Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Private polling points to Corbyn victory in Labour’s leader

124»

Comments

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Jeremy Corbyn announces £10bn plan to scrap university tuition fees

    Labour leadership candidate says plan can be funded either by a rise in national insurance, a higher corporation tax, or by slowing the deficit reduction.

    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jul/15/jeremy-corbyn-announces-10bn-plan-to-scrap-university-tuition-fees?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,003
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Liz Kendall out to 11 when she should be favourite IMO:

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.103946886

    Why?
    What I mean is I think she would be the best choice for Labour in terms of winning the next election.
    Though she trails Burnham in favourability polls and this week has said the Inheritance Tax Cut was wrong and the new union strike laws are mistaken, hardly designed to win over Middle England!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,003

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @schofieldkevin: Liz Kendall campaign boss Toby Perkins says leadership race now a "straight choice" between her and a "1980s-style wilderness" with Corbyn.

    In her dreams, perhaps.

    Has to be Cooper I think. Burnham does not seem instinctively objectionable as a leader, but Cooper seems like she has more substance to me, even though at present she is bland as hell - it seemed in the first Leadership hustings she was told to smile a lot to compensate, and it came off as odd to me.
    HYUFD said:

    I just find the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader so ridiculous, it is not even funny. If he does, what is he going to do? He can refuse, then Labour will become a complete laughing stock and will take years to regain any credibility. He could accept but it would be fairly obvious he wouldn't last five minutes but then Labour are into ANOTHER leadership contest.

    When the next contest comes, two of the contenders will be Chuka Umunna and Kinnock, the Younger (who is already on manoeuvres). The problem for both these two, is they suffer from that arrogant distain that so afflicted David Miliband.

    Cameron can also sometimes do 'arrogant disdain' it does not have to be a vote loser if it can be largely kept hidden.
    Indeed. Cameron largely is inoffensive and, crucially, not frightening to most people (so scare tactics don't work as well), and keeping the disdain only flaring up occasionally may be a part of that (as well as just not being very threatening.

    OT, with one piece the other day describing Tspras as deciding he was merely a charlatan rather than a madman (or words to that effect), now a whole piece on the BBC apparently making the point that Greece's tactics were not mad, merely hugely incompetent. That's better then.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/33507250
    Agree, in public at least Cameron is good at keeping things under control
    Now, then, now then. I've come in late to all this about a Lab leadership poll. But, I seem to remember we had all sworn ourselves off polls! Certainly my bank manager has told me to stay away from them for the foreseeable.
    We will await some public membership polls
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    @AndyJS Why on earth should Liz Kendall be favourite ?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    On EVEL, I simply don't understand why Labour don't come to their senses on this.

    Labour are now just as much of an English (and Welsh) party as the Tories are. In fact, almost 90% of their MPs are now English. And their old Scottish dominance is never going to come back.

    If they want to paint themselves as the anti-English party, when most of their MPs are English, and not agree to sensible reforms to correct the (very skewed) devolution settlement we currently across the UK, then I can only say that's a very "brave" decision.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    On EVEL, I simply don't understand why Labour don't come to their senses on this.

    Labour are now just as much of an English (and Welsh) party as the Tories are. In fact, almost 90% of their MPs are now English. And their old Scottish dominance is never going to come back.

    If they want to paint themselves as the anti-English party, when most of their MPs are English, and not agree to sensible reforms to correct the (very skewed) devolution settlement we currently across the UK, then I can only say that's a very "brave" decision.

    They are literally in Alex Salmond's pocket...

    Oh, wait, that campaign had no effect
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    edited July 2015
    Scott_P said:

    On EVEL, I simply don't understand why Labour don't come to their senses on this.

    Labour are now just as much of an English (and Welsh) party as the Tories are. In fact, almost 90% of their MPs are now English. And their old Scottish dominance is never going to come back.

    If they want to paint themselves as the anti-English party, when most of their MPs are English, and not agree to sensible reforms to correct the (very skewed) devolution settlement we currently across the UK, then I can only say that's a very "brave" decision.

    They are literally in Alex Salmond's pocket...

    Oh, wait, that campaign had no effect
    Probably the main reason they don't like it is because England is more right-wing, and they don't want to face up to that. They still hope for a Celtic renaissance in the future that might help build the left-wing UK majority they want to carry out the programme they want.

