politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB leadership: A three, a four or a five horse race?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB leadership: A three, a four or a five horse race?

We are now just a day away from the first formal stage in the race to be EdM’s successor. MP nominations open tomorrow and those wanting to be on the ballot have until next Monday to garner the support of 35 LAB MPs to ensure that they are on the ballot.

Read the full story here

Tykejohnno

What if scenario on the EU referendum ;-)

What if Cameron can't get what he wants on the EU and comes out for 'Out' on the EU referendum,remember Cameron has said Nothing should be off the table if he can't get a deal.

It would make some pro EU con's on here look abit silly ;-) and it would be proberly be backed by most of his cabinet.

Morris_Dancer

Turkey: AKP [Erdogan's lot] has 41% of the vote but not enough seats to govern solo: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33047047

Edited extra bit: Mr. Johnno, nice idea, but I think that's pretty unlikely.

SimonStClare

It’s a three horse race – and two of those are donkeys.

Plato

Corbyn's jockey wears corduroy, with a Hammer & Sickle logo

SimonStClare said:

It’s a three horse race – and two of those are donkeys.

Tykejohnno

Cameron denying now he said that cabinet members told to leave the government if they don't tow his line on the EU in a referendum.

Richard_Nabavi

It's hard to see Mary Creagh getting on the ballot, in fact it's hard to see why she entered the race or what she thinks is distinctive about her candidature, except perhaps her near-total obscurity. I expect she'll withdraw soon, maybe before nominations open.

There might be enough left-wingers to get Jeremy Corbyn on to the ballot. Labour like to have at least one no-hoper in these contests.

So a three- or four-horse race.

Meanwhile Liz Kendall seems to be doing a good job of showing how to lose by telling the punters some home truths they don't want to hear.

HYUFD

The last yougov poll for the Sun just over a week ago suggested it was a Burnham Cooper race with Kendall a strong third. That was before Corbyn's entry though

Labour voters
Burnham 29%
Cooper 15%
Kendall 6%
Creagh 1%

All voters
Burnham 18%
Cooper 9%
Kendall 7%
Creagh 2%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/

Richard_Tyndall

Tykejohnno said:

Cameron denying now he said that cabinet members told to leave the government if they don't tow his line on the EU in a referendum.

Dan Hannan clearly has the measure of Cameron's commitment to the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11658810/David-Camerons-has-finally-confirmed-that-he-is-pro-European-and-wants-us-to-stay-in.html

PeterC

Tykejohnno said:

What if scenario on the EU referendum ;-)

What if Cameron can't get what he wants on the EU and comes out for 'Out' on the EU referendum,remember Cameron has said Nothing should be off the table if he can't get a deal.

It would make some pro EU con's on here look abit silly ;-) and it would be proberly be backed by most of his cabinet.

Highly unlikely, but ultimate disaster for Cameron's premiership if he couldn't in conscience advocate IN. I expect he would resign and allow someone else to lead the government into an OUT campaign.

JohnLilburne

Tykejohnno said:

Cameron denying now he said that cabinet members told to leave the government if they don't tow his line on the EU in a referendum.

Toe, not tow. And I am not sure how you define toeing the line, but it seems to be that he expects ministers to support a pro-in campaign after deeming negotiations to be successful, which doesn't seem that bad seeing that it's government policy.

Tykejohnno

JohnLilburne said:

Tykejohnno said:

Cameron denying now he said that cabinet members told to leave the government if they don't tow his line on the EU in a referendum.

Toe, not tow. And I am not sure how you define toeing the line, but it seems to be that he expects ministers to support a pro-in campaign after deeming negotiations to be successful, which doesn't seem that bad seeing that it's government policy.

Thanks ;-)

Richard_Tyndall

JohnLilburne said:

Tykejohnno said:

Cameron denying now he said that cabinet members told to leave the government if they don't tow his line on the EU in a referendum.

Toe, not tow. And I am not sure how you define toeing the line, but it seems to be that he expects ministers to support a pro-in campaign after deeming negotiations to be successful, which doesn't seem that bad seeing that it's government policy.

It was Government policy to have a full renegotiation with meaningful repatriation of powers, not the sham that is currently being developed.

richardDodd

The Donkey Derby

Tykejohnno

BBC Politics ‏@BBCPolitics ·
Downing Street denies that a free vote for ministers during EU referendum campaign has been ruled out: http://bbc.in/1FKPa2l

SandyRentool

Labour MPs have a moral obligation to the membership to ensure they spread their nominations to ensure all 5 candidates get onto the ballot. It is a daft rule when there are 6 or fewer candidates - they should all get through on the nod.

Same applies to the deputy candidates.

Tykejohnno

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE ·
UTurn alert: Number 10 clarifies that PM only suggested ministers should toe the line during EU renegotiations - not at actual referendum

Richard_Nabavi

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Richard_Nabavi

Tykejohnno said:

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE ·
UTurn alert: Number 10 clarifies that PM only suggested ministers should toe the line during EU renegotiations - not at actual referendum

That was what I thought he said in the first place.

HYUFD

RN ICM last week had Out over 40% whatever question asked

Scott_P

@gabyhinsliff: If the Out campaign continues to be this messy I'll have to concede it was probably a good idea to have an EU referendum. DAMNIT.

