edited August 2015
    Roger said:

    DB

    "If Corbyn wins, or if he loses by a slim margin, a split could be a real possibility"

    Won't happen because it never does. Everyone will be swept away by the avalanche of news stories about Labour electing their first female leader

    I'm sure you didn't mean what you seem to be saying - but is there a very strange twist to the Corbyn story that you are privy to and have just accidentally revealed?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,164
    For anyone who thinks the whole thing might get called off, there's a tenner available on Betfair for Hattie at 430 and another tenner at 370.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,593

    BBC - Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn campaigns in Wales.

    Jeremy Corbyn brings his Labour leadership campaign to Wales as a fierce battle for the support of party members continues. -The veteran left-winger has won the backing of more local constituency parties in Wales and the UK than the other three candidates.

    He will visit Llandudno and Connah's Quay on Monday and Tredegar and Cardiff on Tuesday.


    Credit where it's due, Corbyn's media circus hasn’t let up for a second since the hustings. Are the other three on their Summer holidays?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-33819019

    True enough. Sure the media focus, such as it is, has been on him as the most interesting part of the race, but he's continued to give them things to feed on which haven't been gaffes or similar. He needs to keep it up for a little while yet though.

    If Corbyn does lose would he want a shadow cabinet position? Seems he'd be happiest just milking his I expected moment in the limelight.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Why is it that Labour have such a habit of electing no hopers as leader?

    AV has given a very odd flavour to this campaign. Corbyn took a early lead, as a result of which Cooper/Burnham were acutely aware they needed his second preference votes to win, and so immediately stopped saying anything that would piss off the left of the party, they also would quite like Kendalls votes when she gets eliminated so they don't want to be overtly antagonistic to her supporters. This has meant they now don't say very much of anything. As a result the otherwise fairly mediocre Corbyn looks better and better because he is actually making case for this beliefs and Cooper/Burnham start to look like stuffed shirts and fall further behind.

    Others looking out for transfers would appear to give the early leader a substantial advantage.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,597

    Why is it that Labour have such a habit of electing no hopers as leader?

    When was the last time a Tory leader, apart from Thatcher, won a sustainable working majority?

    The answer is the leader the blues don't talk about - the great Edward Heath.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Why is it that Labour have such a habit of electing no hopers as leader?

    When was the last time a Tory leader, apart from Thatcher, won a sustainable working majority?

    The answer is the leader the blues don't talk about - the great Edward Heath.

    He does have the advantage of being rather more recent than David Lloyd George ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520

    Why is it that Labour have such a habit of electing no hopers as leader?

    When was the last time a Tory leader, apart from Thatcher, won a sustainable working majority?

    The answer is the leader the blues don't talk about - the great Edward Heath.

    But the same comment could be made of Labour. The last leader apart from Blair to win a working majority was Harold Wilson in 1966. Indeed, apart from Blair he was also the last Labour leader to poll above 37% of the vote at a general election.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,164
    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Roger said:

    MikeK

    "If Corbyn loses there will be a mass exodus of most, if not all, the new members who signed up to vote for Corbyn"

    I thought they were all fifth collumist Tories anyway so wouldn't they leave after the vote whatever the result?

    Greens and communists, troskyists, militant and marxists in there too.
    Rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.
    @antifrank your Saddles are Blazing this morning!
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,135
    Indigo said:

    Corbyn took a early lead, as a result of which Cooper/Burnham were acutely aware they needed his second preference votes to win

    This doesn't make sense.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 11,520
    Indigo said:

    Why is it that Labour have such a habit of electing no hopers as leader?

    When was the last time a Tory leader, apart from Thatcher, won a sustainable working majority?

    The answer is the leader the blues don't talk about - the great Edward Heath.

    He does have the advantage of being rather more recent than David Lloyd George ;)
    David Lloyd George's majority was based on the Conservatives supporting him. The last Liberal leader to win an outright majority was Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman in 1906.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,634

    Mr. Root, be fair. Miliband was indeed rubbish, but Brown wasn't elected, and Blair, for all his flaws, did win three elections.