    In the short-term it would also (in the current parliament) probably advantage the Conservative government, whom they hate, because they couldn't ambush it's proposals in conjunction with the SNP, and the SDLP.

    But they should be thinking about the 2020GE.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,338

    Jeremy Corbyn announces £10bn plan to scrap university tuition fees

    Labour leadership candidate says plan can be funded either by a rise in national insurance, a higher corporation tax, or by slowing the deficit reduction.

    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jul/15/jeremy-corbyn-announces-10bn-plan-to-scrap-university-tuition-fees?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it

    What? No outing for that old favourite: the bankers' bonus tax?? For shame!

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Can our legal eagles explain how 'life' becomes about 6yrs?
    Sadistic teen is jailed for life after slicing off ear of victim who died four days after week-long Reservoir Dogs-style torture ordeal

    Jack Smedley given life sentence to serve minimum of six years for attack
    18-year-old sliced off part of ear of recluse Simon Bowring, 49, during raid
    He was part of gang who attacked Mr Bowring in a bid to steal inheritance
    Four other men today jailed for total of 36 years for their part in May attack


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3162521/Sadistic-teen-jailed-life-slicing-ear-victim-died-four-days-week-long-Reservoir-Dogs-style-torture-ordeal.html#ixzz3fzKJZMkU
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Plato said:

    Can our legal eagles explain how 'life' becomes about 6yrs?

    Sadistic teen is jailed for life after slicing off ear of victim who died four days after week-long Reservoir Dogs-style torture ordeal

    Jack Smedley given life sentence to serve minimum of six years for attack
    18-year-old sliced off part of ear of recluse Simon Bowring, 49, during raid
    He was part of gang who attacked Mr Bowring in a bid to steal inheritance
    Four other men today jailed for total of 36 years for their part in May attack


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3162521/Sadistic-teen-jailed-life-slicing-ear-victim-died-four-days-week-long-Reservoir-Dogs-style-torture-ordeal.html#ixzz3fzKJZMkU
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    Six years seem to be far too short for premeditated torture.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited July 2015
    David Cameron is going to come out of this looking like a complete and utter idiot.
    “We took Britain out of eurozone bail-outs, including for Greece – the first ever return of powers from Brussels.”
    Can't wait to see what other concessions he comes back with before the referendum.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JamieGrierson: Daily Telegraph urges readers to 'doom' Labour by backing Jeremy Corbyn http://t.co/NczgiF3mXm
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    Sean_F said:

    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?

    Corbyn might be able to unite the left wing vote, but he'd also unite the (larger) right wing vote. It's no good Labour winning 35% if the Tories win 40%, or if Tory and UKIP supporters vote tactically to keep out a Corbyn-led Labour Party.
    I can't see Corbyn getting close to 35%.

    On the other hand, if the Tories sort immigration out, and get a good settlement from the EU (or if they don't panic to an OUT vote in the referendum and negotiate good exit terms) - both huge "ifs" - I can't see any reason why the Tories couldn't squeeze UKIP, increase their % vote in 2020 again, and gain a further net 10-25 MPs against a Corbyn led Labour.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCJLandale: House of Lords has just voted to allow 16 & 17 year-olds to vote in local elections, forcing govt to try to overturn in Commons.

    I agree with the government's position on this one, but I think it's a losing battle, given the IndyRef position for one thing, there seems a trend toward it. Odd given it feels like we infantilize young people.
    But then the Out campaign should have been given the advantage of having Yes. Personally, I'd let 12 year olds have the vote.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,547

    Scott_P said:

    On EVEL, I simply don't understand why Labour don't come to their senses on this.

    Labour are now just as much of an English (and Welsh) party as the Tories are. In fact, almost 90% of their MPs are now English. And their old Scottish dominance is never going to come back.

    If they want to paint themselves as the anti-English party, when most of their MPs are English, and not agree to sensible reforms to correct the (very skewed) devolution settlement we currently across the UK, then I can only say that's a very "brave" decision.

    They are literally in Alex Salmond's pocket...

    Oh, wait, that campaign had no effect
    Probably the main reason they don't like it is because England is more right-wing, and they don't want to face up to that. They still hope for a Celtic renaissance in the future that might help build the left-wing UK majority they want to carry out the programme they want.