JohnLilburne

Richard_Tyndall said:

JohnLilburne said:

Tykejohnno said:

Cameron denying now he said that cabinet members told to leave the government if they don't tow his line on the EU in a referendum.

Toe, not tow. And I am not sure how you define toeing the line, but it seems to be that he expects ministers to support a pro-in campaign after deeming negotiations to be successful, which doesn't seem that bad seeing that it's government policy.

It was Government policy to have a full renegotiation with meaningful repatriation of powers, not the sham that is currently being developed.

Strange, you have never struck me as a particularly credulous person before.

Richard_Nabavi

HYUFD said:

RN ICM last week had Out over 40% whatever question asked

It will be less when push comes to shove, unless the Outers can come up with some really convincing counter to the jobs argument. That was always going to be extremely tricky, but there seems to be zero sign that they are even bothering to think about it.

richardDodd

RN So where does the U turn come in..

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.

To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.

Luckyguy1983

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Killer argument? Really? I thought it was the same warmed over hysterical tripe we get every time we're asked to favour further EU amalgamation. Have I missed someone actually making a convincing case?

Tykejohnno

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tykejohnno said:

Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE ·
UTurn alert: Number 10 clarifies that PM only suggested ministers should toe the line during EU renegotiations - not at actual referendum

That was what I thought he said in the first place.

Blame the newspapers or Cameron should have made more clear at the time.

Very messy for Cameron,it makes it look like a U-turn.

Richard_Tyndall

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

You are talking bollocks again I see Richard.

I have already made clear the need to accept EEA membership. I have given my opinion - on this site - on what Out needs to do to stand any chance of winning and I am continuing to try to get that to happen. I am now therefore at liberty to point out what a lying scumbag your party leader is.

You should be utterly ashamed to be supporting someone as dishonest as Cameron particularly given you supposed claims that you would treat the whole EU vote with an open mind. But then you have ever been a man to put party before country so I should not be surprised by your stance now.

JosiasJessop

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yep. They'd rather beat Cameron (and destroy the Conservative party) than win the referendum.

Insanity.

SimonStClare

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful -

Indeed – A great for a core vote strategy, but there are not enough fruitcakes to win an OUT.

HYUFD

Daily Politics just done a 'ball drop' poll in Bromley, it was In but reasonably close

Richard_Nabavi

richardDodd said:

RN So where does the U turn come in..

I don't think there was one. The journalists (as often) didn't seem to listen to what he actually said:

"Everyone in government has signed up to the programme set out in the Conservative manifesto."

Mr Cameron added: "I am carrying out a renegotiation in the national interest to get a result that I believe will be in the national interest. I'm confident I can get that."

He told reporters it was not a "on the one hand, on the other hand approach".

"The government isn't neutral in this. We have a clear view: renegotiate, get a deal that's in Britain's interest and then recommend Britain stays in it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33043694

That's just a restatement of Conservative Party policy. Obviously if we can't get a good deal, then the situation changes.

In practice, as I posted yesterday, I'm certain that Conservative MPs will be free to campaign for Out, and I think that ministers below Cabinet level will also be allowed to. I'm not sure about Cabinet ministers, I think that decision is one Cameron can't take until he sees the lie of the land nearer the time.

MarkHopkins

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yep. They'd rather beat Cameron (and destroy the Conservative party) than win the referendum.

Insanity.

It may be subconsciously they know they're going to lose, and hence they attack their hate figure (Cameron) as the representative of IN.

If they stick to the arguments for OUT but lose, then they have to take the blame themselves. Easier to blame Cameron from the off.

Richard_Tyndall

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.

To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.

Unlike you TSE some of us are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Besides, pointing out the mendacity of your party takes almost no time at all.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Hopkins, I fear that's the case.

The argument against In ought to be made. An argument for Out is not 'we dislike Cameron'.

HYUFD

RN The jobs argument may see In home like in Scotland but I cannot see Out falling below 40% unless a wholescale renegotiation

Disraeli

FPT
Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. Tyndall, I think that's entirely wrong. Things could easily get worse:
1) joining the euro [admittedly, unlikely in the short term]
2) rebate whittled away
3) financial transaction tax
4) eurozone integration giving the voting muscle for the eurozone to dominate voting proceedings even on non-eurozone matters

And that's just off the top of my head.

Out should be focused on winning, not trying to split the Conservatives and give UKIP a boost.
############

Cards on the Table - I'd be relaxed about voting "In" for something very like the status quo, with a few reasonable reforms. (Which I think Cameron can achieve)
I agree with your list except for item 4. This has already happened.

Since November 2014, new weightings for Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council came into force (Introduced by the Lisbon Treaty).
Measures now need the support of 55% of the Council members, and 65% of population.

This means that Eurozone members can decide on a measure that suits them, and impose it on the other non-eurozone members using QMV by voting as a bloc.

rcs1000

Re FTT

If I had time, I could write a 14 page update on the EU FTT.

