politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB leadership: Liz Kendall is taking the lion’s share
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB leadership: Liz Kendall is taking the lion’s share of those MPs who voted for David Miliband in 2010
As we all know back in the 2010 Labour leadership contest Ed’s elder brother, David, was the front runner and chalked up biggish leads with both Labour MPs and the party membership.
0
Comments
There is a big flaw in the logic of thinking that Tom Watson is going to be deputy leader. If he were, it would be his job to stand in for PMQs in June 2020 standing opposite Prime Minister Gove after Leader Corbyn has resigned after the landslide defeat in May 2020. People would simply laugh at that idea, so they won't vote for him.
http://labourlist.org/2015/06/dear-ed-an-open-letter-of-congratulations-to-ed-miliband/
It seems clear that too many in the Labour Party continue to rate ideological purity over electability.
That thinking led to Ed Miliband and it seems the mistake is about to be made again. Labour can't win a General election without the votes of those who went with Blair, something they either don't understand, or don't wish to contemplate.
Pragmatic centrists like Kendall, Jarvis, Cameron and Blair are seen as electable to the wider population, ideologists like Burnham, Cooper, EdM, Watson, Brown etc. much less so.
An interesting split as to where the Burnham & Kendall’s votes are coming from, perhaps Cooper is the continuity gal after all. - as an aside and for the sake of the party, can’t help thinking that the MPs who backed Ed in 2010 should be locked in a small dark room until the campaign is over.
Incidentally I agree with one of the comments underneath the letter on labour list which says that Ed is far better than any of the current candidates. I completely disagree with Ed's politics but he strikes me as a decent bloke.
It does look as if we're going to get a three-way contest so my question would be what impact has the increase in Labour membership numbers had on the likely outcome? Who or what has prompted it? How much of it is discontented but lazy individuals who thought that Miliband would coast to Number 10 without their help but have now realised that they might have something to offer? Or is it trade unions pushing affiliate membership to their own members in advance of the leadership elections? Or something else? Because the answer will go some way to working out who has the best chance of victory.
My guess would be that the unions will be keen to stop Kendall (who is in any case a lightweight) but does the membership feel the same way? My inclination would be to go with HenryG's assessment that Cooper retains a slight advantage but I find it difficult to get inside the Labour mindset, and particularly the London Labour mindset, on an issue like this when there's frankly not much to choose between them. One reason being that if Kendall does finish third, Cooper should do better out of transfers than Burnham on the sisterhood vote.
All parties eulogise defeated leaders. Most Tories like Hague. Heck, some even like Major and IDS.
It is not obvious to me that Kendall is the right choice now. She will lose votes on the left, and may not gain enough from the centre if the Tories remain there. The circumstances that led to the phenomenonal election-winning success of New Labour may not recur.
I'd say Cooper is probably the best choice, she is more articulate & presentable than EdM and Brown.
To remove the Tory majority, Labour does not need to do much -- the threshold for Ed Miliband to enter No 10 was low, and the same remains true for any Labour leader who can rely on SNP backing.
When his time comes to meet his maker, at least Ed will have his "edstone" already made up and ready to go
That said, I agree with your main point and it's complacent thinking to believe otherwise. Smith would have won in 1997, as would Brown had he rather than Blair become leader in 1994. Indeed, facing the shambles that was the Tory party that year, it'd have taken supreme ineptness on Labour's part not to have won. Kinnock would very probably have beaten Thatcher in 1992 with the poll tax and the recession centre-stage (I doubt he'd have lasted long afterwards but he'd still have won).
Burnham is clearly an ideologist for the NHS. I've not seen much evidence of zealotry on his part on any other topic. Cooper, no: professional politician to her fingertips. That may be enough if the Tories stumble; it won't be if they don't.
You bet.
Brilliant, just brilliant - he's such a oily slug.
Both defeats were pretty memorable.
When do we want it Now! At some indeterminate point in the future!
The Scottish National Party has submitted an amendment to the Scotland Bill to enable the Scottish Parliament to deliver full fiscal autonomy.