    In the short-term it would also (in the current parliament) probably advantage the Conservative government, whom they hate, because they couldn't ambush it's proposals in conjunction with the SNP, and the SDLP.

    But they should be thinking about the 2020GE.
    I think they're still wedded to the 35% strategy, and cobbling together an anti-Tory coalition.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCJLandale: House of Lords has just voted to allow 16 & 17 year-olds to vote in local elections, forcing govt to try to overturn in Commons.

    The left wing bias in the Lords needs to be urgently corrected. Preferably by moving to PR.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Cyclefree said:

    Jeremy Corbyn announces £10bn plan to scrap university tuition fees

    Labour leadership candidate says plan can be funded either by a rise in national insurance, a higher corporation tax, or by slowing the deficit reduction.

    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jul/15/jeremy-corbyn-announces-10bn-plan-to-scrap-university-tuition-fees?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it

    What? No outing for that old favourite: the bankers' bonus tax?? For shame!

    I'm just amazed he hasn't tied the policy to how he opposed Iraq somehow, that's how it seemed he operates from the first hustings.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2015
    A Tony Blair War Criminal Tax?

    TBH, if it wasn't so funny - it'd be tragic. Taking the pee out of Corbyn is like shooting sardines in a can.
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jeremy Corbyn announces £10bn plan to scrap university tuition fees

    Labour leadership candidate says plan can be funded either by a rise in national insurance, a higher corporation tax, or by slowing the deficit reduction.

    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jul/15/jeremy-corbyn-announces-10bn-plan-to-scrap-university-tuition-fees?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it

    What? No outing for that old favourite: the bankers' bonus tax?? For shame!

    I'm just amazed he hasn't tied the policy to how he opposed Iraq somehow, that's how it seemed he operates from the first hustings.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    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.
    International law is meaningless.

    Agreements between countries are always a political agreement.

    Cameron relied on good faith on the part of his partners. Juncker is demonstrating that the EU is as reliable at keeping its promises as Tsirpas.

    (And I think that our partners would not have welcomed additional treaty changes at that point - they were in a hurry and couldn't afford to be distracted.
    Quite right. And that shows nothing short of full treaty change can be trusted in the renegotiation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,003
    edited July 2015
    Scott_P said:

    @JamieGrierson: Daily Telegraph urges readers to 'doom' Labour by backing Jeremy Corbyn http://t.co/NczgiF3mXm

    Say Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination in a shock defeat for Hillary and Corbyn won the Labour leadership in an equal shock and then in the middle of next year there is Grexit and a huge crash on the Chinese stock market triggering a global recession/depression even worse than 2008. It is a highly unlikely scenario but could there even be as much as a 10% chance by 2020 we have President Sanders and PM Corbyn, and what about French President Le Pen too to throw in the mix?
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCJLandale: House of Lords has just voted to allow 16 & 17 year-olds to vote in local elections, forcing govt to try to overturn in Commons.

    Interesting. By what margin, and down to whom?
    The unelected LibDem Lords are dancing - the irony:

    https://twitter.com/PTylerLords/status/621386170455465984
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    runnymede said:

    Quite right M'Lud.

    But is Cameron stupid, or just not serious? I would suggest the latter. For all his visits to farmers' markets and the like he is very much a 'court' Tory not a 'country' one. He wants and likes to be at the 'top table' with the big cheeses. He thinks the EU is the way to do that, and that is why he will do more or less whatever it demands in the end, with the occasional cosmetic spat. He is 100% the wrong person to be pursuing Britain's interests in this area, little better than Blair really.

    Quoted for truth. And in governing on behalf of powerful interests and not the people, he and his Government are little short of dangerous.
    I see the kippers frothing again. It doesn't take much!

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    1) I would not trust any poll at the moment . until the pollster stacks up against REAL votes
    2) if Corbyn wins.. Its a WTF moment, worse than Foot.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited July 2015
    SeanT said:

    Pong said:


    SeanT said:

    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?

    Surely the opposite?
    Corbyn is pro mass immigration, pro giving money to huge Somalian families, wants MORE welfare, calls UKIP voters racist, blah blah.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/08/jeremy-corbyn-bbc-newsnight-ukip-voters-motivated-by-racism_n_7539938.html

    UKIP would devour his WWC vote.


