Interesting, though I suppose she does have a househusband now!
Yvette is rather quite good once you get through the misogynist pbCOM brigade. I have some doubts about Chuka- his social media stuff is worrying but he has charisma in spades (no racial pun intended). Burnham is strong too, but lacks charisma and gravitas. I would look no further than these three, and have Yvette as a slight favourite.
Liz Kendell comes across as a PlaySchool presenter, and Tristram- he would do well as BlackAdders idiotic aristocrat; well meaning but let down by his bumbling stupidity.
There again a Hunt vs Boris would be entertaining on who could bluster more.
The last days of Miliband. Dan Hodges reveals the inside story of Labour’s chaotic and secretive election campaign. Fear and loathing were permanent residents in his inner circle, with one member of his Shadow Cabinet even quitting at 2pm on election day. But how was the party so unaware of the true state of the ‘ground war’, even in the last days of the campaign? Perhaps Labour staff were aware, but the simple failure to share data – even with Miliband himself – proved catastrophic
It feels to me like Yvette has been largely invisible the past 5 years, but maybe I just don't see as much Home Office news as I should. When I have seen her she seems fairly impressive, and definitely lacks the innate quality of her husband that grated with me so. She appears generally reasonable and competent (whether she is either of those things I am not equipped to say from my patchy knowledge of her record), so I could see her performing strongly.
I still think of Yvette as the Ice Pixie from the last leadership election.
She's very poor at showing warmth and IMO that's a requirement for a successful leader.
I think Burnham has that quality as he can emote rather well - that I think he's going to be union puppet is another matter. If he could lose that - he's in with a very solid chance. Being Mr Stafford just doesn't seem to matter to Labourites.
I do not wish to be ungallant but I suppose I am, but Yvette Cooper looks like the left overs after Nicola Sturgeon has eaten her for breakfast. All the best to her otherwise because its her politics I detest.
It's a strange phenomenon how women can be the worst kind of nasty misogynists. Step up Plato.
I still think of Yvette as the Ice Pixie from the last leadership election.
She's very poor at showing warmth and IMO that's a requirement for a successful leader.
I think Burnham has that quality as he can emote rather well - that I think he's going to be union puppet is another matter. If he could lose that - he's in with a very solid chance. Being Mr Stafford just doesn't seem to matter to Labourites.
I do not wish to be ungallant but I suppose I am, but Yvette Cooper looks like the left overs after Nicola Sturgeon has eaten her for breakfast. All the best to her otherwise because its her politics I detest.
It's a strange phenomenon how women can be the worst kind of nasty misogynists. Step up Plato.
Would this really be possible? It is normally the job of the Leader of HM Loyal Opposition to ask the questions. Normally if the Leader of the Opposition doesn't show up, neither does the Prime Minister and vica versa. Something could be worked out though... FPT
I switched on the TV to see Peter Bone saying it was essential to get out of the human rights act then right on cue Theresa May says we have to send the drowning boat people back......
Before the end of the summer we'll have beggars on every street corner and cardboard boxes in every doorway filled with the homeless. Thatcher is back and big time.
Those of us who wished the Lib Dems ill owe them a big apology. They were the only thing standing between the last government and barbarism.
There is nothing barbarous about repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. In fact, there was a great deal more civil and political liberty in many areas before the Act was passed. This country did not become "civilised" on 2 October 2000 when the said Act came into force.
Well said! The idea that we did not have any human rights until Labour deigned to give them to us is utter bilge!
Odd as well that despite this allegedly civilising law Labour sought to introduce ID cards and detention without trial, both measures more commonly associated with totalitarian/authoritarian regimes to whom the phrase "barbarism" might more accurately be applied.
Now that the election is over, is Dan Hodges going to reveal who the avalanche of senior Labour sources and shadow Cabinet members he was always supposedly quoting as having spoken to him were? Given the tenor of his punditry the past five years, if he did have such an inside line on the Miliband team that was some gross disloyalty from those figures.
I still think of Yvette as the Ice Pixie from the last leadership election.
She's very poor at showing warmth and IMO that's a requirement for a successful leader.
I think Burnham has that quality as he can emote rather well - that I think he's going to be union puppet is another matter. If he could lose that - he's in with a very solid chance. Being Mr Stafford just doesn't seem to matter to Labourites.
I do not wish to be ungallant but I suppose I am, but Yvette Cooper looks like the left overs after Nicola Sturgeon has eaten her for breakfast. All the best to her otherwise because its her politics I detest.
It's a strange phenomenon how women can be the worst kind of nasty misogynists. Step up Plato.
I still think of Yvette as the Ice Pixie from the last leadership election.
She's very poor at showing warmth and IMO that's a requirement for a successful leader.
I think Burnham has that quality as he can emote rather well - that I think he's going to be union puppet is another matter. If he could lose that - he's in with a very solid chance. Being Mr Stafford just doesn't seem to matter to Labourites.