However, one thing is very clear: it is no nearer implementation today than it was 18 months ago. The theoretical "go" date of 1/1/16 (from the original plan of 1/1/14) will not be met. There remain a number of hold-ups where there is complete disagreement between all the parties: 1. whether intraday trades are also charged (France is opposed); 2. special dispensation for market makers; 3. traded bank loans; 4. CFDs, primary issuance; dervivative contracts more generally; 4. degree of claimed extra-territoriality; 5. government bonds and actions of central banks and legal dispensations therein; 6. interactions with local transaction taxes (like the UK's own stamp duty); 7. taxation of non-indexed and private equity assets; 8. exchange traded property assets; and there are no doubt many more bitsI am not acquainted with. In a number of these areas, agreement has gone substantially backwards in the last two years.

It is very clear that the various countries that make up the EU - even the ones in favour an FTT - have very different conceptions of what an FTT looks like. And all have local industries they are seeking to protect.

While I can't promise no FTT, the 11 countries that were supposed to "go it alone" and create their own FTT have basically failed. (The French are theoretically the keenest but are refusing to give up the revenues from own domestic FTT.) I would be very surprised to see any FTT, even among the 11, in the next 5 years because the local vested interests are so strong. And I suspect we'll never see it in the UK.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.

To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.

Unlike you TSE some of us are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Besides, pointing out the mendacity of your party takes almost no time at all.

Keep playing the men, and not the ball.

Makes winning the referendum much easier for the IN side.

PS - This post was written, whilst I was walking, typing on my phone, and swinging my pants to 5,6.7,8 by Steps

Luckyguy1983

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.

To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.

No, you assured us that that was our opinion. Kippers on this board stated he would undoubtedly hold one, but that he would skew the question and the terms of debate in favour of the EU (tick), use the full weight of Government to unfairly promote one side of the debate (pending), secure risible consessions from EU partners and sell them as something serious (pending), not to mention leverage the full weight of a supine press to smear anyone who supports 'Out' or 'No' or 'Evil backward looking economy destroying right wingers' or whatever it is they will put on the ballot.

As for being politically tribal, I find that more than a little rich from a group who have so few core political values they'd vote for Pol Pot in a blue rosette if it allowed them the sweet taste of a shared sense of victory.

CD13

Mr Nabavi,

I think IN will win but it's very little to do with Cameron. The threat (real or imagined) of job losses and the lack of any mention of political union will seal the deal.

But I suspect there are no circumstances in which he will recommend OUT and I further suspect he is a Federalist EU man. Immigration will not be cut (and cannot be) but he may present already agreed plans to limit benefits for a certain time as a triumph of negotiation.

He is a politician and it's unreasonable to expect him to be honest. "No ifs. No buts" - in your dreams.

TheScreamingEagles

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.

To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.

No, you assured us that that was our opinion. Kippers on this board stated he would undoubtedly hold one, but that he would skew the question and the terms of debate in favour of the EU (tick), use the full weight of Government to unfairly promote one side of the debate (pending), secure risible consessions from EU partners and sell them as something serious (pending), not to mention leverage the full weight of a supine press to smear anyone who supports 'Out' or 'No' or 'Evil backward looking economy destroying right wingers' or whatever it is they will put on the ballot.

As for being politically tribal, I find that more than a little rich from a group who have so few core political values they'd vote for Pol Pot in a blue rosette if it allowed them the sweet taste of a shared sense of victory.

We draw at the line at supporting Putin wearing a blue rosette.

I'm from the party of IN, you're the Party of Putin

MikeSmithson

HYUFD said:

The last yougov poll for the Sun just over a week ago suggested it was a Burnham Cooper race with Kendall a strong third. That was before Corbyn's entry though

Labour voters
Burnham 29%
Cooper 15%
Kendall 6%
Creagh 1%

All voters
Burnham 18%
Cooper 9%
Kendall 7%
Creagh 2%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/

You keep on repeating this which has ZERO basis for what will happen. Wait till we get a poll of those entitled to vote.

Burnham wins on name recognition. So what.

JosiasJessop

It says something that Mr Tyndall's contributions this morning have pushed me over to the other side of the fence, to vote to remain in.

At least for the moment, until the next bit of EU insanity pushes me back over to the other side. ;-)

I feel like I've spent so much time on this fence (and falling on one side or the other) that I'm quite bruised all over. ;-)

Plato

I quite agree, it's weird. Akin to Labour obsessing over Tories in Scotland.

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

rottenborough

I'm with Mike. I don't think Burnham will do it. It will be a woman. But as a neutral - they are all reasonably work-'man'-like leaders. Nothing that will set the world on fire. Labour remain in deep trouble whoever wins IMHO.

Omnium

If Burnham (4th to Ed, and only beating Abbot by a whistle) were to come first in the poll, but fail to win, what on earth does that say about the winner.

He and Yvette should withdraw if they are interested in the future of the Labour party. They then need to work out how they got themselves into such a pickle.

Happily all the 'comrade' talk is actually a cover for the nastiest infighting known to man. No matter how daft the electorate is, Labour will always be one shortcoming ahead.