    But Sean, for a huge chunk of the 2015 kippers, the issues aren't really the issue. They're angry at the status quo and attach themselves to the best vehicle to challenge it.

    They're pissed off, angry, resentful. They'd be SNP if they lived in Dundee.

    2015 northern kippers are the one demographic corbyn will do well with.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,946
    Sean_F said:

    EPG said:

    Speaking of Harriet Harman,

    Can you imagine the personal vitriol she'd have faced if she were making the statements on women's pay that Cameron and Osborne have made this week?

    My impression is that most rightward-leaning posters here were ......
    .. Not enthusiastic about Cameron's comments.
    Absolutely.

    The *gender* pay gap is a fiction.

    I'm baffled why Cameron took this one up, unless it is a cunning plan to shoot more Labour foxes.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    JEO said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCJLandale: House of Lords has just voted to allow 16 & 17 year-olds to vote in local elections, forcing govt to try to overturn in Commons.

    The left wing bias in the Lords needs to be urgently corrected. Preferably by moving to PR.
    Can you imagine a 16 yr old voting on anything.. They are so full of hormones and testosterone, politics is a million miles away..

    Thinking of that.. How's PLUTO ???
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Although I too worry about the lack of effective opposition (while Corbyn could certainly oppose, if it never even appears credible that he might win a GE, then the opposition's pronouncements will have less impact), as someone from after the Foot era, it would be nice to have an equivalent to see, to discover if it really was as terrible as I hear that time was (for an opposition that wanted to win that is)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,547
    Pong said:

    SeanT said:

    Pong said:


    SeanT said:

    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?

    Surely the opposite?
    Corbyn is pro mass immigration, pro giving money to huge Somalian families, wants MORE welfare, calls UKIP voters racist, blah blah.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/08/jeremy-corbyn-bbc-newsnight-ukip-voters-motivated-by-racism_n_7539938.html

    UKIP would devour his WWC vote.


    But Sean, for a huge chunk of the 2015 kippers, the issues aren't really the issue. They're angry at the status quo and attach themselves to the best vehicle to challenge it.

    They're pissed off, angry, resentful. They'd be SNP if they lived in Dundee.

    2015 northern kippers are the one demographic corbyn will do well with.
    A left-wing Metroplitan? I think not.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    1983 ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjyAcHUkS4
    kle4 said:

    Although I too worry about the lack of effective opposition (while Corbyn could certainly oppose, if it never even appears credible that he might win a GE, then the opposition's pronouncements will have less impact), as someone from after the Foot era, it would be nice to have an equivalent to see, to discover if it really was as terrible as I hear that time was (for an opposition that wanted to win that is)

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    edited July 2015
    Amazing work done by NASA here.

    $700 million very well spent.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    As a northern kipper - I will never vote for Corbyn. His support for mass migration and the fact he dismissed UKIP'ers as a 'devil-may-care vote'. (Naive and wrong)
    Pong said:

    SeanT said:

    Pong said:


    SeanT said:

    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?

    Surely the opposite?
    Corbyn is pro mass immigration, pro giving money to huge Somalian families, wants MORE welfare, calls UKIP voters racist, blah blah.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/08/jeremy-corbyn-bbc-newsnight-ukip-voters-motivated-by-racism_n_7539938.html

    UKIP would devour his WWC vote.


    But Sean, for a huge chunk of the 2015 kippers, the issues aren't really the issue. They're angry at the status quo and attach themselves to the best vehicle to challenge it.

    They're pissed off, angry, resentful. They'd be SNP if they lived in Dundee.

    2015 northern kippers are the one demographic corbyn will do well with.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited July 2015
    Plato said:

    1983 ...

    htts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjyAcHUkS4

    kle4 said:

    Although I too worry about the lack of effective opposition (while Corbyn could certainly oppose, if it never even appears credible that he might win a GE, then the opposition's pronouncements will have less impact), as someone from after the Foot era, it would be nice to have an equivalent to see, to discover if it really was as terrible as I hear that time was (for an opposition that wanted to win that is)

    Interesting contrasting times - Leading with fears over nuclear policy and the Labour leader wishing to leave the EC.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,003
    kle4 said:

