If he does it should be borne in mind that it's one member one vote, and also that supporters can sign up to vote without having to be full members.
There's already been considerable grassroots support, with over 10,000 likes for Jeremy Corbyn For Leader on Facebook after just three days. If he does get on the ballot and participate in debates as a genuine man of principle against 2 New Labour and 1 red Tory, that could turn into a real surge.
Corbyn vs Farron vs whoever leads UKIP vs Javid/GO
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland? Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland? Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks) An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
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
If you don't see a difference between the likes of Gordon Brown increasing spending by 50% versus George Osborne then I'm not sure if you'd see a difference between black and white.
Corbyn vs Farron vs whoever leads UKIP vs Javid/GO
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland? Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland? Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks) An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
There is no flipping way Central Manchester will go blue.
I'm one of the 752 souls that voted Tory in the Manchester Central by election a few years ago.
Plus as a Tory, I want Lucy Powell to remain an MP for decades to come.
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
"Labour don't have anyone in the House of Commons who could win them an election."
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.
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.
Those clever underlinings might swing it for you - keep up the good work.
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.
Plus the boundaries won't be favourable next time to Labour, Corbyn or Burnham would be guaranteed to perform worse than Miliband total joke candidates, Kendall looks out of her depth, Cooper is the only one who could move Labour in the right direction but unless the Conservatives mess the economy badly she surely can't win.
Sad state for Labour but they brought it on themselves letting Lenny and his boys pick the last leader.
I previously thought the "pay £3 to get a vote for Corbyn" was a waste of money, because there was no chance he could get in. Now I'm seriously thinking about it.
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.
.
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
If you don't see a difference between the likes of Gordon Brown increasing spending by 50% versus George Osborne then I'm not sure if you'd see a difference between black and white.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009.
Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.
"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."
Corbyn vs Farron vs whoever leads UKIP vs Javid/GO
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland? Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland? Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks) An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
Regarding Scotland I doubt at the moment if Corbyn could swing much against Sturgeon and I don't see too many Tory/LD tactical votes for him there either. In England he'd be popular in the big cities like Liverpool/Sheffield/Newcastle/Manchester/Leeds and make some big majorities a bit bigger. Labour really might disappear completely in the much of the Midlands/south and a lot of small northern towns.
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.
I previously thought the "pay £3 to get a vote for Corbyn" was a waste of money, because there was no chance he could get in. Now I'm seriously thinking about it.
Corbyn vs Farron vs whoever leads UKIP vs Javid/GO
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland? Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland? Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks) An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
Regarding Scotland I doubt at the moment if Corbyn could swing much against Sturgeon and I don't see too many Tory/LD tactical votes for him there either. In England he'd be popular in the big cities like Liverpool/Sheffield/Newcastle/Manchester/Leeds and make some big majorities a bit bigger. Labour really might disappear completely in the much of the Midlands/south and a lot of small northern towns.
I don't think even the SNP could outflank Corbyn to the Left.
I think of people like a top criminal defence solicitor, who's a Facebook friend, and who I did articles with. She hates this government with a passion, and would think Corbyn was great. Much of the Metropolitan middle class is like her, but there aren't enough of them.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009.
Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.
"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."
That's democracy for you, the Conservatives had only relatively recently then lost their third election in a row and George Osborne was paying platitudes towards what the electorate had voted for - in the same way as Liz Kendall is doing now. That doesn't mean that Osborne is the same as Brown and by 2010 he was talking of austerity (and has since implemented it) while Brown had his head in the sand.
Trying to win over the public by paying attention to what the public wants is not the same thing as being the same as your opponents.
Corbyn vs Farron vs whoever leads UKIP vs Javid/GO
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland? Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland? Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks) An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
Regarding Scotland I doubt at the moment if Corbyn could swing much against Sturgeon and I don't see too many Tory/LD tactical votes for him there either. In England he'd be popular in the big cities like Liverpool/Sheffield/Newcastle/Manchester/Leeds and make some big majorities a bit bigger. Labour really might disappear completely in the much of the Midlands/south and a lot of small northern towns.
I don't think even the SNP could outflank Corbyn to the Left.
I think of people like a top criminal defence solicitor, who's a Facebook friend, and who I did articles with. She hates this government with a passion, and would think Corbyn was great. Much of the Metropolitan middle class is like her, but there aren't enough of them.
He might lose his shine quite fast in that group with the top rate going up to Healey-ite levels, and huge wealth taxes on property and almost certainly other assets. Not to mention all those jobs disappearing as multinationals get a kicking and decide that the "UK is closed for business". Corbyn is a man of principle, he isn't going to hold back from screwing over certain parts of the rich chattering classes because its electorally convenient.
Corbyn vs Farron vs whoever leads UKIP vs Javid/GO
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland? Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland? Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks) An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
There is no flipping way Central Manchester will go blue.
I'm one of the 752 souls that voted Tory in the Manchester Central by election a few years ago.
Plus as a Tory, I want Lucy Powell to remain an MP for decades to come.
She's a Tory plant Ed Miliband's top adviser
There were 6,133 Tories in 2015! The low number of voters in 2012 was due to a crappy turnout of only 18%.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
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?