I do not wish to be ungallant but I suppose I am, but Yvette Cooper looks like the left overs after Nicola Sturgeon has eaten her for breakfast. All the best to her otherwise because its her politics I detest.
It's a strange phenomenon how women can be the worst kind of nasty misogynists. Step up Plato.
Now that the election is over, is Dan Hodges going to reveal who the avalanche of senior Labour sources and shadow Cabinet members he was always supposedly quoting as having spoken to him were? Given the tenor of his punditry the past five years, if he did have such an inside line on the Miliband team that was some gross disloyalty from those figures.
That Hodges article in the Speccy reads like something out of the Thick of It.
Remember when Olly gets seconded to Tuckers army of mini-Malcolms and the s##t hits the fan...
"Another Labour insider told of the scene in the press office when Miliband posed with the notorious Ed stone, the 8ft 6in slab of limestone upon which his six key election pledges were inscribed. When it appeared on TV, a press officer ‘started screaming. He stood in the office, just screaming over and over again at the screen. It was so bad they thought he was having a breakdown.’"
My local newspaper has a very bitter letter from the defeated Labour candidate in a constituency she thought she would win. In it she warns of the tough times ahead with the Tories in power - beggars in the street, schools and the NHS sold off, benefit claimants forced to eat gruel -( I slightly over-egg the pudding but not by much). She finishes with the words 'la luta continua' - the slogan of the former Italian Communist Party. And her day job - she works for Christian Aid.
Would this really be possible? It is normally the job of the Leader of HM Loyal Opposition to ask the questions. Normally if the Leader of the Opposition doesn't show up, neither does the Prime Minister and vica versa. Something could be worked out though... FPT
I switched on the TV to see Peter Bone saying it was essential to get out of the human rights act then right on cue Theresa May says we have to send the drowning boat people back......
Before the end of the summer we'll have beggars on every street corner and cardboard boxes in every doorway filled with the homeless. Thatcher is back and big time.
Those of us who wished the Lib Dems ill owe them a big apology. They were the only thing standing between the last government and barbarism.
There is nothing barbarous about repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. In fact, there was a great deal more civil and political liberty in many areas before the Act was passed. This country did not become "civilised" on 2 October 2000 when the said Act came into force.
Well said! The idea that we did not have any human rights until Labour deigned to give them to us is utter bilge!
I do not feel qualified yet to judge on the plans to repeal the act (though I cannot disagree about the illiberal moves of Labour when it was in power), but I am reminded of a quote from Antonin Scalia about the Voting Rights Act (again, not something on which I am qualified to comment on the merits of the particular parts which were challenged last year), about how even the name of it was so wonderful no politician would want to be seen voting against it. It strikes me that with a name like the Human Rights Act, even if a terrible piece of legislation, it can so easily be used as a symbol I can see why it has been left in place to date. After all, who is against Human Rights?
Now that the election is over, is Dan Hodges going to reveal who the avalanche of senior Labour sources and shadow Cabinet members he was always supposedly quoting as having spoken to him were? Given the tenor of his punditry the past five years, if he did have such an inside line on the Miliband team that was some gross disloyalty from those figures.
Now that the election is over, is Dan Hodges going to reveal who the avalanche of senior Labour sources and shadow Cabinet members he was always supposedly quoting as having spoken to him were? Given the tenor of his punditry the past five years, if he did have such an inside line on the Miliband team that was some gross disloyalty from those figures.
You only had to watch PMQ's, or when Ed was speaking with his shadow team in vision. They all looked utterly non plussed with their leader at all times. Especially when Ed was speaking. I think Dan H could take his pick behind the scenes for his sources. I sincerely doubt anyone was enthusiastic.
Now that the election is over, is Dan Hodges going to reveal who the avalanche of senior Labour sources and shadow Cabinet members he was always supposedly quoting as having spoken to him were? Given the tenor of his punditry the past five years, if he did have such an inside line on the Miliband team that was some gross disloyalty from those figures.
True enough. I am just curious who among them, if indeed it was not more minor people and Hodges just beefed up his commentary a little, was the most underhanded or concerned about what was going on.
Now that the election is over, is Dan Hodges going to reveal who the avalanche of senior Labour sources and shadow Cabinet members he was always supposedly quoting as having spoken to him were? Given the tenor of his punditry the past five years, if he did have such an inside line on the Miliband team that was some gross disloyalty from those figures.
I still think of Yvette as the Ice Pixie from the last leadership election.
She's very poor at showing warmth and IMO that's a requirement for a successful leader.
I think Burnham has that quality as he can emote rather well - that I think he's going to be union puppet is another matter. If he could lose that - he's in with a very solid chance. Being Mr Stafford just doesn't seem to matter to Labourites.
I do not wish to be ungallant but I suppose I am, but Yvette Cooper looks like the left overs after Nicola Sturgeon has eaten her for breakfast. All the best to her otherwise because its her politics I detest.
The problem with Burnham is 'emote' is all he does do. He has a zoolander "i'm being very sincere right now, cant you tell by how i'm looking at you with a really concerned look".