Tykejohnno

James Tapsfield @JamesTapsfield

David Davis welcomes No10's "re-interpretation" on ministers' EU campaigning, says "vital" people can follow conscience

Don't get me wrong,I like Cameron but some on here on previous thread posting cameron's stance on sacking ministers who don't back him in the EU referendum showing we have a strong PM looking abit silly now ;-)

justin124

Not sure whether anyone has yet made this point here but having looked at the detailed results it looks pretty clear that the Greens indirectly gave Cameron his majority by denying Labour seven seats it would almost certainly have otherwise won. I am referring to -Gower – Derby North – Croydon Central – Bury North -Morley & Outwood – Plymouth Sutton & Devonport – and Brighton Kemptown.Had there been no Green candidate in those constituencies the national result would have been Lab 239 – Con 323- with Cameron needing the Ulster parties for a majority.
So it was the Greens that put Cameron over the line!

TheScreamingEagles

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

The last yougov poll for the Sun just over a week ago suggested it was a Burnham Cooper race with Kendall a strong third. That was before Corbyn's entry though

Labour voters
Burnham 29%
Cooper 15%
Kendall 6%
Creagh 1%

All voters
Burnham 18%
Cooper 9%
Kendall 7%
Creagh 2%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/

You keep on repeating this which has ZERO basis for what will happen. Wait till we get a poll of those entitled to vote.

Burnham wins on name recognition. So what.

Back in May 2010 yougov found just 13% of Lab supporters thought Ed Miliband would be the best Labour leader whilst 34% said David Miliband, for all voters it was 8% and 23% respectively

http://bit.ly/1IppKLG

Richard_Nabavi

HYUFD said:

RN The jobs argument may see In home like in Scotland but I cannot see Out falling below 40% unless a wholescale renegotiation

There's a massive gulf between moaning about the EU - for which you can find a high level of support - and actually, when push comes to shove, taking the leap into the dark when nearly all major employers, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the City, the trades unions, the Labour Party, the SNP, the BBC, the US President, all the main European politicians, and (although he's unimportant in the overall scheme of things) the Prime Minister and government will all be saying that jobs will be lost.

It may be bollocks - it probably is bollocks - but it is a massive, massive threat to the Out side. Richard Tyndall (whom I don't engage with because he keeps calling people liars) argued in his article the other day that the Out side should counter this by saying we'll stay in the EEA, but that would negate nearly all the reasons people have for wanting to leave, not least because it would mean we'd be in virtually the identical position on immigration that we're in now. So that's a non-starter of a political position for the Out side IMO.

Therefore, the only hope for countering the jobs argument would be to try to flesh out what a bilateral trade treaty with the EU might look like. That is very, very tricky - it will meet the objection that what they want is unattainable (assuming they can even agree what they do want).

The bottom line is that it will look to average voter like a choice between the devil they know and an uncertain leap into the dark. In such a contest, the devil wins.

HYUFD

OGH There will be almost no difference between Labour voters and Labour members on the vote in my view. As for name recognition, Cooper has as much if not more name recognition than Burnham and Kendall has been all over the media for weeks, yes things may change but at the moment it is a Burnham v Cooper race with Burnham ahead and Kendall a reasonably strong third

MarqueeMark

justin124 said:

Not sure whether anyone has yet made this point here but having looked at the detailed results it looks pretty clear that the Greens indirectly gave Cameron his majority by denying Labour seven seats it would almost certainly have otherwise won. I am referring to -Gower – Derby North – Croydon Central – Bury North -Morley & Outwood – Plymouth Sutton & Devonport – and Brighton Kemptown.Had there been no Green candidate in those constituencies the national result would have been Lab 239 – Con 323- with Cameron needing the Ulster parties for a majority.
So it was the Greens that put Cameron over the line!

Which is a nice payback for Cameron insisting the Greens were in the debates.

And there were those who thought Cameron had a horror show of weakness over the debate format. Hur hur hur....

TheScreamingEagles

justin124 said:

Not sure whether anyone has yet made this point here but having looked at the detailed results it looks pretty clear that the Greens indirectly gave Cameron his majority by denying Labour seven seats it would almost certainly have otherwise won. I am referring to -Gower – Derby North – Croydon Central – Bury North -Morley & Outwood – Plymouth Sutton & Devonport – and Brighton Kemptown.Had there been no Green candidate in those constituencies the national result would have been Lab 239 – Con 323- with Cameron needing the Ulster parties for a majority.
So it was the Greens that put Cameron over the line!

But what about the seats where the Greens didn't stand?

I know some say, Ester McVey lost, because there was no Green candidate there.

PS - It is very arrogant to assume all Greens are Labour supporters on holiday, people used to say the same about UKIP supporters being Tories on holiday

HYUFD

Omnium Reagan only won the GOP nomination on the third attempt, so what? Burnham and Cooper are the top 2 with Labour voters and all voters, why should they withdraw?

Pulpstar

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

This sort of tactic only works if the leader in question has "toxicity" attached to them - see Clegg and the AV referendum. It's a non starter right now for the EU, Cameron's ratings are too good for it to work.

I think a May 2017 date would be best to hold the referendum, turnout will be higher than say Nov 2016 and it'll give a decent amount of time for a renegotiation.

rottenborough

TheScreamingEagles said:

justin124 said:

Not sure whether anyone has yet made this point here but having looked at the detailed results it looks pretty clear that the Greens indirectly gave Cameron his majority by denying Labour seven seats it would almost certainly have otherwise won. I am referring to -Gower – Derby North – Croydon Central – Bury North -Morley & Outwood – Plymouth Sutton & Devonport – and Brighton Kemptown.Had there been no Green candidate in those constituencies the national result would have been Lab 239 – Con 323- with Cameron needing the Ulster parties for a majority.
So it was the Greens that put Cameron over the line!