Indeed, I would place myself to the right of JC. That said I would have to stay and see what happens. Everyone, including JC deserves a chance.
Obviously, one would have to uphold the same standard of unwavering support that the left showed Blair.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009.
Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.
"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."
That's democracy for you, the Conservatives had only relatively recently then lost their third election in a row and George Osborne was paying platitudes towards what the electorate had voted for - in the same way as Liz Kendall is doing now. That doesn't mean that Osborne is the same as Brown and by 2010 he was talking of austerity (and has since implemented it) while Brown had his head in the sand.
Trying to win over the public by paying attention to what the public wants is not the same thing as being the same as your opponents.
Before the financial crisis Osborne was promising to outspend Brown. There is no denying that fact
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
Jeremy Corbyn was one of 206 MPs to sign the March 2007 Early Day Motion 1240 calling for the positive recognition of NHS homeopathic hospitals.
He has previously tweeted "I believe that homeo-meds works for some ppl and that it compliments 'convential' meds. they both come from organic matter..." (7:33 PM Mar 5th)
In May 2011, Jeremy Corbyn signed Early Day Motion 1820 which welcomed a campaign to "place homeopathy research on the national agenda as a credible scientific field of inquiry" and called for the Government to facilitate research into homeopathy.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
It has to be said Corbyn does have a certain gravitas which the other candidates lack.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009.
Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.
"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."
That's democracy for you, the Conservatives had only relatively recently then lost their third election in a row and George Osborne was paying platitudes towards what the electorate had voted for - in the same way as Liz Kendall is doing now. That doesn't mean that Osborne is the same as Brown and by 2010 he was talking of austerity (and has since implemented it) while Brown had his head in the sand.
Trying to win over the public by paying attention to what the public wants is not the same thing as being the same as your opponents.
Before the financial crisis Osborne was promising to outspend Brown. There is no denying that fact
Seems fair to judge him on what he said in opposition once compared with say 6 years of actually running the Exchequer.
Jeremy Corbyn was one of 206 MPs to sign the March 2007 Early Day Motion 1240 calling for the positive recognition of NHS homeopathic hospitals.
He has previously tweeted "I believe that homeo-meds works for some ppl and that it compliments 'convential' meds. they both come from organic matter..." (7:33 PM Mar 5th)
In May 2011, Jeremy Corbyn signed Early Day Motion 1820 which welcomed a campaign to "place homeopathy research on the national agenda as a credible scientific field of inquiry" and called for the Government to facilitate research into homeopathy.
Oh wow, what a crackpot. Did he vote for Tredinnick for the chair of the health select committee too ?
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.
.
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
If you don't see a difference between the likes of Gordon Brown increasing spending by 50% versus George Osborne then I'm not sure if you'd see a difference between black and white.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
Shhhh, we don't mention that. Nor Osborne's "Ireland is so awesome the UK should be more like Ireland what a wonderful economy Ireland has" speech.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
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.
.
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
If you don't see a difference between the likes of Gordon Brown increasing spending by 50% versus George Osborne then I'm not sure if you'd see a difference between black and white.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
Shhhh, we don't mention that. Nor Osborne's "Ireland is so awesome the UK should be more like Ireland what a wonderful economy Ireland has" speech.
Was that the famous "arc of prosperity" speech ? Or am I thinking of someone else.. ?
Corbyn vs Farron vs whoever leads UKIP vs Javid/GO
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland? Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland? Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks) An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
Regarding Scotland I doubt at the moment if Corbyn could swing much against Sturgeon and I don't see too many Tory/LD tactical votes for him there either. In England he'd be popular in the big cities like Liverpool/Sheffield/Newcastle/Manchester/Leeds and make some big majorities a bit bigger. Labour really might disappear completely in the much of the Midlands/south and a lot of small northern towns.
I don't think even the SNP could outflank Corbyn to the Left.
I think of people like a top criminal defence solicitor, who's a Facebook friend, and who I did articles with. She hates this government with a passion, and would think Corbyn was great. Much of the Metropolitan middle class is like her, but there aren't enough of them.
Corbyn vs Farron vs whoever leads UKIP vs Javid/GO
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland? Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland? Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks) An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
Regarding Scotland I doubt at the moment if Corbyn could swing much against Sturgeon and I don't see too many Tory/LD tactical votes for him there either. In England he'd be popular in the big cities like Liverpool/Sheffield/Newcastle/Manchester/Leeds and make some big majorities a bit bigger. Labour really might disappear completely in the much of the Midlands/south and a lot of small northern towns.
I don't think even the SNP could outflank Corbyn to the Left.
I think of people like a top criminal defence solicitor, who's a Facebook friend, and who I did articles with. She hates this government with a passion, and would think Corbyn was great. Much of the Metropolitan middle class is like her, but there aren't enough of them.
Do you engage in Facebook debates with friends?
Very rarely with left wing friends when it comes to politics.
"In the speech the First Minister referred to the "arc of prosperity" or Ireland, Iceland, and Norway; he referred to "the remarkable success of indigenous companies that have become global, Nokia in Finland, Ericsson in Sweden, Maersk shipping in Denmark or for that matter the Royal Bank of Scotland.""
