Doesn't surprise me. He can be articulate (unless he is on channel 4). He has union backing. And for some reason he has managed to position himself as the change candidate. They love him at my local CLP.
I mentioned this before but this is one of the rare cases where it makes sense to be tactical under AV. (The voters won't.) If the first choices of everybody on the left go to somebody transfer-repellent, the right-wing candidate goes through to the run-off and proceeds to scoop up the centrist votes.
That said, Corbyn could easily win this thing outright. The right-wing candidate is too right-wing for the base and the two in the middle aren't very good.
None of these things are in the gift of the Out campaign. They can (at best) say what they would like to happen,
Well, that would be a start. On my very first point, at the moment we have two diametrically opposed lines from the Out side:
- We want to join the EEA - We want control over EU immigration.
Well, you can have one, or the other, but you can't have both. Which would you like?
Your continued attempts to imply that you are on the fence about the EuRef are passing farcical, it would seem plain to just about anyone reading that you are a committed Cameron and like your glorious leader you "will not countenance leaving the EU". Also like your leader you try and take the public (and us) for fools by pretending your mind isn't made up, and that it is all to play for.
I mentioned this before but this is one of the rare cases where it makes sense to be tactical under AV. (The voters won't.) If the first choices of everybody on the left go to somebody transfer-repellent, the right-wing candidate goes through to the run-off and proceeds to scoop up the centrist votes.
That said, Corbyn could easily win this thing outright. The right-wing candidate is too right-wing for the base and the two in the middle aren't very good.
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
Hilarious stuff. The EFSM guarantees the money advanced against the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron frequently claimed to the House of Commons without any qualification or proviso he had secured an opt out from this measure. Yet it is clear that notwithstanding his assurances, it can still be used in the same way it was to bail out Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Incidentally, if the eurozone countries are prepared to insure our contribution (for which there is no provision in the treaties), why are they not prepared to raise the bridging finance by way of bilateral loans to Greece?
We have only Cameron to blame for the accrual of this liability to lend to an insolvent, but let's not pretend that the EU institutions have not reneged on a political agreement.
When I was a child I almost laughed myself unconscious watching Jasper Carrot* on television — I could barely breathe and was literally rolling around on the floor, and it took ages for me to regain my composure — if Corbyn is elected Labour leader I may repeat that.
* Don't sneer I thought he was extremely funny when I was young.
Your continued attempts to imply that you are on the fence about the EuRef are passing farcical, it would seem plain to just about anyone reading that you are a committed Cameron and like your glorious leader you "will not countenance leaving the EU". Also like your leader you try and take the public (and us) for fools by pretending your mind isn't made up, and that it is all to play for.
Yeah yeah, just keep the mindless insults coming. That will really help your case.
Alternatively, have you considered answering the question? It's a rather vital one, given that the principal motivator of many, perhaps most, of the potential Out voters is immigration. They are not being sold a lie, are they?
I mentioned this before but this is one of the rare cases where it makes sense to be tactical under AV. (The voters won't.) If the first choices of everybody on the left go to somebody transfer-repellent, the right-wing candidate goes through to the run-off and proceeds to scoop up the centrist votes.
That said, Corbyn could easily win this thing outright. The right-wing candidate is too right-wing for the base and the two in the middle aren't very good.
A lot of people agree with Corbyn's politics, and want a full-blooded left wing party in this country. I don't it's a sufficiently large number to win an election, but it's probably c.30% or so of the voters.
I mentioned this before but this is one of the rare cases where it makes sense to be tactical under AV. (The voters won't.) If the first choices of everybody on the left go to somebody transfer-repellent, the right-wing candidate goes through to the run-off and proceeds to scoop up the centrist votes.
That said, Corbyn could easily win this thing outright. The right-wing candidate is too right-wing for the base and the two in the middle aren't very good.
Corbyn is one year younger than Foot was when he became leader in 1980.
Osborne's dividends raid valued upwards of £6bn "The accountancy firm believes that the dividend tax hike – an effective 7.5% increase in rates – will end up “discouraging entrepreneurial activity and enterprise”, reported City AM."
Do the Tories want to encourage small businesses and entrepreneurs?