    Its not a question of fairness.. Blair was a snake oil saleman and yes he won three elections but did immense damage to our country.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,593
    antifrank said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Not sure why Kendall's people should put any second preference. None of the other 3 are facing up to the issues the Party has in the years ahead. As for giving them to Cooper - well, Yvette's "as a mother" schtick could turn off many.

    The best of reasons - if they don't, Corbyn will almost certainly win by default.

    Old Naval saying: 'Always choose the lesser of two evils.'
    Or schism

    If Corbyn wins, or if he loses by a slim margin, a split could be a real possibility.
    Agreed. It won't be pretty to watch (except for George Osborne).
    Who would leave, how and where would they go?

    (I have some ideas on this as it happens, but a split still looks a fairly distant possibility to me at present.)
    I cannot see any of them having the will to leave. The third party of the last few decades just got set back to the 50s and unlike the time of previous splits the Tories are not in that strong a position even now. Messing up now still gives time to recover, so,urging would remove that chance.
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    Jeremy Corbyn: - I come to bury Blairism, not to praise it.

    That is clearly part of the appeal to his supporters. He has got more and more blatant about it. The restoration of clause IV was as clear a piece of signalling that you will see.

    Is there really a majority in Labour now who wants to reject their most successful electoral period in their history? I don't believe so but the way the electorate has been distorted by the Union sign ups and blatant entryism does make you pause.
    I think there's now a majority in the party who regard it as a shameful period in the party's history.
    ================================

    I don't believe it ! a vocal shrill minority do not speak for the silent majority ; the ScotsNats found that out in the referendum ..the loyal members of the LP are not going to allow a Leftist loser like Corbyn to hijack their Party and lead it into election oblivion ...they'll get their act together and put this fire out
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Why is it that Labour have such a habit of electing no hopers as leader?

    When was the last time a Tory leader, apart from Thatcher, won a sustainable working majority?

    The answer is the leader the blues don't talk about - the great Edward Heath.

    Edward Heath had the same characteristic of T Blair - that of deceit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813
    Indigo said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:


    One other aspect of Mike's figures. The Labour leader looks set for a crisis of legitimacy either way. Either he doesn't have the support of his MPs (Corbyn) or s/he receieved at best around a quarter of the membership's vote - and quite possibly less - (Burnham / Cooper). Some might say that this doesn't matter and it's how the system works. Fair enough: it is. But that won't stop Labour's opponents making the (for example) "third choice" claim all the same.

    I think under such circumstances that would be pretty clear evidence that Labour's system doesn't work.

    Is there any market on Labour adopting the Conservative system of the PLP selecting two and then putting that choice to the membership? Because even allowing for some poor choices, so far as I know nobody has ever seriously questioned the legitimacy of winners under that system (leaving aside that uncited wikipedia entry).
    That system elected IDS
    The legitimacy of his election has never been questioned, ergo, the system worked. No system is going to stop voters voting for stupid candidates.
    He was ejected and never won MPs
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,490
    AF

    "Rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists."

    ...and that's just the MP's section
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813
    Indigo said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cromwell said:

    I agree with this except I don't expect Burnham to be even in second place in the first ballot as he is a very poor campaigner and dreadfully uninspiring candidate ; the voters don't like him as in the last Labour election he almost came last , just ahead of Abbot ...I expect Burnham to come a poor third , just in front of Kendall
    I think Corbyns best chance is to win outright in the first ballot like Tony Blair did , but I doubt he will do that ....Corbynmania has already peaked and reached its high water mark ; it has spooked the Labour voters and will unify them behind the eventual winner , who I believe will be Yvette Cooper

    The influx of new voters is worrysome as most of these must be Corbynites , but I suspect there will be just enough sensible sober minded voters to see off the threat of Corbynism ; I just don't think the LP are willing to throw in the towel and become an unelectable fringe /protest party just yet