Utter madness for Labour to elect Jeremy Corbyn. Just think of the problems Ed Miliband had because the majority of his MP's did not vote for him as Leader. Quadruple those problems if Corbyn is elected and reflect on the fallout amongst Labour MP's.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
Just when I thought it couldn't possibly get any better, Tory majority Balls out Cable out Reckless out
Now Labour are in a position to elect an utter loon, brilliant.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
Destroying the Labour Party is in the long term good for the country. Honest.
"In the speech the First Minister referred to the "arc of prosperity" or Ireland, Iceland, and Norway; he referred to "the remarkable success of indigenous companies that have become global, Nokia in Finland, Ericsson in Sweden, Maersk shipping in Denmark or for that matter the Royal Bank of Scotland.""
Nokia were effectively shut down by Microsoft last week.
Corbyn vs Farron vs whoever leads UKIP vs Javid/GO
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland? Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland? Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks) An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
Regarding Scotland I doubt at the moment if Corbyn could swing much against Sturgeon and I don't see too many Tory/LD tactical votes for him there either. In England he'd be popular in the big cities like Liverpool/Sheffield/Newcastle/Manchester/Leeds and make some big majorities a bit bigger. Labour really might disappear completely in the much of the Midlands/south and a lot of small northern towns.
I don't think even the SNP could outflank Corbyn to the Left.
I think of people like a top criminal defence solicitor, who's a Facebook friend, and who I did articles with. She hates this government with a passion, and would think Corbyn was great. Much of the Metropolitan middle class is like her, but there aren't enough of them.
Do you engage in Facebook debates with friends?
Very rarely with left wing friends when it comes to politics.
Same. I find it degenerates rapidly and can become bad-tempered. It also seems to take on a slightly more defensive and personal edge when real friends are debating with you.
The 'like' system doesn't help that either. I post far fewer of my own views on politics there myself now.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
It has to be said Corbyn does have a certain gravitas which the other candidates lack.
He'd have even more with the hat, cloak and staff.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
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.
.
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
If you don't see a difference between the likes of Gordon Brown increasing spending by 50% versus George Osborne then I'm not sure if you'd see a difference between black and white.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
Shhhh, we don't mention that. Nor Osborne's "Ireland is so awesome the UK should be more like Ireland what a wonderful economy Ireland has" speech.
Was that the famous "arc of prosperity" speech ? Or am I thinking of someone else.. ?
That was Salmond's speech - the one that disappeared, and then reappeared.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
Before the financial crisis Osborne was promising to outspend Brown. There is no denying that fact
Seems fair to judge him on what he said in opposition once compared with say 6 years of actually running the Exchequer.
The charge was "I would have to be blind to not see the difference between Brown and Osborne." When they were Chancellor/Shadow Chancellor, Osborne agreed wholeheartedly with Brown, and promised to match his spending. It is the natural comparison to use to justify my argument that there is nothing between them
Brown wasn't his shadow since 2010 so we cant compare, but we have this from 2013, where Osborne outBrowns Brown
"Osborne increases debt more than Labour did over 13 years
The national debt figures are out – £1.2 trillion and rising – and although I hate to say it, the Labour Party has a valid point to make. If you don’t adjust for inflation, Osborne has borrowed more in under four years than the Labour Party borrowed over 13 years."
"Mr Cameron has been in office since 2010. He has a record on the debt and the deficit, on which voters can judge him.
The Coalition took office in 2010 and said it wanted to clear the deficit by 2015/16. Having missed that target, Mr Cameron's plans now clear the deficit by 2018/19. That means more borrowing, borrowing that adds to the stock of public debt.
As for that national debt, here it is, expressed as a share of the economy. On current forecasts, it will peak in 2016/17 at 90 per cent of GDP"
"In the speech the First Minister referred to the "arc of prosperity" or Ireland, Iceland, and Norway; he referred to "the remarkable success of indigenous companies that have become global, Nokia in Finland, Ericsson in Sweden, Maersk shipping in Denmark or for that matter the Royal Bank of Scotland.""
Nokia were effectively shut down by Microsoft last week.
RBS still going though thanks to some generous support from English taxpayers
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
Destroying the Labour Party is in the long term good for the country. Honest.
Corbyn vs Farron vs whoever leads UKIP vs Javid/GO
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland? Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland? Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks) An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
There is no flipping way Central Manchester will go blue.
I'm one of the 752 souls that voted Tory in the Manchester Central by election a few years ago.
Plus as a Tory, I want Lucy Powell to remain an MP for decades to come.
She's a Tory plant Ed Miliband's top adviser
Lucy Powell was consistently Ed's most amusing appointment. A head of communications who can, er, basically, you know, er, um, er, not communicate.... Genius.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
Just when I thought it couldn't possibly get any better, Tory majority Balls out Cable out Reckless out
Now Labour are in a position to elect an utter loon, brilliant.
If you were in the habit of calling Reckless a "knob" that would create some interest around the line after "Now Labour are in a position to elect an utter loon, brilliant"
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
Destroying the Labour Party is in the long term good for the country. Honest.
Of course, but Alex Salmond did that.
Yeah but Dave won the Indyref so Scotland could keep on subsiding England.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
Destroying the Labour Party is in the long term good for the country. Honest.