As a self employed small businessman I'm absolutely furious about this - the lower tax was surely a quid pro quo for the lack of security / other perks of permanent employment. This government cares about no one but big business. Imagine if they'd said before the election they were going to give most small business people a 7.5% tax hike. They'd have been annihilated.
As an IT contractor operating under a Ltd Co, I'm unperturbed over the dividend tax changes. I take a small salary and larger dividends currently, how that will change in the future I'm not yet certain. One thing is clear to me though, something like this has been on the cards for ages. Rightly or wrongly, it is seen as a dodge by many and it is quite hard to counter the arguments. I see your point about the quid-pro-quo for the lack of employment related perks and securities, but where we lose on the swings we gain on the roundabouts.
The changes that to concern me are the travel and subsistence related changes which could force some small consultancies out of business. Oh, and the as yet detail-less review of IR35.
The travel and subsistence related changes seem like a sledgehammer to solve a scalpel issue. I'm sure there must be people abusing "business expenses" as a contractor to evade tax but that's already covered with tax evasion legislation rather than yanking the whole concept.
Reading the article looks like Labour might have EdM to thank for this - it suggests many of the right-wing supporters may have left the party in the last few years. Deliciously funny if true:)
Farron i/c the LDs is certainly a joke but this would be a veritable lifetime of laughs. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in No10 and 11 right now.
Osborne's dividends raid valued upwards of £6bn "The accountancy firm believes that the dividend tax hike – an effective 7.5% increase in rates – will end up “discouraging entrepreneurial activity and enterprise”, reported City AM."
Do the Tories want to encourage small businesses and entrepreneurs?
As a self employed small businessman I'm absolutely furious about this - the lower tax was surely a quid pro quo for the lack of security / other perks of permanent employment. This government cares about no one but big business. Imagine if they'd said before the election they were going to give most small business people a 7.5% tax hike. They'd have been annihilated.
As an IT contractor operating under a Ltd Co, I'm unperturbed over the dividend tax changes. I take a small salary and larger dividends currently, how that will change in the future I'm not yet certain. One thing is clear to me though, something like this has been on the cards for ages. Rightly or wrongly, it is seen as a dodge by many and it is quite hard to counter the arguments. I see your point about the quid-pro-quo for the lack of employment related perks and securities, but where we lose on the swings we gain on the roundabouts.
The changes that to concern me are the travel and subsistence related changes which could force some small consultancies out of business. Oh, and the as yet detail-less review of IR35.
The travel and subsistence related changes seem like a sledgehammer to solve a scalpel issue. I'm sure there must be people abusing "business expenses" as a contractor to evade tax but that's already covered with tax evasion legislation rather than yanking the whole concept.
Just seems wrong.
IR35 is another bloody Brown mess and talk of a "review" gives plenty of contractors sleepless nights.
When I was a child I almost laughed myself unconscious watching Jasper Carrot* on television — I could barely breathe and was literally rolling around on the floor, and it took ages for me to regain my composure — if Corbyn is elected Labour leader I may repeat that.
* Don't sneer I thought he was extremely funny when I was young.
I went to see Carrot live in Birmingham some years ago ( I was in 6th form college I think). Still the funniest live comedy show I've ever been to.
I reckon a Tory leadership election in 2017/18 will have around 330 entrants as every Tory MP will feel confident in thrashing a Corbyn led Labour Party at the General Election.
I mentioned this before but this is one of the rare cases where it makes sense to be tactical under AV. (The voters won't.) If the first choices of everybody on the left go to somebody transfer-repellent, the right-wing candidate goes through to the run-off and proceeds to scoop up the centrist votes.
That said, Corbyn could easily win this thing outright. The right-wing candidate is too right-wing for the base and the two in the middle aren't very good.
A lot of people agree with Corbyn's politics, and want a full-blooded left wing party in this country. I don't it's a sufficiently large number to win an election, but it's probably c.30% or so of the voters.
I agree. Would it be so bad if he won?
What need is there for a Labour party led by one of the other three when you have a Conservative party that is no different anyway?
We need a choice between parties that are actually different not between the same party with different colour badges. All you end up with then is partisan squabbling over minute details.
I mentioned this before but this is one of the rare cases where it makes sense to be tactical under AV. (The voters won't.) If the first choices of everybody on the left go to somebody transfer-repellent, the right-wing candidate goes through to the run-off and proceeds to scoop up the centrist votes.