But what about the seats where the Greens didn't stand?

I know some say, Ester McVey lost, because there was no Green candidate there.

PS - It is very arrogant to assume all Greens are Labour supporters on holiday, people used to say the same about UKIP supporters being Tories on holiday

Agree. Labour do this all the time. Many Green voters are ex-LibDem or even, shock, horror, actually Green!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Pulpstar, the news was suggesting the referendum might occur at the same time as the 2016 votes (Scotland and London, I think).

Pulpstar

On topic: The value is still with Yvette, but I think Burnham at evens is better than Kendall at 5-2 or so.

HYUFD

TSE Yes and David Miliband actually won the Labour members vote, he only lost because Ed M won union members votes. This time Labour members alone will decide the outcome

Anyway even on that May 2010 poll the top 2 were David Miliband and Ed Miliband, the top 2 on the final ballot

foxinsoxuk

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

The last yougov poll for the Sun just over a week ago suggested it was a Burnham Cooper race with Kendall a strong third. That was before Corbyn's entry though

Labour voters
Burnham 29%
Cooper 15%
Kendall 6%
Creagh 1%

All voters
Burnham 18%
Cooper 9%
Kendall 7%
Creagh 2%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/

You keep on repeating this which has ZERO basis for what will happen. Wait till we get a poll of those entitled to vote.

Burnham wins on name recognition. So what.

Back in May 2010 yougov found just 13% of Lab supporters thought Ed Miliband would be the best Labour leader whilst 34% said David Miliband, for all voters it was 8% and 23% respectively

http://bit.ly/1IppKLG

And they were right!

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

TSE Yes and David Miliband actually won the Labour members vote, he only lost because Ed M won union members votes. This time Labour members alone will decide the outcome

But he didn't win anywhere near close to the level the YouGov polls linked to below suggested, hence Mike's point about name recognition being valid.

Pulpstar

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pulpstar, the news was suggesting the referendum might occur at the same time as the 2016 votes (Scotland and London, I think).

Hmm, is that enough time for a proper renegotiation though ?

If we're going to stay in (And either May 2016 or 2017 will make that more or less a shoo in imo) then the renegotiation certainly shouldn't be rushed - we need to try and get the best deal possible. I think we can play quite hardball given the trade balance between ourselves and the rest of the EU too.

Richard_Nabavi

Pulpstar said:

On topic: The value is still with Yvette, but I think Burnham at evens is better than Kendall at 5-2 or so.

Yes, the vibes on Liz are not encouraging for her campaign. The party doesn't look as though it's yet reached the point where it's ready to listen to voices like hers.

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

On topic: The value is still with Yvette, but I think Burnham at evens is better than Kendall at 5-2 or so.

Yes, the vibes on Liz are not encouraging for her campaign. The party doesn't look as though it's yet reached the point where it's ready to listen to voices like hers.

It's not a short campaign and the anecdote of her finding support from Corbyn for her call to redistribute power rather than money bodes well. I do believe she has more to offer the left than Burnham or Cooper.

HYUFD

RN As I said the jobs argument should see In home, but Out will still get a sold score

On the Labour leadership it is Burnham v Cooper in my view unless something dramatic changes, though Kendall should put up a reasonable performance in third and beat Corbyn, something that may not have happened with Labour in the eighties

franklyn

For anyone wondering about the SNP kicking the nuclear fleet out of Faslane (with loss of thousands of Scottish jobs), the plans are clearly in place.
http://www.gbc.gi/news/hms-ambush-arrives-gibraltar-29752

HYUFD

TSE Yes, but the top 2 in that yougov poll were David Miliband and Ed Miliband, the final 2 in the actual vote too, all that happened was there was some shift from David to Ed over the campaign, but David still finished ahead on members votes

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

TSE Yes and David Miliband actually won the Labour members vote, he only lost because Ed M won union members votes. This time Labour members alone will decide the outcome

Anyway even on that May 2010 poll the top 2 were David Miliband and Ed Miliband, the top 2 on the final ballot

This time, anyone prepared to spend £3 gets to decide the outcome. Nonsense on stilts. The franchise should have been restricted to those who were members on general election day.

AndyJS

O/T:

"France is better than Britain, but we're scared to admit it

If we could put our prejudices to one side we'd see why French society is so much better than ours, and we might even be prepared to learn a few lessons from them, says Alex Proud"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11655310/France-is-better-than-Britain-but-were-scared-to-admit-it.html

Cyclefree

Hello all,

Even if In wins the EU referendum, it will not settle the matter because there will continue to be further moves to European integration and while people might be willing to accept the status quo, that is precisely what is not on offer, even for Britain. A "Yes" result will embolden other EU countries to move further towards integration. There are fundamental differences between the British view of matters and that of countries like France and Germany, which cannot be resolved by tinkering around a few issues. We do not fundamentally share the objective of creating a European state.