I'd far rather have the Liberal Democrats as the official opposition.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
Destroying the Labour Party is in the long term good for the country. Honest.
Of course, but Alex Salmond did that.
Yeah but Dave won the Indyref so Scotland could keep on subsiding England.
That's unfair, the Scots do it out of the kindness of their hearts and because they love their neighbours. Indeed they keep putting off Indy so they can send more oil money to us all.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
Before the financial crisis Osborne was promising to outspend Brown. There is no denying that fact
Seems fair to judge him on what he said in opposition once compared with say 6 years of actually running the Exchequer.
The charge was "I would have to be blind to not see the difference between Brown and Osborne." When they were Chancellor/Shadow Chancellor, Osborne agreed wholeheartedly with Brown, and promised to match his spending. It is the natural comparison to use to justify my argument that there is nothing between them...zzz
Would have been even higher if they had retained the spare room subsidy - like wot Farage wants to do..
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.
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.
I'm not bothered by EU immigration. But being in an EU which does not keep its word is much more fundamental.
I fully accept that leaving will be painful. And given how the EU is treating one of its EZ members, I expect the EU - or some of its members - will be vengeful towards Britain. But I think we can nonetheless succeed and prosper and if we want to govern ourselves, even if w don't get everything we want, then that is the option to choose.
A vote for "In" is not just a vote for the current EU status quo. The EU's direction of travel is not one I share - for a number of reasons - so the alternative to "No" is not "Yes to what it is now, with a bit of grumbling on the side" but "Yes to a future of one EU government, one state etc". If you don't want that - and I don't - then what is the choice? Cameron (and I may be wrong on this) is not even arguing for some special status for the UK within the EU. He just seems to be arguing for some "concessions", backed by promises which will have all the permanence of snow in summer.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
Destroying the Labour Party is in the long term good for the country. Honest.
It would be similar to Poland, where two right wing parties are rivals for government.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
Before the financial crisis Osborne was promising to outspend Brown. There is no denying that fact
Seems fair to judge him on what he said in opposition once compared with say 6 years of actually running the Exchequer.
The charge was "I would have to be blind to not see the difference between Brown and Osborne." When they were Chancellor/Shadow Chancellor, Osborne agreed wholeheartedly with Brown, and promised to match his spending. It is the natural comparison to use to justify my argument that there is nothing between them...zzz
Would have been even higher if they had retained the spare room subsidy - like wot Farage wants to do..
No need for Partisan silliness, we have enough of that from the betting imitators.
It wasn’t meant to work out this way. A month ago, Westminster watched to see if Jeremy Corbyn could get the support of the 35 MPs he needed to enter the Labour leadership race. At the time, it seemed a sort of joke. After all, the people who were lending him their backing weren’t doing so for any great love of Corbyn. As a rule, they either wanted a ‘broad debate’ or thought that the ritual slaughter of the left-wing candidate would make it easier for the new leader to move the party to the centre.
Corbyn winning could be bad for the Nats, and good for SLAB, as he would possibly appeal in Scotland.
It would be good for Lib Dems in the south, and UKIP in the north, and bloody brilliant for the Tories, as they would remain in power for the next 389 years.
Sadly, it ain't gonna happen. Burnham or Cooper will win. Probably Burnham, as the party seems quite lefty at the mo.
Why would Labour under Corbyn help UKIP in the north?
the alternative to "No" is not "Yes to what it is now, with a bit of grumbling on the side" but "Yes to a future of one EU government, one state etc". If you don't want that - and I don't - then what is the choice? Cameron (and I may be wrong on this) is not even arguing for some special status for the UK within the EU. He just seems to be arguing for some "concessions", backed by promises which will have all the permanence of snow in summer.
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.
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.
I'm not bothered by EU immigration. But being in an EU which does not keep its word is much more fundamental.
I fully accept that leaving will be painful. And given how the EU is treating one of its EZ members, I expect the EU - or some of its members - will be vengeful towards Britain. But I think we can nonetheless succeed and prosper and if we want to govern ourselves, even if w don't get everything we want, then that is the option to choose.
A vote for "In" is not just a vote for the current EU status quo. The EU's direction of travel is not one I share - for a number of reasons - so the alternative to "No" is not "Yes to what it is now, with a bit of grumbling on the side" but "Yes to a future of one EU government, one state etc". If you don't want that - and I don't - then what is the choice? Cameron (and I may be wrong on this) is not even arguing for some special status for the UK within the EU. He just seems to be arguing for some "concessions", backed by promises which will have all the permanence of snow in summer.
I agree with you.
I berate myself for being against something like the EU which brings countries on the continent together, but the behaviour of the technocrats in Brussels towards voices contrary to their 'project' is appalling. They are pushing me towards voting OUT.
Cameron and the Tories, like many negotiators and leaders before, are just too f**king polite. The EU frankly takes the piss and I want Cameron to stare them down. Not for show, or for headlines, but with the threat of "permanence" you mention.
I know negotiating isn't easy and the EU bods are shrewd, manipulative operators, but it seems to me that Juncker and co know we aren't serious about leaving and laugh behind our backs at our posturing.