That said, Corbyn could easily win this thing outright. The right-wing candidate is too right-wing for the base and the two in the middle aren't very good.
A lot of people agree with Corbyn's politics, and want a full-blooded left wing party in this country. I don't it's a sufficiently large number to win an election, but it's probably c.30% or so of the voters.
Doesn't surprise me. He can be articulate (unless he is on channel 4). He has union backing. And for some reason he has managed to position himself as the change candidate. They love him at my local CLP.
Ha ha ha. There would be a positive from Corbyn winning: the left wing would be galvanised for the duration of the parliament, and might prove an effect active force for (a) change. He is unelectable, of course, but perhaps the party would spot that by 2019, sack him and get someone popular in who creates a bandwagon towards the election. So, happy days.
Or, more likely, Cameron and Murdoch will tear Labour to shreds.
Your continued attempts to imply that you are on the fence about the EuRef are passing farcical, it would seem plain to just about anyone reading that you are a committed Cameron and like your glorious leader you "will not countenance leaving the EU". Also like your leader you try and take the public (and us) for fools by pretending your mind isn't made up, and that it is all to play for.
Yeah yeah, just keep the mindless insults coming. That will really help your case.
Alternatively, have you considered answering the question? It's a rather vital one, given that the principal motivator of many, perhaps most, of the potential Out voters is immigration. They are not being sold a lie, are they?
Speaking personally, I would favour immigration controls on EU nationals. But, I'm happy to make common cause with people like Robert Smithson who want continued free movement.
To me, this vote is a straightforward vote of no confidence in the current set up. Perhaps Cameron can bring back a sufficiently good deal that would make me change my mind, but I think it's very unlikely.
On the other hand: a lot of Labour members (here and elsewhere) seem to be saying they'll put Corbyn first to make a statement, but effectively on the understanding that he won't actually win. Maybe that will change if it looks as though he might win.
Is it possible that one or more of the candidates might withdraw to support a "stop Corbyn" candidate?
AV kind-of makes that move redundant.
I am not sure about that. The problem at the moment is that there is no clear leader for the sane wing of the party (stretching a point a little quoad Burnham) so votes are going all over the place. There is no guarantee that they will all come back together again even with AV.
One thing is for sure, only an idiot is now going to give a token first round vote to Corbyn before selecting a "serious" candidate. The dangers of gestures.
To me, this vote is a straightforward vote of no confidence in the current set up. Perhaps Cameron can bring back a sufficiently good deal that would make me change my mind, but I think it's very unlikely.
I don't see how you can have a vote of no confidence without evaluating the alternative. This is a vote with very substantial and irreversible consequences, not an opinion poll.
To me, this vote is a straightforward vote of no confidence in the current set up. Perhaps Cameron can bring back a sufficiently good deal that would make me change my mind, but I think it's very unlikely.
I don't see how you can have a vote of no confidence without evaluating the alternative. This is a vote with very substantial and irreversible consequences, not an opinion poll.
After a No vote, we would have years of negotiation ahead of us, before we left the EU. So, I'm happy for the details to be ironed out during that process.
This poll may or may not be accurate in detail. It is unlikely to be wrong in the broad outline of showing a substantial body of support for Jeremy Corbyn.
Once again, Liz Kendall looks dead in the water. By what means could she finish top now?
This poll may or may not be accurate in detail. It is unlikely to be wrong in the broad outline of showing a substantial body of support for Jeremy Corbyn.
Once again, Liz Kendall looks dead in the water. By what means could she finish top now?
Polling that shows her as the labour candidate most appealing to floating/marginal voters?
To me, this vote is a straightforward vote of no confidence in the current set up. Perhaps Cameron can bring back a sufficiently good deal that would make me change my mind, but I think it's very unlikely.
I don't see how you can have a vote of no confidence without evaluating the alternative. This is a vote with very substantial and irreversible consequences, not an opinion poll.
After a No vote, we would have years of negotiation ahead of us, before we left the EU. So, I'm happy for the details to be ironed out during that process.
Given the current status and dynamics of the EU, both EEA membership or a bilateral deal seem like superior options. I've never really thought before about which I liked better, because I always assumed I'd support staying in the EU. Today has really shaken my belief in that.