"Ed Miliband was an idealist until the end. He surrounded himself with academics, took inspiration from political textbooks and had an extraordinary ability to detach himself from the hue and cry of daily politics. He created his own world and lived in it. This explains his preternatural calm and his astonishing self-belief — but it also explains why he drove his party over a cliff."
Happy warrior...happy warrior....hell yeah....sounds like the country got a very lucky escape, Gordon MK II.
Just found out Liz Kendall's partner is Greg Davies - has this been mentioned before? Just wonder how he'll perform in the Justine role?
Blimey, so she is. Not sure if that helps or hinders her. I do find him funny and her utterly bland.
She also went to the same school as Priti Patel. However the fact that she is married to a stand up comedian of 'Live at the Apollo' standard does nothing for me I'm afraid.
PS She will probably win because she will wear all her NHS connections on her sleeve.
I have always liked Yvette Cooper. I can see her as PM, but fairly or unfairly she is seen to be too close to Ed Balls. I really do think a new generation is required, but then I am an LD rather than Lab so do not get a say. She certainly seems a good constituency MP as her majority went up while Ed Balls's disappeared entirely. She seemed fairly invisible in the campaign though (as did Balls) which is pretty poor for Shadow Home Sec when so much of the campaign was on issues in her brief.
Liz Kendall does look younger than her 43 years but communicates much better than Yvette, and is not tainted by the Blair Brown years. Liz is petite, but much more up for a scrap than Yvette. Perhaps it is a little ungallant but: it is not about the size of the dog in the fight, it is about the size of the fight in the dog.
The last days of Miliband. Dan Hodges reveals the inside story of Labour’s chaotic and secretive election campaign. Fear and loathing were permanent residents in his inner circle, with one member of his Shadow Cabinet even quitting at 2pm on election day. But how was the party so unaware of the true state of the ‘ground war’, even in the last days of the campaign? Perhaps Labour staff were aware, but the simple failure to share data – even with Miliband himself – proved catastrophic
I don't think there are any more right-wingers on here than before.
At a rough count this evening, I make it 26 right, 11 centre/unaligned, 6 left/Labour/SNP.
So no more than before means a lot.
It's definitely in general more right leaning, and the right are noisier right now. Though the reason I've stuck around for quite some time is as I find PB does seem to have more centrists than many other places, and I tend to place myself as being in the centre - although maybe I'm more right wing than I realise!
My local newspaper has a very bitter letter from the defeated Labour candidate in a constituency she thought she would win. In it she warns of the tough times ahead with the Tories in power - beggars in the street, schools and the NHS sold off, benefit claimants forced to eat gruel -( I slightly over-egg the pudding but not by much). She finishes with the words 'la luta continua' - the slogan of the former Italian Communist Party. And her day job - she works for Christian Aid.
My local newspaper has a very bitter letter from the defeated Labour candidate in a constituency she thought she would win. In it she warns of the tough times ahead with the Tories in power - beggars in the street, schools and the NHS sold off, benefit claimants forced to eat gruel -( I slightly over-egg the pudding but not by much). She finishes with the words 'la luta continua' - the slogan of the former Italian Communist Party. And her day job - she works for Christian Aid.
They've said the same thing over and over. Every election we have 24 hours to save the nhs, etc etc.
Just found out Liz Kendall's partner is Greg Davies - has this been mentioned before? Just wonder how he'll perform in the Justine role?
Blimey, so she is. Not sure if that helps or hinders her. I do find him funny and her utterly bland.
She also went to the same school as Priti Patel. However the fact that she is married to a stand up comedian of 'Live at the Apollo' standard does nothing for me I'm afraid.
PS She will probably win because she will wear all her NHS connections on her sleeve.
They are not married.
I think that Liz's wry humour must be helped by Greg. It is hard to be as arrogant as Chuka with a comedian as a partner. May do well with the youth vote too.
I note the headline says 'Top Farage Ally'. Given those quoted comments, either he was not really an ally in the first place, or he's an ex-ally, I should think.
UKIP need to hold firm right now. They secured a great deal of support, albeit with a disappointing result in MPs returned, and there's a lot for them to build upon. The Tories are buoyant and will be charging at them now, while UKIP are still disappointed they did not break through in lots of seats and the Tories are at their strongest, in an attempt to cut them down to size right at the start of the parliament. Weather the early storm, and the underlying potential for UKIP is still there.
I don't think there are any more right-wingers on here than before.
At a rough count this evening, I make it 26 right, 11 centre/unaligned, 6 left/Labour/SNP.
So no more than before means a lot.
It's definitely in general more right leaning, and the right are noisier right now. Though the reason I've stuck around for quite some time is as I find PB does seem to have more centrists than many other places, and I tend to place myself as being in the centre - although maybe I'm more right wing than I realise!
Fwiw I had you as centre, though PB centre may be a few more points along the left/right axis than other places.
OMOV may be in place but the Unions-especially via the MP's will have big say-Unite alone backs circa 20% of all MP's.