The Eurozone is going to end in failure and social unrest anyway. Time to get tough and use our leverage.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
Destroying the Labour Party is in the long term good for the country. Honest.
I'd far rather have the Liberal Democrats as the official opposition.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
The voters beg to differ.
Ok, 1 in 4 voters were duped/frightened into voting for them.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
Destroying the Labour Party is in the long term good for the country. Honest.
It would be similar to Poland, where two right wing parties are rivals for government.
Utter madness for Labour to elect Jeremy Corbyn. Just think of the problems Ed Miliband had because the majority of his MP's did not vote for him as Leader. Quadruple those problems if Corbyn is elected and reflect on the fallout amongst Labour MP's.
But on the assumption that he might do well, but not actually win... what Shadow Cabinet post will he be offered? And assuming he does not accept - what's the point of him standing for leader? Lets not get carried away - and remember he will be 71 just after the date of the next election. We are all of course getting something of an insight into the collective state of mind of the Labour Party.
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.
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.
I'm not bothered by EU immigration. But being in an EU which does not keep its word is much more fundamental.
I fully accept that leaving will be painful. And given how the EU is treating one of its EZ members, I expect the EU - or some of its members - will be vengeful towards Britain. But I think we can nonetheless succeed and prosper and if we want to govern ourselves, even if w don't get everything we want, then that is the option to choose.
I agree with you.
I berate myself for being against something like the EU which brings countries on the continent together, but the behaviour of the technocrats in Brussels towards voices contrary to their 'project' is appalling. They are pushing me towards voting OUT.
Cameron and the Tories, like many negotiators and leaders before, are just too f**king polite. The EU frankly takes the piss and I want Cameron to stare them down. Not for show, or for headlines, but with the threat of "permanence" you mention.
I know negotiating isn't easy and the EU bods are shrewd, manipulative operators, but it seems to me that Juncker and co know we aren't serious about leaving and laugh behind our backs at our posturing.
The Eurozone is going to end in failure and social unrest anyway. Time to get tough and use our leverage.
Cameron isn't "too polite", he doesn't want to leave
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
Destroying the Labour Party is in the long term good for the country. Honest.
I'd far rather have the Liberal Democrats as the official opposition.
Cameron (and I may be wrong on this) is not even arguing for some special status for the UK within the EU. He just seems to be arguing for some "concessions", backed by promises which will have all the permanence of snow in summer.
I think he is arguing for a special status, or - to be more precise - for the distinction between the Eurozone inner-core and the non-Eurozone members to be formalised and the latter group's interests protected. Obviously it's much better to present that as an EU-wide reform rather than simply a concession to the UK, but in practice it's the UK which is the key non-Eurozone player.
Don't get me wrong (I'm usually badly misrepresented when I point out inconvenient truths on the EU) - this is by no means an ideal situation. Previous governments, especially Blair and Brown, badly screwed up and threw away many of our bargaining chips. The blame for that falls squarely on them, not on David Cameron who is trying, from the weak position bequeathed him, to reverse at least some of the damage.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
It has to be said Corbyn does have a certain gravitas which the other candidates lack.
Gravitas?? For heaven's sake: this is a man who invited IRA/Sinn Fein representatives to the House of Commons two weeks after the Brighton bomb.
Just because he's a midde-aged man with a beard who talks nonsense articulately doesn't mean he has gravitas.
"Show me the company a man keeps and I'll tell you the sort of person he is." It might be worth bearing this in mind.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
It has to be said Corbyn does have a certain gravitas which the other candidates lack.
Gravitas?? For heaven's sake: this is a man who invited IRA/Sinn Fein representatives to the House of Commons two weeks after the Brighton bomb.
Just because he's a midde-aged man with a beard who talks nonsense articulately doesn't mean he has gravitas.
"Show me the company a man keeps and I'll tell you the sort of person he is." It might be worth bearing this in mind.
"a midde-aged man with a beard"
And a vest, let's not forget.
I bet he has a donkey jacket somewhere too. I'd piss my pants seeing him wearing it at the Cenotaph this November next to Cameron, Farron and the Queen!
Poland could find itself in the rather unusual position later this year of having identical twins as the country's new president and prime minister.
The Kaczynski brothers, Lech and Jaroslaw, are topping the opinion polls ahead of presidential and parliamentary elections later this year.
Lech is mayor of Warsaw and Jaroslaw heads the leading centre-right party.
But there is one question. If they are elected, will voters be able to tell them apart?
The 55-year-old brothers first found fame as child actors, with angelic faces in a film version of the popular children's book The Two That Stole The Moon.
Matthew Shaddick, of Ladbrokes, said: "The queues of punters wanting to back Corbyn are now longer than those at an Athens ATM machine. The betting is beginning to suggest that he might just pull this off."
It would be a stunning indictment of the lack of talent in the Labour party and a reminder of just what Cameron and Osborne have achieved in the last 6/7 years.
Dave and George have managed to destroy for the short term the Lib Dems (sorry Mike) can they do the same to Labour?
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
but just not that good at running a country :-)
Destroying the Labour Party is in the long term good for the country. Honest.
It would be similar to Poland, where two right wing parties are rivals for government.