We have only Cameron to blame for the accrual of this liability to lend to an insolvent, but let's not pretend that the EU institutions have not reneged on a political agreement.
I think your previous criticism of Cameron for expecting a political agreement to be sufficient is unfair. In the nature of international agreements, leaders have to be able to rely on the word of their counterparties.
If not, then there is a fundamental breach of trust: Juncker's behaviour is pretty firmly tipping to scales towards Out for me (having previously probably been a marginal In).
After a No vote, we would have years of negotiation ahead of us, before we left the EU. So, I'm happy for the details to be ironed out during that process.
The trouble is that the devil is in those details. In particular, people who vote Out because of immigration are quite likely to find themselves betrayed.
This poll may or may not be accurate in detail. It is unlikely to be wrong in the broad outline of showing a substantial body of support for Jeremy Corbyn.
Once again, Liz Kendall looks dead in the water. By what means could she finish top now?
Are the electorate going to be particularly interested in that? They've betrayed few hints of that so far.
I mentioned this before but this is one of the rare cases where it makes sense to be tactical under AV. (The voters won't.) If the first choices of everybody on the left go to somebody transfer-repellent, the right-wing candidate goes through to the run-off and proceeds to scoop up the centrist votes.
That said, Corbyn could easily win this thing outright. The right-wing candidate is too right-wing for the base and the two in the middle aren't very good.
A lot of people agree with Corbyn's politics, and want a full-blooded left wing party in this country. I don't it's a sufficiently large number to win an election, but it's probably c.30% or so of the voters.
I agree. Would it be so bad if he won?
What need is there for a Labour party led by one of the other three when you have a Conservative party that is no different anyway?
We need a choice between parties that are actually different not between the same party with different colour badges. All you end up with then is partisan squabbling over minute details.
Also I suppose that even if Labour do all the correct centrist moves the Tories can still tell centrist voters that they'll end up working with the SNP. If they're going to lose the centre whatever they do then maybe they're better making sure they hold on to the left...
The Blairites only have themselves to blame for this. Their attitude at the beginning of the campaign claiming Labour had to surrender to the Tories on everything has provoked a furious backlash.
Plus, the completely overdone fatalism about how impossible it would be for Labour to win the next election (ignoring the fact the Tories barely scraped a majority, and only got that when some super-reluctant voters only switched to them on election day itself), seems to have led some members to think "if we're going to lose, may as well do it on our terms".
Labour really hates itself if it elects Corbyn as leader. Nonetheless, how accurate is private polling (if I may ask)? I wondering whether to take this completely at face-value that Corbyn is actually in the lead, or whether it's simply indicative that is has substantial support in the party.
The Blairites only have themselves to blame for this. Their attitude at the beginning of the campaign claiming Labour had to surrender to the Tories on everything has provoked a furious backlash.
Is that what this is about? Sticking it to the Blairites?
If you prefer to fight your own internal battles of vengeance, rather than do what's necessary to unite and fight to win over the electorate, you will be in opposition for a very long time.
I mentioned this before but this is one of the rare cases where it makes sense to be tactical under AV. (The voters won't.) If the first choices of everybody on the left go to somebody transfer-repellent, the right-wing candidate goes through to the run-off and proceeds to scoop up the centrist votes.
That said, Corbyn could easily win this thing outright. The right-wing candidate is too right-wing for the base and the two in the middle aren't very good.
A lot of people agree with Corbyn's politics, and want a full-blooded left wing party in this country. I don't it's a sufficiently large number to win an election, but it's probably c.30% or so of the voters.
I agree. Would it be so bad if he won?
What need is there for a Labour party led by one of the other three when you have a Conservative party that is no different anyway?
We need a choice between parties that are actually different not between the same party with different colour badges. All you end up with then is partisan squabbling over minute details.
Trouble is Corbyn doesn't have a hope in hell of winning an election. While Labour would have a clear identity, how many voters would actually want to vote for a Corbyn-led party? Hell, I wouldn't vote Labour if Corbyn was leader. I'd probably end up spoiling my ballot.
To me, this vote is a straightforward vote of no confidence in the current set up. Perhaps Cameron can bring back a sufficiently good deal that would make me change my mind, but I think it's very unlikely.
I don't see how you can have a vote of no confidence without evaluating the alternative. This is a vote with very substantial and irreversible consequences, not an opinion poll.