I wonder whether the EU realise that this question will never be closed and how they think this can be addressed.

A few other thoughts:-

1. Farage is the wrong person to lead Out.
2. If Out is serious they need to start now and they need to come up with plausible answers to the questions of what Britain will do once out of the EU - from the relatively trivial ("will I be able to travel to France?") to the serious - jobs etc.
3. Bullying by other EU leaders will not work. E.g. the Polish minister telling the British that they must learn to live with the consequences of not being part of the EU and all the bad things that will bring struck a very sour note with me. First, because people have travelled and worked in other European countries long before the EU was invented and this will not really change; second, because keeping in people through fear is not in anyone's long term interests and, finally, because the British do not react well to being bullied by Continental Europeans, something you'd have thought the Poles would have understood.
4. I do not really trust Cameron to come up with anything more than tinkering, not because I doubt his good faith but because I think the dialogue between him and other countries is, fundamentally, a dialogue of the deaf. We have fundamentally different views about the whole project.

HYUFD

Fox Indeed, it is interesting that Labour supporters and voters as a whole were backing David Miliband at this stage in 2010 but are now backing Burnham

TheScreamingEagles

Cyclefree said:

Hello all,

Even if In wins the EU referendum, it will not settle the matter because there will continue to be further moves to European integration and while people might be willing to accept the status quo, that is precisely what is not on offer, even for Britain. A "Yes" result will embolden other EU countries to move further towards integration. There are fundamental differences between the British view of matters and that of countries like France and Germany, which cannot be resolved by tinkering around a few issues. We do not fundamentally share the objective of creating a European state.

I wonder whether the EU realise that this question will never be closed and how they think this can be addressed.

A few other thoughts:-

1. Farage is the wrong person to lead Out.
2. If Out is serious they need to start now and they need to come up with plausible answers to the questions of what Britain will do once out of the EU - from the relatively trivial ("will I be able to travel to France?") to the serious - jobs etc.
3. Bullying by other EU leaders will not work. E.g. the Polish minister telling the British that they must learn to live with the consequences of not being part of the EU and all the bad things that will bring struck a very sour note with me. First, because people have travelled and worked in other European countries long before the EU was invented and this will not really change; second, because keeping in people through fear is not in anyone's long term interests and, finally, because the British do not react well to being bullied by Continental Europeans, something you'd have thought the Poles would have understood.
4. I do not really trust Cameron to come up with anything more than tinkering, not because I doubt his good faith but because I think the dialogue between him and other countries is, fundamentally, a dialogue of the deaf. We have fundamentally different views about the whole project.

I'm taking a vote to remain IN as a mandate from the British public for ever closer union.

JonathanD

Cyclefree said:

Hello all,

4. I do not really trust Cameron to come up with anything more than tinkering, not because I doubt his good faith but because I think the dialogue between him and other countries is, fundamentally, a dialogue of the deaf. We have fundamentally different views about the whole project.

This is the key point I think. It amazes me how fast the European countries seem to want to integrate. All it does is build up resentment that will at some point spill over. While I don't want to vote out, I may well do if the EU doesn't signal that the UK can avoid the push towards ever closer union.

foxinsoxuk

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

On topic: The value is still with Yvette, but I think Burnham at evens is better than Kendall at 5-2 or so.

Yes, the vibes on Liz are not encouraging for her campaign. The party doesn't look as though it's yet reached the point where it's ready to listen to voices like hers.

It's not a short campaign and the anecdote of her finding support from Corbyn for her call to redistribute power rather than money bodes well. I do believe she has more to offer the left than Burnham or Cooper.

Liz is not as right wing as some have caricatured her. She seems to be very keen on local communities organising for themselves. "All power to the Soviets", as one Mr Lenin once said:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/18.htm

MPs are quite reluctant to lose powers in this way, but ordinary Labour party folk may well be a lot more open to the idea.

HYUFD

SR The Tories have had open primaries for some of their selections, I doubt it makes much difference, other than a few fellow political junkies I doubt most Tory voters are going to rush to pay £3 to vote in the Labour leadership ballot

SimonStClare

@Cyclefree 1:13PM – top notch post.

Scott_P

@ComResPolls: New poll for @DailyMailUK shows "Yes" / "Stay In" with big leads in the EU referendum
http://t.co/Wax3ndjhAs http://t.co/ptLIQHdbHf

Bond_James_Bond

rottenborough said:

I'm with Mike. I don't think Burnham will do it. It will be a woman. But as a neutral - they are all reasonably work-'man'-like leaders. Nothing that will set the world on fire. Labour remain in deep trouble whoever wins IMHO.

And of course if it is a woman - Mrs. Balls - they won't able to get rid of her mid-term because they'll accuse themselves of sexism.

Mrs. Balls sports a permascowl of leftist disapproval that must curdle every pint of milk in her various houses. What an electoral asset!

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

SR The Tories have had open primaries for some of their selections, I doubt it makes much difference, other than a few fellow political junkies I doubt most Tory voters are going to rush to pay £3 to vote in the Labour leadership ballot

I am opposed to open primaries too. Mind, when the Tories restrict the field to two near-identical candidates the whole thing becomes pointless.

One member one vote should mean just that.