A vote for "In" is not just a vote for the current EU status quo. The EU's direction of travel is not one I share - for a number of reasons - so the alternative to "No" is not "Yes to what it is now, with a bit of grumbling on the side" but "Yes to a future of one EU government, one state etc". If you don't want that - and I don't - then what is the choice? Cameron (and I may be wrong on this) is not even arguing for some special status for the UK within the EU. He just seems to be arguing for some "concessions", backed by promises which will have all the permanence of snow in summer.
I agree with you.
I berate myself for being against something like the EU which brings countries on the continent together, but the behaviour of the technocrats in Brussels towards voices contrary to their 'project' is appalling. They are pushing me towards voting OUT.
Cameron and the Tories, like many negotiators and leaders before, are just too f**king polite. The EU frankly takes the piss and I want Cameron to stare them down. Not for show, or for headlines, but with the threat of "permanence" you mention.
I know negotiating isn't easy and the EU bods are shrewd, manipulative operators, but it seems to me that Juncker and co know we aren't serious about leaving and laugh behind our backs at our posturing.
The Eurozone is going to end in failure and social unrest anyway. Time to get tough and use our leverage.
I think it will end in much worse than social unrest.
I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but if Labour accidentally elects another numpty as leader because of hardcore leftie fantasies and others voting for him as the "none of the above" candidate, is there not a danger a number of voters in 2020 might think "stuff it, I like the argumentative guy with a beard who shouts his mouth off at Cameron all the time, let's make him PM for shits and giggles", and he might actually win the ultimate prize?
More seriously, I mused the other day that Corbyn could have a unifying effect amongst the disaffected and amongst the disparate voices across the broad Left. He could deny the Tory leader a majority and usher in the Lab/SNP pact we all feared in 2015 couldn't he?
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009.
Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.
"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."
That's democracy for you, the Conservatives had only relatively recently then lost their third election in a row and George Osborne was paying platitudes towards what the electorate had voted for - in the same way as Liz Kendall is doing now. That doesn't mean that Osborne is the same as Brown and by 2010 he was talking of austerity (and has since implemented it) while Brown had his head in the sand.
Trying to win over the public by paying attention to what the public wants is not the same thing as being the same as your opponents.
Before the financial crisis Osborne was promising to outspend Brown. There is no denying that fact
Yes there is denying that fact. Outspend means he was promising to spend more - in fact he was promising to match 2% growth in spending (which never happened in fact it was more of course).
A transition is not an unusual thing for an opposition politician to have to pledge to appease a skeptical public. Just the same as Brown promised to match Ken Clarke's spending levels for a couple of years (which he did leading to a surplus) before turning the spending taps on full.
"In the speech the First Minister referred to the "arc of prosperity" or Ireland, Iceland, and Norway; he referred to "the remarkable success of indigenous companies that have become global, Nokia in Finland, Ericsson in Sweden, Maersk shipping in Denmark or for that matter the Royal Bank of Scotland.""
The Arc of Propserity speech is up there with his cringe inducing letter to Goodwin over the ABN Ambro merger as poorly judged missives from Salmond.
George Osbornes Ireland hagiography is hilarious, it ends with "Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in economic policy-making. With its vision of a highly-educated, innovative, open, dynamic, low-tax economy, and relentless focus on the long-term drivers of prosperity, Ireland’s economic miracle has shown that it has the right answers to the challenges of the new global economy.
That new global economy offers us great challenges, and also great opportunities. Ireland has shown the world that wise economic policy-making can produce outstanding results that surpass all expectations, so that we can meet our potential, achieve our goals, and share rising prosperity in an increasingly competitive world. We in Britain would do well to listen and learn from our Irish neighbours.”
If Labour is mad enough to elect Corbyn Osborne might even increase the Tory majority in 2020. However, I am suspicious of private polling and until we have some actual members polling I think he will come a strong second on first preferences but not actually win
Ok, 1 in 4 voters were duped/frightened into voting for them.
What a low opinion of the people left-wingers seem to have. That's why considerably fewer voted Labour and even less LD. Instead of bitterness about losing you might ponder that.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009.
Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.
"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."
That's democracy for you, the Conservatives had only relatively recently then lost their third election in a row and George Osborne was paying platitudes towards what the electorate had voted for - in the same way as Liz Kendall is doing now. That doesn't mean that Osborne is the same as Brown and by 2010 he was talking of austerity (and has since implemented it) while Brown had his head in the sand.
Trying to win over the public by paying attention to what the public wants is not the same thing as being the same as your opponents.
Before the financial crisis Osborne was promising to outspend Brown. There is no denying that fact
Yes there is denying that fact. Outspend means he was promising to spend more - in fact he was promising to match 2% growth in spending (which never happened in fact it was more of course).
A transition is not an unusual thing for an opposition politician to have to pledge to appease a skeptical public. Just the same as Brown promised to match Ken Clarke's spending levels for a couple of years (which he did leading to a surplus) before turning the spending taps on full.
"Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11"
So who would gain from releasing details of "private polls" that show Jeremy Corbyn is in front? Not Jeremy Corbyn, that is for sure. And how ion earth do you find a representative cross-sample of Labour members. I would treat with extreme caution, though it is certainly possible that 20% to 25% of Labour members are left wing and stupid enough to give him their first vote. Of course, that leaves 75% to 80% who are not. Hopefully. The other way of looking at it, of course, is that if he is elected we can all forget about Labour and start on building a new party. Maybe it will be the kick up the arse we need.
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?
She is not even that, Burnham is, although she is ahead of Cooper. Corbyn is last
Twtter meltdown – We’ll soon be swamped by wrinkly photo-shopped pix by #Corbyfans
Hating the establishment is all very well and good unless you want to become part of It be being pm. ReAlly you just want the establishment to have slightly different priorities.
Comments
From June 6th http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/699401/#Comment_699401
The mind just boggles at all the 2020 constituency positions you might take off the back of that.
Labour come back in Scotland?
Lib Dem and UKIP competetive and rivals in many medium safe Labour urban town seats? Barnsley, Oldham, Sunderland?
Tory gains in increasingly confident city centre seats - Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds? (less so Liverpool, Newcastle methinks)
An SNP English franchise?
Just a few wild finger in the air barkings from a part-timer - any of the serious betting types care to indulge in any fantasy on what bizarre places this could lead!
I'm one of the 752 souls that voted Tory in the Manchester Central by election a few years ago.
Plus as a Tory, I want Lucy Powell to remain an MP for decades to come.
She's a Tory plant Ed Miliband's top adviser
Desperate measures needed, come back Lord Mandelson.
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2013/04/24/prime-ministers-in-the-house-of-lords/
Sad state for Labour but they brought it on themselves letting Lenny and his boys pick the last leader.
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009.
Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.
"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
I think of people like a top criminal defence solicitor, who's a Facebook friend, and who I did articles with. She hates this government with a passion, and would think Corbyn was great. Much of the Metropolitan middle class is like her, but there aren't enough of them.
Trying to win over the public by paying attention to what the public wants is not the same thing as being the same as your opponents.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741659/Jeremy-Corbyn-set-to-win-Labour-leadership-shock-poll-reveals.html
Obviously, one would have to uphold the same standard of unwavering support that the left showed Blair.
They truly are good at politics and top strategists.
Jeremy Corbyn was one of 206 MPs to sign the March 2007 Early Day Motion 1240 calling for the positive recognition of NHS homeopathic hospitals.
He has previously tweeted "I believe that homeo-meds works for some ppl and that it compliments 'convential' meds. they both come from organic matter..." (7:33 PM Mar 5th)
In May 2011, Jeremy Corbyn signed Early Day Motion 1820 which welcomed a campaign to "place homeopathy research on the national agenda as a credible scientific field of inquiry" and called for the Government to facilitate research into homeopathy.
1) Corbyn has said that he will resign before 2020 if he wins
2) Some Kendall supporters are putting Corbyn as 2nd pref because of the above.
Has Corbyn actually said that? I haven't seen it reported anywhere else.
So, it's just froth for now.
Probably worst news for Kendall as her limited support flees to Cooper/Burnham, yes?
"In the speech the First Minister referred to the "arc of prosperity" or Ireland, Iceland, and Norway; he referred to "the remarkable success of indigenous companies that have become global, Nokia in Finland, Ericsson in Sweden, Maersk shipping in Denmark or for that matter the Royal Bank of Scotland.""
Tory majority
Balls out
Cable out
Reckless out
Now Labour are in a position to elect an utter loon, brilliant.
The 'like' system doesn't help that either. I post far fewer of my own views on politics there myself now.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/06/global-economy-world-scotland
Brown wasn't his shadow since 2010 so we cant compare, but we have this from 2013, where Osborne outBrowns Brown
"Osborne increases debt more than Labour did over 13 years
The national debt figures are out – £1.2 trillion and rising – and although I hate to say it, the Labour Party has a valid point to make. If you don’t adjust for inflation, Osborne has borrowed more in under four years than the Labour Party borrowed over 13 years."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/
and this from 2015
"Mr Cameron has been in office since 2010. He has a record on the debt and the deficit, on which voters can judge him.
The Coalition took office in 2010 and said it wanted to clear the deficit by 2015/16. Having missed that target, Mr Cameron's plans now clear the deficit by 2018/19. That means more borrowing, borrowing that adds to the stock of public debt.
As for that national debt, here it is, expressed as a share of the economy. On current forecasts, it will peak in 2016/17 at 90 per cent of GDP"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11339921/David-Cameron-and-the-national-debt-monster-in-three-charts.html
I fully accept that leaving will be painful. And given how the EU is treating one of its EZ members, I expect the EU - or some of its members - will be vengeful towards Britain. But I think we can nonetheless succeed and prosper and if we want to govern ourselves, even if w don't get everything we want, then that is the option to choose.
A vote for "In" is not just a vote for the current EU status quo. The EU's direction of travel is not one I share - for a number of reasons - so the alternative to "No" is not "Yes to what it is now, with a bit of grumbling on the side" but "Yes to a future of one EU government, one state etc". If you don't want that - and I don't - then what is the choice? Cameron (and I may be wrong on this) is not even arguing for some special status for the UK within the EU. He just seems to be arguing for some "concessions", backed by promises which will have all the permanence of snow in summer.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/james-forsyth/2015/07/jeremy-corbyns-extraordinary-success-is-a-coup-for-the-tories/
Surely the opposite?