I still think a strong credible candidate from the Left of the Party with union backing would be very hard to beat.
When Len speaks we need to listen.
Will the union members not be able to vote for themselves though ?
Or does Joe Union member just follow whatever their leader says in general ?
As I said OMOV will be in place -but the MP's (if I am correct) have a 1/3 of the votes and therefore Big Len will have a big say in the outcome-therefore who he and the other leaders back needs to be taken seriously.
I don't think there are any more right-wingers on here than before.
At a rough count this evening, I make it 26 right, 11 centre/unaligned, 6 left/Labour/SNP.
So no more than before means a lot.
It's definitely in general more right leaning, and the right are noisier right now. Though the reason I've stuck around for quite some time is as I find PB does seem to have more centrists than many other places, and I tend to place myself as being in the centre - although maybe I'm more right wing than I realise!
Fwiw I had you as centre, though PB centre may be a few more points along the left/right axis than other places.
I'd take that as fair. I think my upbringing in the Tory shires makes me more instinctively wary of Labour specifically, so I try to ensure I consider them reasonably - perhaps that's why I overcompensated on saying Ed was not that bad and Labour would win once or twice (or several thousand times).
TBH, I think the threat from Kippers for the Tories has been largely vanquished, it's Labour who have a problem now.
If I were in charge of UKIP campaigning - I'd be hitting them hard in the blue collar areas. The Tories are winners for the time being - Labour are very wounded and more vulnerable.
I note the headline says 'Top Farage Ally'. Given those quoted comments, either he was not really an ally in the first place, or he's an ex-ally, I should think.
UKIP need to hold firm right now. They secured a great deal of support, albeit with a disappointing result in MPs returned, and there's a lot for them to build upon. The Tories are buoyant and will be charging at them now, while UKIP are still disappointed they did not break through in lots of seats and the Tories are at their strongest, in an attempt to cut them down to size right at the start of the parliament. Weather the early storm, and the underlying potential for UKIP is still there.
OMOV may be in place but the Unions-especially via the MP's will have big say-Unite alone backs circa 20% of all MP's.
I still think a strong credible candidate from the Left of the Party with union backing would be very hard to beat.
When Len speaks we need to listen.
Will the union members not be able to vote for themselves though ?
Or does Joe Union member just follow whatever their leader says in general ?
As I said OMOV will be in place -but the MP's (if I am correct) have a 1/3 of the votes and therefore Big Len will have a big say in the outcome-therefore who he and the other leaders back needs to be taken seriously.
I think that MPs votes count the same as anyone elses, once the nominations are past. It would be a bit of a set up to fail if anyone is elected leader without the confidence of the parliamentary party.
I do enjoy a Labour post mortem. It reminds me of all those wonderful inquests we hold here in Wales when we lose to the All Blacks. It is invariably bad captaincy, bad team selection ,bad luck, bad referee, bad touch judge or we played by the rules and they cheated. It is never that they were fitter ,more skilful and mentally tougher. I have every confidence that Labour will reach the wrong conclusion again. I think that they will go with Burnham as a plausible union choice and it will be the wrong one again. One thing that they could do is to stop this cry baby whingeing in the Guardian from Laurie Penny ,Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett et al. They should form a grief support group called Bitter At Labour Losing Seats or hashtag BALLS for short.
Well said! The idea that we did not have any human rights until Labour deigned to give them to us is utter bilge!
Odd as well that despite this allegedly civilising law Labour sought to introduce ID cards and detention without trial, both measures more commonly associated with totalitarian/authoritarian regimes to whom the phrase "barbarism" might more accurately be applied.
It all seems to be part of a pattern. I have noticed on news feeds that there are regular stories emanating from the left-wing press about how things said in the past makes new cabinet appointees unsuitable for their job. For example in 1998 Michael Gove supported hanging therefore he should not be Justice Secretary (presumably no-one is allowed to change their minds). I have seen several of these and they seem to be working their way around the cabinet table. Today it is the turn of the Disabilities Secretary.
Then there is the constant drip, drip, drip of how the Tories are going to wreck everything, imprison everyone, monitor everything else and do it all whilst quaffing champagne. There have even been pictures of Champagne supposedly being delivered to No 11 to celebrate the election whereas the picture was taken in 2004 when one Mr G Brown Esq was in residence.
It all seems to be on auto-pilot. During Watergate people were asked "Who ordered the cover up?" to which tyhe reply was "No one. We just knew what we needed to do". This seems to be the same sort of knee-jerk reaction.
Ed Miliband's office knew Ed Balls would lose for two weeks before polling day - but did not tell him
The Labour leader's team “sat on” polling figures which showed the-then shadow Chancellor was likely to lose his seat a fortnight before polling day on May 7
Is this the same O'Flynn who was made to look a fool by farage about his proposed handbag and shoe "WAG tax".
It's popcorn time! More UKIP splitters incoming...
Is that on the record or was it secretly taped? Either way he will surely have to resign, which is a shame for UKIP as it was O'Flynn who garnered several allies for them amongst the right-wing punditry.