The SNP amendment would give the Scottish Parliament the legislative competence to remove the reservation on taxation, borrowing and public expenditure, allowing the Scottish Parliament to legislate to deliver full fiscal autonomy.
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jun/snp-table-amendment-scotland-bill
Meanwhile I wonder if the SNP will support the Murray/David/Carswell amendment:
Independent Commission on Full Fiscal Autonomy
(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a commission of between four and eleven members to conduct an analysis of the impact of full fiscal autonomy on the Scottish economy, labour market and public finances and to report by 31 March 2016.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0003/amend/pbc031006a.pdf
The Lib Dems are having a leadership contest too but that's a simple 1-7 / 7-1 Farron/Lamb the pair case so isn't really that interesting.
Miss Plato, Russell Brand is on Labour's side. And the Conservatives should be worried.
On-topic: Cooper might be the second choice of many, but if she gets eliminated then what'll matter is how her supporters divvy up between the two more popular (if polarising) first choice candidates.
"However, senior Tory sources suggest that over the years tax credits have allowed big companies to get away with paying employees lower wages.
They say the time has come for a shift from state pay-outs to companies shouldering more of the burden. "
Same for housing benefit imo, the state should NOT be subsidising Poundland's millionaire owners and so forth, not to mention the in work benefits available for EU migrants.
Go for it George !
This is puerile gesture politics. When it fails the SNP will claim Labour and the Tories are blocking powers for the Scottish Parliament rather than engaging in the discussion and negotiation of what those powers should be.
On topic, Bad Al Campbell says in today's Times, he'll oust the next Labour leader if they are a duffer.
Blair's also gone on the record.
If there is, I cannot see any ousting with Campbell and Blair heavily involved as succeeding. Going by comments on here and I've heard elsewhere irl, Labour supporters really do not like them.
Whenever I see Tom Watson, I immediately think of Billy Bunter (Gerald Campion) - the fat owl of Greyfriars. It must be an age thing.
Corbyn and Watson? Surely not?
But they can't set up FFA in 18 months.
Work is a social good. Workless families set very poor examples to the children who grow up in them and give them worse outcomes. But subsidising work by the State effectively paying more than half of the cost of employment through CTC and HB is not sustainable. We just can't afford it.
Will you be providing and wielding the spit and the flannel?
The reconfiguration of Scottish politics means a rethink is needed in England and Wales.
http://bit.ly/1GgEfRk
Indeed, the recession and its aftermath were notable for the high level of pay restraint coupled with a surprisingly small amount of jobs lost and high amounts of jobs subsequently created.
Limits on immigration through the pearly gates.
I would go on but I can't remember any more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33090022
Their total unpreparedness is most shocking and will remain so, whilst they fight among themselves about the minutiae instead of looking at the big picture - in other words they are following EdM's legacy and example.
On election night, he wrote – and even delivered – his resignation speech. He’s not been quite the same since
http://bit.ly/1TcPYXY
The Prime Minister had not prepared a speech for outright victory; his opponent hadn’t prepared a speech for outright defeat. All of this helps explain why the government has sometimes seemed surprised by the prospect of having to implement its manifesto.
they can't set up FA in 18 months...
Mind you I think the article could have finished with a much better flourish, something along the lines of
"it was all going so well until the point he fell off the stage"
Sums up the 2015 election campaign for Labour in a nutshell really and looking at the candidates put forward probably 2020and 2025 as well.
All things considered I think he will still go as he indicated and leave while the going is good. So a mid term election for a new leader is entirely possible. Blair also did it at the time though it was a coronation of course. Whatever you think of Blair his departure was absolute spectacular timing and dropped his arch nemesis Brown into the crap of his own making right at the point it all hit the fans. Events it's always events.......
Lab thought they'd got it in the bag (a complacency driven by the opinion polls and website's like PoliticalBetting.com)
Oh to have been a fly on the wall of Chez Milliband that night...