After a No vote, we would have years of negotiation ahead of us, before we left the EU. So, I'm happy for the details to be ironed out during that process.
I think that is a loser strategy Sean, a strategy which is looking for a "respectable" vote which might make the EU think we almost mean it.
If BOO really want to win they need to consolidate around an option, even if that option does not address every concern all the supporters of BOO have about the EU and then sell it as a positive vision that can be compared and contrasted with what Cameron has to offer.
Of course the polling for Corbyn may well show that is rubbish and that gestures can unexpectedly win after all.
I wonder if this 'leaked' private polling is actually a deliberate ploy by either the Burnham or Cooper camp?
Dya think ?!?!?
Corbyn winning would be bad news for the Conservatives - as it would mean that Labour have hit rock bottom 5 years earlier than they will under Burham..
Labour really hates itself if it elects Corbyn as leader. Nonetheless, how accurate is private polling (if I may ask)? I wondering whether to take this completely at face-value that Corbyn is actually in the lead, or whether it's simply indicative that is has substantial support in the party.
Indeed - I wonder if Osbo/Cameron are up to their old tricks with the timing of today's news of the trade union crackdown - which can only be further good news for Corbyn. At least I'm on him at 80/1.
I think your previous criticism of Cameron for expecting a political agreement to be sufficient is unfair. In the nature of international agreements, leaders have to be able to rely on the word of their counterparties.
If not, then there is a fundamental breach of trust: Juncker's behaviour is pretty firmly tipping to scales towards Out for me (having previously probably been a marginal In).
Cameron had a veto over the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism. He waived that veto for a political commitment that the EFSM would not be used again, when he could have obtained a legal guarantee to that effect. It is the difference between giving someone £100,000 on the faith of their word that they will return it with interest, and lending them the sum secured on their house. The EU is not merely an arrangement in international law. It has a law of its own, albeit one followed by some states more than others. It is hardly surprising that when push comes to shove, other member states will rely on their strict legal rights.
Labour really hates itself if it elects Corbyn as leader. Nonetheless, how accurate is private polling (if I may ask)? I wondering whether to take this completely at face-value that Corbyn is actually in the lead, or whether it's simply indicative that is has substantial support in the party.
Indeed - I wonder if Osbo/Cameron are up to their old tricks with the timing of today's of the trade union crackdown - which can only be further good news for Corbyn. At least I'm on him at 80/1.
Oh come on, that's an almost Mandelsonian level of deviousness, Osborne's not that clever.
I mentioned this before but this is one of the rare cases where it makes sense to be tactical under AV. (The voters won't.) If the first choices of everybody on the left go to somebody transfer-repellent, the right-wing candidate goes through to the run-off and proceeds to scoop up the centrist votes.
That said, Corbyn could easily win this thing outright. The right-wing candidate is too right-wing for the base and the two in the middle aren't very good.
A lot of people agree with Corbyn's politics, and want a full-blooded left wing party in this country. I don't it's a sufficiently large number to win an election, but it's probably c.30% or so of the voters.
I agree. Would it be so bad if he won?
What need is there for a Labour party led by one of the other three when you have a Conservative party that is no different anyway?
We need a choice between parties that are actually different not between the same party with different colour badges. All you end up with then is partisan squabbling over minute details.
Trouble is Corbyn doesn't have a hope in hell of winning an election. While Labour would have a clear identity, how many voters would actually want to vote for a Corbyn-led party? Hell, I wouldn't vote Labour if Corbyn was leader. I'd probably end up spoiling my ballot.
Labour don't have anyone in the House of Commons who could win them an election. There isn't anyone better than Ed Miliband and look how he did.
I think in the long run it is more important for a party to have something distinct to say rather than impersonating the opposition then exaggerating the minute differences.
As a non Conservative or Labour supporter, I couldn't really care less who ran the country. Its only when you tie your colours to the mast that the minute differences seem important. Like rowing with a partner over whether to go to the Bombay Grill or Tandoori Nights. Neutral observers would say "who cares, take it in turns" And that's what we currently do with politics
This poll may or may not be accurate in detail. It is unlikely to be wrong in the broad outline of showing a substantial body of support for Jeremy Corbyn.
Once again, Liz Kendall looks dead in the water. By what means could she finish top now?