I do enjoy a Labour post mortem. It reminds me of all those wonderful inquests we hold here in Wales when we lose to the All Blacks. It is invariably bad captaincy, bad team selection ,bad luck, bad referee, bad touch judge or we played by the rules and they cheated. It is never that they were fitter ,more skilful and mentally tougher. I have every confidence that Labour will reach the wrong conclusion again. I think that they will go with Burnham as a plausible union choice and it will be the wrong one again. One thing that they could do is to stop this cry baby whingeing in the Guardian from Laurie Penny ,Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett et al. They should form a grief support group called Bitter At Labour Losing Seats or hashtag BALLS for short.
The only good things about the Labour leadership election are that 1) Ed Balls has been castrated 2) Once over, Harriet hatemen will be history 3) No matter who Labour choose, their chances of forming a Govt are not good in 2020 4) Mascara man will be a bad choice. in fact whomever they choos will mean infighting
So lets enjoy 5 yrs of Labour self destructing. whomever they select as leader.
I think Burnham has that quality as he can emote rather well - that I think he's going to be union puppet is another matter. If he could lose that - he's in with a very solid chance. Being Mr Stafford just doesn't seem to matter to Labourites.
The problem with Burnham is 'emote' is all he does do. He has a zoolander "i'm being very sincere right now, cant you tell by how i'm looking at you with a really concerned look".
He perpetually looks like he is about to cry.
In his video he said that Labour should speak for NI but Labour won't even put up candidates there.
I switched on the TV to see Peter Bone saying it was essential to get out of the human rights act then right on cue Theresa May says we have to send the drowning boat people back.
Before the end of the summer we'll have beggars on every street corner and cardboard boxes in every doorway filled with the homeless. Thatcher is back and big time.
Those of us who wished the Lib Dems ill owe them a big apology. They were the only thing standing between the last government and barbarism.
There is nothing barbarous about repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. In fact, there was a great deal more civil and political liberty in many areas before the Act was passed. This country did not become "civilised" on 2 October 2000 when the said Act came into force.
Well said! The idea that we did not have any human rights until Labour deigned to give them to us is utter bilge!
I do not feel qualified yet to judge on the plans to repeal the act (though I cannot disagree about the illiberal moves of Labour when it was in power), but I am reminded of a quote from Antonin Scalia about the Voting Rights Act (again, not something on which I am qualified to comment on the merits of the particular parts which were challenged last year), about how even the name of it was so wonderful no politician would want to be seen voting against it. It strikes me that with a name like the Human Rights Act, even if a terrible piece of legislation, it can so easily be used as a symbol I can see why it has been left in place to date. After all, who is against Human Rights?
I too will reserve judgment. I suspect that it will be harder than some in the Tories seem to think because withdrawal from the ECHR is simply not feasible. But there are changes which could be made which might well improve matters.
But my main gripe is with Labour's wholly undeserved self-righteous claiming of the moral high ground here. Labour 1997 onwards has been one of the biggest threats to civil liberties and our rights around.
OMOV may be in place but the Unions-especially via the MP's will have big say-Unite alone backs circa 20% of all MP's.
I still think a strong credible candidate from the Left of the Party with union backing would be very hard to beat.
When Len speaks we need to listen.
Will the union members not be able to vote for themselves though ?
Or does Joe Union member just follow whatever their leader says in general ?
As I said OMOV will be in place -but the MP's (if I am correct) have a 1/3 of the votes and therefore Big Len will have a big say in the outcome-therefore who he and the other leaders back needs to be taken seriously.
I think that MPs votes count the same as anyone elses, once the nominations are past. It would be a bit of a set up to fail if anyone is elected leader without the confidence of the parliamentary party.
But with this voting system isn't that more likely than before? They use to count for 33% of the vote but now they are less than 0.1% of the electorate.
That Hodges article in the Speccy reads like something out of the Thick of It.
Remember when Olly gets seconded to Tuckers army of mini-Malcolms and the s##t hits the fan...
"Another Labour insider told of the scene in the press office when Miliband posed with the notorious Ed stone, the 8ft 6in slab of limestone upon which his six key election pledges were inscribed. When it appeared on TV, a press officer ‘started screaming. He stood in the office, just screaming over and over again at the screen. It was so bad they thought he was having a breakdown.’"
That Hodges article in the Speccy reads like something out of the Thick of It.
Remember when Olly gets seconded to Tuckers army of mini-Malcolms and the s##t hits the fan...
"Another Labour insider told of the scene in the press office when Miliband posed with the notorious Ed stone, the 8ft 6in slab of limestone upon which his six key election pledges were inscribed. When it appeared on TV, a press officer ‘started screaming. He stood in the office, just screaming over and over again at the screen. It was so bad they thought he was having a breakdown.’"
Just found out Liz Kendall's partner is Greg Davies - has this been mentioned before? Just wonder how he'll perform in the Justine role?
Blimey, so she is. Not sure if that helps or hinders her. I do find him funny and her utterly bland.