Scrapheap_as_was

I suppose it's progress for some here that they accept there will be an EU referendum.......

It's a start - baby steps.

Roll on that AV thread to change the subject.

On thread - Yvette, you bet!

Richard_Tyndall

JohnLilburne said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JohnLilburne said:

Tykejohnno said:

Cameron denying now he said that cabinet members told to leave the government if they don't tow his line on the EU in a referendum.

Toe, not tow. And I am not sure how you define toeing the line, but it seems to be that he expects ministers to support a pro-in campaign after deeming negotiations to be successful, which doesn't seem that bad seeing that it's government policy.

It was Government policy to have a full renegotiation with meaningful repatriation of powers, not the sham that is currently being developed.

Strange, you have never struck me as a particularly credulous person before.

If you are trying to claim that we should not believe anything the Government promises then I would agree with you entirely.

watford30

franklyn said:

For anyone wondering about the SNP kicking the nuclear fleet out of Faslane (with loss of thousands of Scottish jobs), the plans are clearly in place.
http://www.gbc.gi/news/hms-ambush-arrives-gibraltar-29752

HMS Ambush, an attack boat, has tied up alongside at a Z Berth. There are many dotted about the place. Nothing to do with rebasing Trident anywhere else.

HYUFD

SR That is how the Tories decide their final leadership ballot, though as you say from a choice of 2

Richard_Tyndall

JosiasJessop said:

It says something that Mr Tyndall's contributions this morning have pushed me over to the other side of the fence, to vote to remain in.

At least for the moment, until the next bit of EU insanity pushes me back over to the other side. ;-)

I feel like I've spent so much time on this fence (and falling on one side or the other) that I'm quite bruised all over. ;-)

I am sure you are really not that shallow JJ. If you are. Well in that case you really do deserve all you get.

HYUFD

BJB For now the top 2 with Labour voters and all voters are Burnham followed by Cooper with Kendall 3rd, though Kendall is second with Tories and LDs behind Burnham

Richard_Tyndall

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.

To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.

Unlike you TSE some of us are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Besides, pointing out the mendacity of your party takes almost no time at all.

Keep playing the men, and not the ball.

Makes winning the referendum much easier for the IN side.

PS - This post was written, whilst I was walking, typing on my phone, and swinging my pants to 5,6.7,8 by Steps

I am happy to do both. Particularly when the 'men' in question are such easy targets.

Richard_Tyndall

Tykejohnno said:

James Tapsfield @JamesTapsfield

David Davis welcomes No10's "re-interpretation" on ministers' EU campaigning, says "vital" people can follow conscience

Don't get me wrong,I like Cameron but some on here on previous thread posting cameron's stance on sacking ministers who don't back him in the EU referendum showing we have a strong PM looking abit silly now ;-)

Though of course they will never for a second admit they were wrong.

HYUFD

Scott P But In on 51% to 58% on both questions, suggesting plenty still to play for, 51% would be less than No won in indyref

MikeSmithson

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/607890937910579200

Richard_Tyndall

Richard_Nabavi said:

HYUFD said:

RN The jobs argument may see In home like in Scotland but I cannot see Out falling below 40% unless a wholescale renegotiation

There's a massive gulf between moaning about the EU - for which you can find a high level of support - and actually, when push comes to shove, taking the leap into the dark when nearly all major employers, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the City, the trades unions, the Labour Party, the SNP, the BBC, the US President, all the main European politicians, and (although he's unimportant in the overall scheme of things) the Prime Minister and government will all be saying that jobs will be lost.

It may be bollocks - it probably is bollocks - but it is a massive, massive threat to the Out side. Richard Tyndall (whom I don't engage with because he keeps calling people liars) argued in his article the other day that the Out side should counter this by saying we'll stay in the EEA, but that would negate nearly all the reasons people have for wanting to leave, not least because it would mean we'd be in virtually the identical position on immigration that we're in now. So that's a non-starter of a political position for the Out side IMO.

Therefore, the only hope for countering the jobs argument would be to try to flesh out what a bilateral trade treaty with the EU might look like. That is very, very tricky - it will meet the objection that what they want is unattainable (assuming they can even agree what they do want).

The bottom line is that it will look to average voter like a choice between the devil they know and an uncertain leap into the dark. In such a contest, the devil wins.

It really is very simple Richard. If you lie then I will call you a liar. If you want to stop being branded as such then don't lie.

Not responding to me makes it all the easier as it gives me an open goal.

TheScreamingEagles

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I suppose it's progress for some here that they accept there will be an EU referendum.......

It's a start - baby steps.

Roll on that AV thread to change the subject.

On thread - Yvette, you bet!

Well my stint as guest editor begins this weekend.

So expect wall to wall threads on AV, a second indyref and Sol Campbell for London Mayor

Luckyguy1983

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.

To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.

No, you assured us that that was our opinion. Kippers on this board stated he would undoubtedly hold one, but that he would skew the question and the terms of debate in favour of the EU (tick), use the full weight of Government to unfairly promote one side of the debate (pending), secure risible consessions from EU partners and sell them as something serious (pending), not to mention leverage the full weight of a supine press to smear anyone who supports 'Out' or 'No' or 'Evil backward looking economy destroying right wingers' or whatever it is they will put on the ballot.