    Burnham polls well ahead of Cooper
    With what pool of voters ?
    Every poll of the public so far
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,936
    edited August 2015
    Risible 'toughness' from the Government on immigrant workers. All hot air as ever - just who is going to be undertaking these checks given the scale of cuts to the agencies who might do it? But it's not real is it? it's just more mummery for the Daily Mail. I bet even Cameron's farts are all noise and no smell.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    HYUFD said:

    Indigo said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cromwell said:

    I agree with this except I don't expect Burnham to be even in second place in the first ballot as he is a very poor campaigner and dreadfully uninspiring candidate ; the voters don't like him as in the last Labour election he almost came last , just ahead of Abbot ...I expect Burnham to come a poor third , just in front of Kendall
    I think Corbyns best chance is to win outright in the first ballot like Tony Blair did , but I doubt he will do that ....Corbynmania has already peaked and reached its high water mark ; it has spooked the Labour voters and will unify them behind the eventual winner , who I believe will be Yvette Cooper

    The influx of new voters is worrysome as most of these must be Corbynites , but I suspect there will be just enough sensible sober minded voters to see off the threat of Corbynism ; I just don't think the LP are willing to throw in the towel and become an unelectable fringe /protest party just yet

    Burnham polls well ahead of Cooper
    With what pool of voters ?
    Every poll of the public so far
    The public are not electing the labour leader.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    HYUFD said:

    Indigo said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:


    One other aspect of Mike's figures. The Labour leader looks set for a crisis of legitimacy either way. Either he doesn't have the support of his MPs (Corbyn) or s/he receieved at best around a quarter of the membership's vote - and quite possibly less - (Burnham / Cooper). Some might say that this doesn't matter and it's how the system works. Fair enough: it is. But that won't stop Labour's opponents making the (for example) "third choice" claim all the same.

    I think under such circumstances that would be pretty clear evidence that Labour's system doesn't work.

    Is there any market on Labour adopting the Conservative system of the PLP selecting two and then putting that choice to the membership? Because even allowing for some poor choices, so far as I know nobody has ever seriously questioned the legitimacy of winners under that system (leaving aside that uncited wikipedia entry).
    That system elected IDS
    The legitimacy of his election has never been questioned, ergo, the system worked. No system is going to stop voters voting for stupid candidates.
    He was ejected and never won MPs
    Yes, he was a stupid choice. But a completely legitimate one.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,355
    Mr. Indigo, he who defends everywhere is weak everywhere.

    Fear of offending potential second preference voters, as you say, has paralysed the two candidates who think they have a chance of beating Corbyn.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,416
    Sandpit said:

    For anyone who thinks the whole thing might get called off, there's a tenner available on Betfair for Hattie at 430 and another tenner at 370.

    Well it's more realistic than the dreamers backing David Miliband !
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813
    Financier said:

    Why is it that Labour have such a habit of electing no hopers as leader?

    When was the last time a Tory leader, apart from Thatcher, won a sustainable working majority?

    The answer is the leader the blues don't talk about - the great Edward Heath.

    Edward Heath had the same characteristic of T Blair - that of deceit.
    Heath won 1 lost 2 drew 1
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,724
    Financier said:

    This leadership contest is a farce and should be stopped.

    Spoil-sport....

  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    It seems to me that the success of Corbyn has sown the seeds of his own destruction as he has now thoroughly alarmed the Labour membership who now recognise that he has a very real chance of victory ; they have almost 5 weeks to put this fire out and I expect Corbyn to hang himself with his own words as he is such a dogmatic two dimensional political figure ..he reminds me of Martin Luther ''here I stand I can do no other ''!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813

    Did the Yougov poll say where Burnham's second preferences went? I feel like the Labour figures backing Cooper as the ABC candidate could be shooting themselves in the foot if they manage to get her to second place on first/second preferences, in the case that Burnham's second preferences go much more for Corbyn than Cooper's do.

    Burnham preferences went more for Cooper and Cooper preferences for Burnham
Sign In or Register to comment.