She also went to the same school as Priti Patel. However the fact that she is married to a stand up comedian of 'Live at the Apollo' standard does nothing for me I'm afraid.
PS She will probably win because she will wear all her NHS connections on her sleeve.
They are not married.
I think that Liz's wry humour must be helped by Greg. It is hard to be as arrogant as Chuka with a comedian as a partner. May do well with the youth vote too.
Shouting very loudly does not make you a comedian. Quoting her paid up commitment to the NHS might well do good for her. Although if she wins it might become tedious - as well as sending Labour down the same blind ally.
OMOV may be in place but the Unions-especially via the MP's will have big say-Unite alone backs circa 20% of all MP's.
I still think a strong credible candidate from the Left of the Party with union backing would be very hard to beat.
When Len speaks we need to listen.
Will the union members not be able to vote for themselves though ?
Or does Joe Union member just follow whatever their leader says in general ?
As I said OMOV will be in place -but the MP's (if I am correct) have a 1/3 of the votes and therefore Big Len will have a big say in the outcome-therefore who he and the other leaders back needs to be taken seriously.
I think that MPs votes count the same as anyone elses, once the nominations are past. It would be a bit of a set up to fail if anyone is elected leader without the confidence of the parliamentary party.
You maybe right but I thought the whole point of giving the MPs a significant stake was to prevent the Party installing a leader who the PPL didn't like.
If that is the case then from a purely betting point of view the profile of the candidate amongst the Party is surely key.
On that basis I would put Burnham ahead of Cooper with Chukka a long way behind.
Outside London I dont see Chukka having any real depth of support.
Ed Miliband's office knew Ed Balls would lose for two weeks before polling day - but did not tell him
The Labour leader's team “sat on” polling figures which showed the-then shadow Chancellor was likely to lose his seat a fortnight before polling day on May 7
I guess Tory bits right across the border on the England side are a thin blue line stopping the two from joining up!
Although it would have been funny if the Tories had taken Berwickshire, then it would be like the North of England really did want to join up with Scotland, but the entire borders regions of both were held by the Blues and keeping them apart.
Ed Miliband's office knew Ed Balls would lose for two weeks before polling day - but did not tell him
The Labour leader's team “sat on” polling figures which showed the-then shadow Chancellor was likely to lose his seat a fortnight before polling day on May 7
Shouting very loudly does not make you a comedian. Quoting her paid up commitment to the NHS might well do good for her. Although if she wins it might become tedious - as well as sending Labour down the same blind ally.
Ed Miliband's office knew Ed Balls would lose for two weeks before polling day - but did not tell him
The Labour leader's team “sat on” polling figures which showed the-then shadow Chancellor was likely to lose his seat a fortnight before polling day on May 7
Seems inevitable. I don't really see how replacing the HRA is treated by various people and organisations as though we are getting rid of the idea of protection of Human Rights - and this wouldn't even be an issue if the ECHR didn't keep seeming like an organisation with an agenda above just following the law - but it has seemed like a lot effort and anguish for what doesn't appear a great deal of gain. The majority already too slim perhaps?
Would this have been one of the items dropped in the event of another coalition agreement I wonder?
OMOV may be in place but the Unions-especially via the MP's will have big say-Unite alone backs circa 20% of all MP's.
I still think a strong credible candidate from the Left of the Party with union backing would be very hard to beat.
When Len speaks we need to listen.
Will the union members not be able to vote for themselves though ?
Or does Joe Union member just follow whatever their leader says in general ?
As I said OMOV will be in place -but the MP's (if I am correct) have a 1/3 of the votes and therefore Big Len will have a big say in the outcome-therefore who he and the other leaders back needs to be taken seriously.
I think that MPs votes count the same as anyone elses, once the nominations are past. It would be a bit of a set up to fail if anyone is elected leader without the confidence of the parliamentary party.
You maybe right but I thought the whole point of giving the MPs a significant stake was to prevent the Party installing a leader who the PPL didn't like.
If that is the case then from a purely betting point of view the profile of the candidate amongst the Party is surely key.
On that basis I would put Burnham ahead of Cooper with Chukka a long way behind.
Outside London I dont see Chukka having any real depth of support.
It is registered supporters, not members. While 50% of Labour Members are in and around the smoke, many of the registered supporters will be union members. Many of these will be in public sector unions, often female and in the health and social care sectors.
I don't think there are any more right-wingers on here than before.
At a rough count this evening, I make it 26 right, 11 centre/unaligned, 6 left/Labour/SNP.
So no more than before means a lot.
How have you categorised me ?? !!
'fraid I went with the Tory part of your tag, though happy to be corrected!
I am not a Tory but probably slightly centre -right overall.
Economically to the right Socially-VERY liberal
Truth be told, as a Republican, Federalist, atheist I am not sure where i would put myself-but I cant see myself being invited to many suppers at Chequers
This election result has certainly shown the British Left at its unhinged worst. I'm starting to think Ed Miliband dodged a bullet. Imagine if he'd won and was beholden to these people.