The two problems with this are that at mid-term last time EIC was not in trouble (or so the polls said) and that there is a good chance the leader will be a mere woman. DM will then look like a bully for overthrowing a woman and disrupting the quota system at the top of the Labour Party.
So on this basis the nodding dog winner looks like having a good chance of being the one who loses for them in 2020.
I'm a former DM supporter, I still lIke Tony Blair despite everything, and I'm glad Kendall will be on the ballot, but as Danny and others noted on the last thread, she needs to say much more clearly what she's for. I'd like to see Corbyn get on the ballot too, partly to force everyone else to shapren up.
She has indeed picked up the vast bulk of those MPs who voted in first preference for David Miliband in 2010. That's her problem though - almost all of her support is coming from supporters of David Miliband. Of her 37 endorsements, 25 voted for D Miliband, 4 for E Miliband, 2 for Balls, 1 for Burnham and 5 were not MPs. That suggests that she is having trouble reaching out beyond the Blairite/Progress base, which wouldn't bode well for 2nd preference votes.
The other condenders' support, by contrast, is much more broad based. When I last did the count (although it needs updating) 22 of Burnham's supporters were not MPs in 2010, 7 voted for Burnham, 11 for Balls, 13 for E Miliband and 6 for D Miliband. Cooper likewise: 14 Balls, 9 E Miliband, 6 D Miliband, 11 weren't MPs. Note also that Cooper hasn't hoovered up all the previous supporters of Balls by any means.
I love the idea that Ed "out-performed David Cameron", despite the fact the latter gained a net 24 seats, secured a majority and a second term, and the former lost a net 26, resigned immediately, and left his party in its bleakest electoral position for 32 years!
Unfortunately for Labour, having seen Kendal on Marr, she is a little different but no better.
Reminds me of another hopeless cause-the choice for the leader of the British Labour Party in Scotland.
"One of the things that has been very noticeable since Election Day is how the more leftwing Labour supporters are starting to rewrite the result not as a shocking defeat, but almost as a narrow, nip and tuck affair where outside influences such as Murdoch and so on, conspired to ensure they were robbed.
The Tories 36.9% share is slowly being manipulated down, as Labour supporters spend their days consulting their maths books to concoct ever more elaborate methods of massaging the scale of the defeat downwards. I confidently expect that by Christmas some clever CiFer or HuffPoster will have proved Labour won. In the meantime the Tories will get on will have to fall back on just running the country. "
and today:
http://labourlist.org/2015/06/dear-ed-an-open-letter-of-congratulations-to-ed-miliband/
Amazing.
"Robertson & Sturgeon are class acts - potentially much more dangerous to the Union than Salmond. Salmond wouldn't have demolished SLAB in the same way Sturgeon has.... "
I agree with that, although the point I would make is that neither Robertson or even Sturgeon would have put the SNP in the strong position that Salmond left them in.
Success is not measured by quality of outcome, but by how much you chuck at it.
For five years many of those on all sides of the political spectrum observed and remarked upon the crapness of Ed Miliband. It wasn't something whispered secretly by a select few.
Some thought otherwise, and still do, after the worst electoral result for over thirty years. What does Ed Miliband have to do to prove his rubbishness to the die-hard zealots?
It's odd behaviour.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Rentool, I agree entirely. It seems rather daft.
Kendall must win outright on the first ballot or not at all
If only Tim Hunt's critics have matched his expertise.
France has a high unemployment rate, but exceeds our competiveness. With high wages and high taxes, French industry and services must be exceedingly efficient to make a profit.
Germany is notoriously efficient in manufacturing.
The US has managed to con it's population in to working long hours, few holidays, low pay and conditions with the exception of a very small minority (personally, iI think this is storing up problems for the future)
The UK has a low wage economy where wages are topped up by allowances paid in effect, by PAYE taxpayers, which in turn boosts the profits of the companies, quite a few of which pay very little if any tax in the UK.
There is no reason for the companies to become efficient let alone competitive if the profit allows high wages to be paid to the executives, and the work force are prepared to to accept the terms and conditions of boring, repetitive work.