As for being politically tribal, I find that more than a little rich from a group who have so few core political values they'd vote for Pol Pot in a blue rosette if it allowed them the sweet taste of a shared sense of victory.

We draw at the line at supporting Putin wearing a blue rosette.

I'm from the party of IN, you're the Party of Putin

And this post is from the party of pathetic.

TheScreamingEagles

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.

To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.

No, you assured us that that was our opinion. Kippers on this board stated he would undoubtedly hold one, but that he would skew the question and the terms of debate in favour of the EU (tick), use the full weight of Government to unfairly promote one side of the debate (pending), secure risible consessions from EU partners and sell them as something serious (pending), not to mention leverage the full weight of a supine press to smear anyone who supports 'Out' or 'No' or 'Evil backward looking economy destroying right wingers' or whatever it is they will put on the ballot.

As for being politically tribal, I find that more than a little rich from a group who have so few core political values they'd vote for Pol Pot in a blue rosette if it allowed them the sweet taste of a shared sense of victory.

We draw at the line at supporting Putin wearing a blue rosette.

I'm from the party of IN, you're the Party of Putin

And this post is from the party of pathetic.

Yes, UKIP are pathetic.

Huzzah on becoming self aware.

FalseFlag

HYUFD said:

Scott P But In on 51% to 58% on both questions, suggesting plenty still to play for, 51% would be less than No won in indyref

I don't think In starts with a big enough lead and I don't think the concessions the EU give will be enough.

Get Zac Goldsmith to lead the out campaign with Farage ably supporting.

Scrapheap_as_was

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.

To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.

No, you assured us that that was our opinion. Kippers on this board stated he would undoubtedly hold one, but that he would skew the question and the terms of debate in favour of the EU (tick), use the full weight of Government to unfairly promote one side of the debate (pending), secure risible consessions from EU partners and sell them as something serious (pending), not to mention leverage the full weight of a supine press to smear anyone who supports 'Out' or 'No' or 'Evil backward looking economy destroying right wingers' or whatever it is they will put on the ballot.

As for being politically tribal, I find that more than a little rich from a group who have so few core political values they'd vote for Pol Pot in a blue rosette if it allowed them the sweet taste of a shared sense of victory.

We draw at the line at supporting Putin wearing a blue rosette.

I'm from the party of IN, you're the Party of Putin

And this post is from the party of pathetic.

Yes, UKIP are pathetic.

Huzzah on becoming self aware.

you risk being dragged in to the EU headbanging, I suggest leaving them to it. 108 Kipper MPs can't be wrong.

Luckyguy1983

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

If you want to know why the Out side are going to lose the referendum, and lose it badly, you only have to look at their obsession with David Cameron. Instead of doing something useful - such as deciding whether they want to stay in the EEA, and, if not, how they are going to counter the killer argument that leaving will lead to huge job losses - they seem to think that the only thing which matters is internal Conservative party management and David Cameron personally. It's utterly bizarre, it needs a psychiatrist, not a political pundit, to figure out what is wrong with these people.

Yup it is risible, more interested in destroying the Tory party and David Cameron, than winning the Referendum.

To be fair, you would have thought we'd have a period of quiet reflection from them, after assuring us, Cameron is a liar who would never give us a referendum.

No, you assured us that that was our opinion. Kippers on this board stated he would undoubtedly hold one, but that he would skew the question and the terms of debate in favour of the EU (tick), use the full weight of Government to unfairly promote one side of the debate (pending), secure risible consessions from EU partners and sell them as something serious (pending), not to mention leverage the full weight of a supine press to smear anyone who supports 'Out' or 'No' or 'Evil backward looking economy destroying right wingers' or whatever it is they will put on the ballot.

As for being politically tribal, I find that more than a little rich from a group who have so few core political values they'd vote for Pol Pot in a blue rosette if it allowed them the sweet taste of a shared sense of victory.

We draw at the line at supporting Putin wearing a blue rosette.

I'm from the party of IN, you're the Party of Putin

And this post is from the party of pathetic.

Yes, UKIP are pathetic.

Huzzah on becoming self aware.

Thanks, I hope you'll join me someday.

Scrapheap_as_was

I'd rather Sol was Tory candidate by the way than failed IFA Ivan Massow. How low can you go.

MarkHopkins

With regard to being IN/OUT, I am open to being persuaded. Currently leaning towards IN, but concerned about the direction of travel with the EU 'dream'.

From reading on here, I am not alone. So if you want my vote: convince me, persuade me, show me the benefits (on either side).

What won't get my vote: calling Cameron a liar, or Farage a racist, or fears about jobs, or worries about the Euro. Come up with a positive vision and show us all.

Danny565

As I've said before, the argument that "Labour members voted for David, therefore they'll vote for Kendall" neglects something really important. David won over many leftish mainstream members because there was overwhelming evidence that he would be considered by the public as a readymade PM (because of his previous high-profile role and "gravitas").

Labour members are only willing to swallow right-wing policies if the leader is a guaranteed hit, like Blair was and like arguably David was - but there's no such evidence that Liz would be a hit with the public.

HYUFD

FF Indeed, or better still Boris if he can be persuaded