Excellent post
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.103946886
I berate myself for being against something like the EU which brings countries on the continent together, but the behaviour of the technocrats in Brussels towards voices contrary to their 'project' is appalling. They are pushing me towards voting OUT.
Cameron and the Tories, like many negotiators and leaders before, are just too f**king polite. The EU frankly takes the piss and I want Cameron to stare them down. Not for show, or for headlines, but with the threat of "permanence" you mention.
I know negotiating isn't easy and the EU bods are shrewd, manipulative operators, but it seems to me that Juncker and co know we aren't serious about leaving and laugh behind our backs at our posturing.
The Eurozone is going to end in failure and social unrest anyway. Time to get tough and use our leverage.
Advising this as I took the max with them.
And assuming he does not accept - what's the point of him standing for leader?
Lets not get carried away - and remember he will be 71 just after the date of the next election.
We are all of course getting something of an insight into the collective state of mind of the Labour Party.
Great post @cyclefree
Don't get me wrong (I'm usually badly misrepresented when I point out inconvenient truths on the EU) - this is by no means an ideal situation. Previous governments, especially Blair and Brown, badly screwed up and threw away many of our bargaining chips. The blame for that falls squarely on them, not on David Cameron who is trying, from the weak position bequeathed him, to reverse at least some of the damage.
Cameron isn't "too polite", he doesn't want to leave
Great post @cyclefree
Yep seconded @ Cyclefree. Excellent post.
You have to bear in mind that Cameron spends every single day surrounded by the Civil Servants who are bred to be Europhiles.
Also, re your 'nobody in the Commons capable of becoming Labour PM'. Come on now Isam, put your prejudices aside. You forgot Diane Abbott.
Was it Guru-Murthy wot won it?
http://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-i-wanted-hamas-to-be-part-of-the-debate
Just because he's a midde-aged man with a beard who talks nonsense articulately doesn't mean he has gravitas.
"Show me the company a man keeps and I'll tell you the sort of person he is." It might be worth bearing this in mind.
And a vest, let's not forget.
I bet he has a donkey jacket somewhere too. I'd piss my pants seeing him wearing it at the Cenotaph this November next to Cameron, Farron and the Queen!
You have to bear in mind that Cameron spends every single day surrounded by the Civil Servants who are bred to be Europhiles.
Also, re your 'nobody in the Commons capable of becoming Labour PM'. Come on now Isam, put your prejudices aside. You forgot Diane Abbott.
Good Lord!
A vote for "In" is not just a vote for the current EU status quo. The EU's direction of travel is not one I share - for a number of reasons - so the alternative to "No" is not "Yes to what it is now, with a bit of grumbling on the side" but "Yes to a future of one EU government, one state etc". If you don't want that - and I don't - then what is the choice? Cameron (and I may be wrong on this) is not even arguing for some special status for the UK within the EU. He just seems to be arguing for some "concessions", backed by promises which will have all the permanence of snow in summer.
I agree with you.
I berate myself for being against something like the EU which brings countries on the continent together, but the behaviour of the technocrats in Brussels towards voices contrary to their 'project' is appalling. They are pushing me towards voting OUT.
Cameron and the Tories, like many negotiators and leaders before, are just too f**king polite. The EU frankly takes the piss and I want Cameron to stare them down. Not for show, or for headlines, but with the threat of "permanence" you mention.
I know negotiating isn't easy and the EU bods are shrewd, manipulative operators, but it seems to me that Juncker and co know we aren't serious about leaving and laugh behind our backs at our posturing.
The Eurozone is going to end in failure and social unrest anyway. Time to get tough and use our leverage.
I think it will end in much worse than social unrest.
https://twitter.com/eyespymp/status/621348246649180160
More seriously, I mused the other day that Corbyn could have a unifying effect amongst the disaffected and amongst the disparate voices across the broad Left. He could deny the Tory leader a majority and usher in the Lab/SNP pact we all feared in 2015 couldn't he?
A transition is not an unusual thing for an opposition politician to have to pledge to appease a skeptical public. Just the same as Brown promised to match Ken Clarke's spending levels for a couple of years (which he did leading to a surplus) before turning the spending taps on full.
George Osbornes Ireland hagiography is hilarious, it ends with "Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in economic policy-making. With its vision of a highly-educated, innovative, open, dynamic, low-tax economy, and relentless focus on the long-term drivers of prosperity, Ireland’s economic miracle has shown that it has the right answers to the challenges of the new global economy.
That new global economy offers us great challenges, and also great opportunities. Ireland has shown the world that wise economic policy-making can produce outstanding results that surpass all expectations, so that we can meet our potential, achieve our goals, and share rising prosperity in an increasingly competitive world. We in Britain would do well to listen and learn from our Irish neighbours.”
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/files/george_osborne_speech.pdf
The voters beg to differ.
Ok, 1 in 4 voters were duped/frightened into voting for them.
What a low opinion of the people left-wingers seem to have. That's why considerably fewer voted Labour and even less LD. Instead of bitterness about losing you might ponder that.