A very sensible starting point - I presume she's a Blairite.
Given the sharp intake of breath in the Leader Debates when EdM said We Didn't - I can't see anyone with brains agreeing with him unless they're just going for the much reduced Core Vote.
Kendall just said on Newsnight Labour spent too much before the crash....
Sensible. If Labour believe that still to be untrue, it would probably be best to leave it to future historians and economists to make the argument than try to rebut it in the present climate.
Seems inevitable. I don't really see how replacing the HRA is treated by various people and organisations as though we are getting rid of the idea of protection of Human Rights - and this wouldn't even be an issue if the ECHR didn't keep seeming like an organisation with an agenda above just following the law - but it has seemed like a lot effort and anguish for what doesn't appear a great deal of gain. The majority already too slim perhaps?
Would this have been one of the items dropped in the event of another coalition agreement I wonder?
The Indy makes a very thin case against success of repeal of HRA. The lawyers don't like it. They may have to get proper jobs.
A very sensible starting point - I presume she's a Blairite.
Given the sharp intake of breath in the Leader Debates when EdM said We Didn't - I can't see anyone with brains agreeing with him unless they're just going for the much reduced Core Vote.
Nailed on Burnham for Labour leader, Lenny will make sure of it, that would be an even more stupid choice than Miliband. Burnham a bluffing faker the British people would never have him as PM. Any of the others would be much superior, Cooper would be safe and solid but Umunna would be a stronger all round choice. Kendall not sure about looks good but I have a feeling she may be the textbook Labour careerist bluffer.
...It doesn’t seem to matter that the world has completely changed since the days when Peter Mandelson sported a moustache; Labour refuses to deviate from a biblical model whereby campaigning rules are cast in stone.
Being tied to a 20th century campaigning model is bad enough, but the fact that our politics looks less authentic than the 1990s only makes matters worse. At least back then, there was genuine diversity on our front bench with the likes of Mo Mowlam, David Blunkett and John Prescott showing that the party founded to represent the interests of working people was actually represented by working people.
Nowadays our front bench is dripping with privilege and it can’t be right that privately educated sons of Barons, nieces of Earls and millionaires dominate the top positions.
• Simon Danczuk MP: 'Labour's militant left no better than BNP'
Kendall getting a harder time than with Andrew Neill, but I note she seems to be getting some success with them by challenging them back (Have you x, why do you y etc), and more specifically than just whinging that she has answered a question (as many MPs do, when they patently haven't). Still a bit evasive on some of the key issues, but hey, it's politics.
@atulh: Not sure Liz Kendall doing herself many favours here. Lesson to other contenders: have some clear answers to Qs on welfare, taxes, deficit
I think she was pretty clear.
She believes Lab overspent. She supports the benefit cap. She believes in the 50p tax as something temporary and doesn't accept views which are critical of its ability to raise revenue.
We know more about her views that Chuka Umunna's vacuous nonsense....
Comments
Liz Kendell comes across as a PlaySchool presenter, and Tristram- he would do well as BlackAdders idiotic aristocrat; well meaning but let down by his bumbling stupidity.
There again a Hunt vs Boris would be entertaining on who could bluster more.
But there is more chance of this ending up looking like the first week of Britain’s Got Talent.
Labour could do far worse.
http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=b7034b6517cfdcc8d4d4e60e9&id=780a0402bb&e=34b267752a
Take the mote from your own eye!
Well said! The idea that we did not have any human rights until Labour deigned to give them to us is utter bilge!
Odd as well that despite this allegedly civilising law Labour sought to introduce ID cards and detention without trial, both measures more commonly associated with totalitarian/authoritarian regimes to whom the phrase "barbarism" might more accurately be applied.
You only have to look at the Clinton's to see that a Husband /Wife duo where both are at the very top creates its own unique set of dynamics.
They may out themselves of course - probably after the leadership election.
I still think a strong credible candidate from the Left of the Party with union backing would be very hard to beat.
When Len speaks we need to listen.
Remember when Olly gets seconded to Tuckers army of mini-Malcolms and the s##t hits the fan...
"Another Labour insider told of the scene in the press office when Miliband posed with the notorious Ed stone, the 8ft 6in slab of limestone upon which his six key election pledges were inscribed. When it appeared on TV, a press officer ‘started screaming. He stood in the office, just screaming over and over again at the screen. It was so bad they thought he was having a breakdown.’"
Or does Joe Union member just follow whatever their leader says in general ?
I think Dan H could take his pick behind the scenes for his sources. I sincerely doubt anyone was enthusiastic.
So no more than before means a lot.
done
Kerching... now to find that 2011 betslip online somewhere as been archived...presume with Ladbrokes..
He perpetually looks like he is about to cry.
Happy warrior...happy warrior....hell yeah....sounds like the country got a very lucky escape, Gordon MK II.
However the fact that she is married to a stand up comedian of 'Live at the Apollo' standard does nothing for me I'm afraid.