Are the electorate going to be particularly interested in that? They've betrayed few hints of that so far.
Labour don't have anyone in the House of Commons who could win them an election. There isn't anyone better than Ed Miliband and look how he did.
I think in the long run it is more important for a party to have something distinct to say rather than impersonating the opposition then exaggerating the minute differences.
As a non Conservative or Labour supporter, I couldn't really care less who ran the country. Its only when you tie your colours to the mast that the minute differences seem important. Like rowing with a partner over whether to go to the Bombay Grill or Tandoori Nights. Neutral observers would say "who cares, take it in turns" And that's what we currently do with politics
Tbh, I'd say Burnham is marginally better than Miliband. Cooper could grow into the role. Kendall lacks experience. But even if a leader couldn't win Labour an election, at the very least they should make progress in regard to winning more seats. Then again, someone like Corbyn may go down well in Scotland....
The Blairites only have themselves to blame for this. Their attitude at the beginning of the campaign claiming Labour had to surrender to the Tories on everything has provoked a furious backlash.
Is that what this is about? Sticking it to the Blairites?
If you prefer to fight your own internal battles of vengeance, rather than do what's necessary to unite and fight to win over the electorate, you will be in opposition for a very long time.
Corbyn would enthuse a lot of young people, Greens, Muslims, public sector workers, people in much of Greater London, core cities, Brighton & Hove, and Scotland. But, with the exception of the last of these, he'd only be adding to the Labour vote in areas that are already strong for Labour.
Perhaps he could win back c.20 Scottish seats, Brighton Kemptown, Leeds NW, Sheffield Hallam, but at the same time Labour would be losing seats like Harrow West, Halifax, Newcastle under Lyme, Bridgend, and slipping further back in places like Swindon and Plymouth.
Another Mirror journalist arrested on hacking charges, how many does that make now?. – This one was recently head of news and worked on the Mirror's general election coverage.
Another Mirror journalist arrested on hacking charges, how many does that make now?. – This one was recently head of news and worked on the Mirror's general election coverage.
So this is how far Labour have fallen. The PB Tories have a clear open goal to poke fun at Labour and they would rather bang on about the EU.
(Actually this is quite reminiscent of the 1990s, so perhaps it's not bad news after all :-) )
As someone who comes across as a relatively rightwing Labour supporter, would you feel comfortable staying in the Labour party if it were led by Jeremy Corbyn?
Labour don't have anyone in the House of Commons who could win them an election. There isn't anyone better than Ed Miliband and look how he did.
I think in the long run it is more important for a party to have something distinct to say rather than impersonating the opposition then exaggerating the minute differences.
As a non Conservative or Labour supporter, I couldn't really care less who ran the country. Its only when you tie your colours to the mast that the minute differences seem important. Like rowing with a partner over whether to go to the Bombay Grill or Tandoori Nights. Neutral observers would say "who cares, take it in turns" And that's what we currently do with politics
Tbh, I'd say Burnham is marginally better than Miliband. Cooper could grow into the role. Kendall lacks experience. But even if a leader couldn't win Labour an election, at the very least they should make progress in regard to winning more seats. Then again, someone like Corbyn may go down well in Scotland....
He has a passion for a way of doing things that isn't just Tory-lite. I think Labour need someone who is confident and enthusiastic in making the case for socialism/immigration/trade unions without apology, and the other three cyberbots aren't going to do that
I wonder how all those Labour MPs who don't agree with Corbyn but backed him so he could squeak onto the ballot would feel if he become their chairman.
Reading the article looks like Labour might have EdM to thank for this - it suggests many of the right-wing supporters may have left the party in the last few years. Deliciously funny if true:) Farron i/c the LDs is certainly a joke but this would be a veritable lifetime of laughs. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in No10 and 11 right now.
If Tim Farron becomes leader of the Lib Dems, Felix, it will be fun to be campaigning as a Lib Dem again. The joke will be on you Tories.
Comments
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Friend_4cc29b_979214.jpg
What about the final result?
Remember this election is conducted under the greatest voting system of them all, AV
Cooper 3.7 / 3.75
Corbyn 6.2 / 8.6
Kendall 9.4 / 10
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.103946886
ROFL
POLWAS.
Is it possible that one or more of the candidates might withdraw to support a "stop Corbyn" candidate?