The same thinking applies to those who believe that economic immigrants should be entitled to the UK level of benefits and not just to the level (if any) that they would have received in their own country.
It is very nice to save people from drowning in the Med, but nobody seems to have thought of what should be done with them then. If immigrants are going to be rescued by the Navy, clothed and fed and landed in Eirope, then will that not just encourage more to make the trip?
Reminds me of the chap who helped land the probe on the comet being criticised for his 'anti-women' shirt (specially made for him by a female friend).
Also agree in the climate fiddling.
Another thing. If the Tories think that they can win an election at the time of the handover, don't be surprised if they call one "to establish a new precedent" that unelected PMs have to get their own mandate.
If they can revive a committee that hasn't sat since 1860 then don't be surprised at anything the Conservatives come up with!
Andy U-Turnham and Yvette -Cooper -Balls are both labour apparatchiks indelibly stained by the Miliband debacle ; when they try and promote themselves as reformers they will contradict their recent support for Miliband and lose credibility .....Kendall is the ONLY one uncontaminated by defeat who can honestly promote herself as a reformer and centrist
Cooper has literally received the political kiss of death from that epic loser , Balls ; they need to distance themselves from the failures of the election defeat , not be married to it !
"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations"
But some people don't like to be confused by the facts.
Andy U Turnham reminds me of those soulless, cynical apparatchiks from the former Soviet Union who didn't believe anymore but just went through the motions of believing , while Kendal really does have a vision and conviction in her beliefs ; ironically and paradoxically she really does , in some ways , remind me of Thatcher in her confidence that she does actually believe she is correct ...Thatcher too was very much underestimated ...watch out for Kendall as there is a political vacuum in the L P that demands to be filled....she may not win this leadership battle due to the fact that she has only been an MP for 5 years , but after the next Labour defeat she could lead the party to election victory in 2025
In the 14th century, nearly a thousand years after the Western Empire fell, Cola di Rienzi became the last tribune of Rome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cola_di_Rienzo
There's a chapter about him at the end of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
She said: “Labour should never be in favour of budget deficits for the sake of it. I have no problem aiming for a surplus. We must learn the lessons of what happened after the 2010 election and make sure our economic policy is defined by us and not by the Conservatives.
“We lost the last election because we were not trusted with the economy or with taxes and this time we have to be crystal clear what our deficit policy is as early as possible.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/10/labours-liz-kendall-i-have-no-problem-aiming-for-budget-surplus
I usually post at the Guardian where I repeatedly , almost on a daily bases , predicted a TORY MAJORITY for 6 months before the election ; I had enough confidence to bet a large amount of money on it and naturally won big time ...I was never more than 65-70% confident on a Tory majority , but was 100% confident of Cameron winning the most seats ; this I used as a foundation bet back in December @ 5/4 from Ladbrokes and used that as a guarantor of the more risky bet @ 5-1 at other bookies ...I placed over 40 bets at various bookies over the next few months and won them all !
Here is my final prediction before the election ......and so it came to pass !
1 May 2015 07:19
3
Recommend
A WEEK IS A LONG TIME IN POLITICS
Cameron is going to win a majority ...it's bloody obvious !
Labour are a sinking ship fatally holed below the waterline by the infamous SNPee ; poor Miliband has already received the ''kiss of death '' from Lady Macbeth in the last debate when she insisted that ''we together can lock the Tories out '' ...no wonder Miliband is trying his best to deny it as he knows intuitively that it would signal the end for both him and the Labour party
The witless sturgeon is too narrow minded to grasp just how the SNP are feared and loathed in middle England and is not even slightly aware that she is providing Cameron with his majority
The polls are neck and neck as the voters make up their minds but soon we shall she the mother of all late swings as it suddenly dawns upon the voters in England the dangers they are in ; indeed , a weak Labour party propped up by a nationalist separatist party from Scotland will be enough to frighten the dead ...it is not over yet but it soon will be as those renegade Tories flirting with UKIP will be spooked back to save the day for Cameron