PS
She will probably win because she will wear all her NHS connections on her sleeve.
I have always liked Yvette Cooper. I can see her as PM, but fairly or unfairly she is seen to be too close to Ed Balls. I really do think a new generation is required, but then I am an LD rather than Lab so do not get a say. She certainly seems a good constituency MP as her majority went up while Ed Balls's disappeared entirely. She seemed fairly invisible in the campaign though (as did Balls) which is pretty poor for Shadow Home Sec when so much of the campaign was on issues in her brief.
Liz Kendall does look younger than her 43 years but communicates much better than Yvette, and is not tainted by the Blair Brown years. Liz is petite, but much more up for a scrap than Yvette. Perhaps it is a little ungallant but: it is not about the size of the dog in the fight, it is about the size of the fight in the dog.
Let's see the glee from Labourites when the Tories trip over something or other.
We've just won an election - given the % of the population nationally who voted SNP there are many more from your team here.
@DJack_Journo: Farage is a snarling, thin-skinned, aggressive man who makes @UKIP look like a personality cult, says @oflynnmep http://t.co/HfGZTPH1Ju
I think that Liz's wry humour must be helped by Greg. It is hard to be as arrogant as Chuka with a comedian as a partner. May do well with the youth vote too.
Though I suspect some would rather drink the cool-aid than accept it being a cult.
It's popcorn time! More UKIP splitters incoming...
UKIP need to hold firm right now. They secured a great deal of support, albeit with a disappointing result in MPs returned, and there's a lot for them to build upon. The Tories are buoyant and will be charging at them now, while UKIP are still disappointed they did not break through in lots of seats and the Tories are at their strongest, in an attempt to cut them down to size right at the start of the parliament. Weather the early storm, and the underlying potential for UKIP is still there.
If I were in charge of UKIP campaigning - I'd be hitting them hard in the blue collar areas. The Tories are winners for the time being - Labour are very wounded and more vulnerable.
Then there is the constant drip, drip, drip of how the Tories are going to wreck everything, imprison everyone, monitor everything else and do it all whilst quaffing champagne. There have even been pictures of Champagne supposedly being delivered to No 11 to celebrate the election whereas the picture was taken in 2004 when one Mr G Brown Esq was in residence.
It all seems to be on auto-pilot. During Watergate people were asked "Who ordered the cover up?" to which tyhe reply was "No one. We just knew what we needed to do". This seems to be the same sort of knee-jerk reaction.
The Labour leader's team “sat on” polling figures which showed the-then shadow Chancellor was likely to lose his seat a fortnight before polling day on May 7
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11603888/ed-miliband-knew-ed-balls-would-lose-his-seat-in-election.html
Happy warrior...happy warrior....
https://twitter.com/PennyRed/status/598263897896923136
https://twitter.com/TheBabyOtter/status/598404838205091840
1) Ed Balls has been castrated
2) Once over, Harriet hatemen will be history
3) No matter who Labour choose, their chances of forming a Govt are not good in 2020
4) Mascara man will be a bad choice. in fact whomever they choos will mean infighting
So lets enjoy 5 yrs of Labour self destructing. whomever they select as leader.
But my main gripe is with Labour's wholly undeserved self-righteous claiming of the moral high ground here. Labour 1997 onwards has been one of the biggest threats to civil liberties and our rights around.
There is a petition for Merseyside to join Scotland.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/merseysiders-among-thousands-sign-petition-9251170
https://youtu.be/Jau337XezIs
Quoting her paid up commitment to the NHS might well do good for her. Although if she wins it might become tedious - as well as sending Labour down the same blind ally.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-faces-tory-backbench-rebellion-over-plans-to-scrap-the-human-rights-act-10248313.html
If that is the case then from a purely betting point of view the profile of the candidate amongst the Party is surely key.
On that basis I would put Burnham ahead of Cooper with Chukka a long way behind.
Outside London I dont see Chukka having any real depth of support.
Although it would have been funny if the Tories had taken Berwickshire, then it would be like the North of England really did want to join up with Scotland, but the entire borders regions of both were held by the Blues and keeping them apart.
IF Kendal or Cooper win then Watson must really be odds on?
If I got this wrong - can someone correct me there?
Would this have been one of the items dropped in the event of another coalition agreement I wonder?
How peculiar.
Economically to the right
Socially-VERY liberal
Truth be told, as a Republican, Federalist, atheist I am not sure where i would put myself-but I cant see myself being invited to many suppers at Chequers
She wants to win then
Given the sharp intake of breath in the Leader Debates when EdM said We Didn't - I can't see anyone with brains agreeing with him unless they're just going for the much reduced Core Vote.
@atulh: Not sure Liz Kendall doing herself many favours here. Lesson to other contenders: have some clear answers to Qs on welfare, taxes, deficit
She believes Lab overspent.
She supports the benefit cap.
She believes in the 50p tax as something temporary and doesn't accept views which are critical of its ability to raise revenue.
We know more about her views that Chuka Umunna's vacuous nonsense....