Oh they are funny.
That said, Corbyn could easily win this thing outright. The right-wing candidate is too right-wing for the base and the two in the middle aren't very good.
But...
...Bwahahahahahahahaha
On another note, 10th Mirror journo nicked for phone hacking.
We have only Cameron to blame for the accrual of this liability to lend to an insolvent, but let's not pretend that the EU institutions have not reneged on a political agreement.
* Don't sneer I thought he was extremely funny when I was young.
Alternatively, have you considered answering the question? It's a rather vital one, given that the principal motivator of many, perhaps most, of the potential Out voters is immigration. They are not being sold a lie, are they?
Just seems wrong.
Blair
^ Smith | \/ Brown
^ Kinnock | \/ Milliband
^ Foot | \/ Corbyn
Farron i/c the LDs is certainly a joke but this would be a veritable lifetime of laughs. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in No10 and 11 right now.
Also, does Corbyn have a donkey jacket?
Dave might decide to not quit after all.
What need is there for a Labour party led by one of the other three when you have a Conservative party that is no different anyway?
We need a choice between parties that are actually different not between the same party with different colour badges. All you end up with then is partisan squabbling over minute details.
Well that's something I didn't expect to ever type.
Or, more likely, Cameron and Murdoch will tear Labour to shreds.
To me, this vote is a straightforward vote of no confidence in the current set up. Perhaps Cameron can bring back a sufficiently good deal that would make me change my mind, but I think it's very unlikely.
One thing is for sure, only an idiot is now going to give a token first round vote to Corbyn before selecting a "serious" candidate. The dangers of gestures.
Once again, Liz Kendall looks dead in the water. By what means could she finish top now?
If not, then there is a fundamental breach of trust: Juncker's behaviour is pretty firmly tipping to scales towards Out for me (having previously probably been a marginal In).
Plus, the completely overdone fatalism about how impossible it would be for Labour to win the next election (ignoring the fact the Tories barely scraped a majority, and only got that when some super-reluctant voters only switched to them on election day itself), seems to have led some members to think "if we're going to lose, may as well do it on our terms".
Carrott on TV was brilliant (non-political) entertainment - btw, he's back on tour this year.
If you prefer to fight your own internal battles of vengeance, rather than do what's necessary to unite and fight to win over the electorate, you will be in opposition for a very long time.
Burnham reminds me more of a mid rank Major minister like Stephen Dorrell.
Corbyn is very much in the mould of IDS.
Right now I'm hoping that Cooper turns out to be Labour's equivalent to Howard.
And they better hope that Germans don't reciprocate with a boycott of Greek sun-loungers....
If BOO really want to win they need to consolidate around an option, even if that option does not address every concern all the supporters of BOO have about the EU and then sell it as a positive vision that can be compared and contrasted with what Cameron has to offer.
Of course the polling for Corbyn may well show that is rubbish and that gestures can unexpectedly win after all.
Corbyn winning would be bad news for the Conservatives - as it would mean that Labour have hit rock bottom 5 years earlier than they will under Burham..
There may be others in a similar boat - whether Corbynites as a glorious prank or in socialist earnest.
This may not make much dent when set against people who would have voted tactically for JC until they thought he might do too well, but who knows?
I think in the long run it is more important for a party to have something distinct to say rather than impersonating the opposition then exaggerating the minute differences.
As a non Conservative or Labour supporter, I couldn't really care less who ran the country. Its only when you tie your colours to the mast that the minute differences seem important. Like rowing with a partner over whether to go to the Bombay Grill or Tandoori Nights. Neutral observers would say "who cares, take it in turns" And that's what we currently do with politics
(Actually this is quite reminiscent of the 1990s, so perhaps it's not bad news after all :-) )
Perhaps he could win back c.20 Scottish seats, Brighton Kemptown, Leeds NW, Sheffield Hallam, but at the same time Labour would be losing seats like Harrow West, Halifax, Newcastle under Lyme, Bridgend, and slipping further back in places like Swindon and Plymouth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33541265
PS Have you kept schtum that you're thinking of voting for someone other than Jezza at your CLP?
Don't die wondering!
I wonder how all those Labour MPs who don't agree with Corbyn but backed him so he could squeak onto the ballot would feel if he become their chairman.