    Although I too worry about the lack of effective opposition (while Corbyn could certainly oppose, if it never even appears credible that he might win a GE, then the opposition's pronouncements will have less impact), as someone from after the Foot era, it would be nice to have an equivalent to see, to discover if it really was as terrible as I hear that time was (for an opposition that wanted to win that is)

    Foot did actually lead the polls for a while, it was only in the lead-up to the Falklands War Thatcher really pulled ahead
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    I get the feeling Corbyn is peaking a bit early, it feels like the bubble will burst before ballots are sent out, like with Kendall. He should still probably do well, but my entirely uninformed gut feels like we're just marking time while Burnham and Cooper wait things out.

    Also, I know the situations and pressures were different, but seeing that Cooper was Work and Pensions secretary, I see that she was the last of 5 such Secretary's of State in 5 years, and we've only had one in the next 5+ years. It makes me wonder if there are any relatively senior people looking to step back a bit to give Cameron room to promote the new guard and preventing them from getting restless, as he doesn't seem inclined to move people (even knowing he had fewer other places he could shunt people as a compromise to them if he demoted them in the Coalition), or if he intends to pretty much keep people in place and his successor can do a mass clear out if they want in 2-3 years (I'm assuming he'll go after the referendum, but if not then use that as a major reshuffle point?)
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCJLandale: House of Lords has just voted to allow 16 & 17 year-olds to vote in local elections, forcing govt to try to overturn in Commons.

    The left wing bias in the Lords needs to be urgently corrected. Preferably by moving to PR.
    Can you imagine a 16 yr old voting on anything.. They are so full of hormones and testosterone, politics is a million miles away..

    Thinking of that.. How's PLUTO ???
    I've been told by several left-leaning friends that the 16 year old girls who went off to join IS are too young to understand their actions.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    calum said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCJLandale: House of Lords has just voted to allow 16 & 17 year-olds to vote in local elections, forcing govt to try to overturn in Commons.

    Interesting. By what margin, and down to whom?
    The unelected LibDem Lords are dancing - the irony:

    https://twitter.com/PTylerLords/status/621386170455465984
    Thanks. Looks like an opposition ambush to me.

    There will be a great many more of these. The Tory whipping in the Lords need to improve.

    If they play too much silly buggers, Cameron should simply appoint (or threaten to appoint) dozens more Tory Lords.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I'll be very surprised if Corbyn wins even the first ballot.

    Things are accelerating politically, tomorrow the new LD leader,the first GOP debate is in 2 weeks on C-SPAN, voting on a new Labour leader heating up. Summer is getting less boring.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    Pulpstar said:

    Amazing work done by NASA here.

    $700 million very well spent.
    Bang on. Pluto has been found to be geologically active, and to hold water. It may change our entire understanding of the geophysics of planets.

    It's absolutely fascinating.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:

    On EVEL, I simply don't understand why Labour don't come to their senses on this.

    Labour are now just as much of an English (and Welsh) party as the Tories are. In fact, almost 90% of their MPs are now English. And their old Scottish dominance is never going to come back.

    If they want to paint themselves as the anti-English party, when most of their MPs are English, and not agree to sensible reforms to correct the (very skewed) devolution settlement we currently across the UK, then I can only say that's a very "brave" decision.

    They are literally in Alex Salmond's pocket...

    Oh, wait, that campaign had no effect
    Probably the main reason they don't like it is because England is more right-wing, and they don't want to face up to that. They still hope for a Celtic renaissance in the future that might help build the left-wing UK majority they want to carry out the programme they want.

    In the short-term it would also (in the current parliament) probably advantage the Conservative government, whom they hate, because they couldn't ambush it's proposals in conjunction with the SNP, and the SDLP.

    But they should be thinking about the 2020GE.
    I think they're still wedded to the 35% strategy, and cobbling together an anti-Tory coalition.
    I have no idea what they're thinking or what planet they're on. But never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006

    felix said:

    felix said:
    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.
    Agreed, so let's stop pussyfooting around trying to destroy the opposition party's funding, trying to subvert their leadership election, further emasculating the trade unions and undermining the state broadcaster and just create a Tory dictatorship (after all with 22% of the eligible electorate voting for them what could be fairer)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    kle4 said:

    Plato said:

    1983 ...

    htts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjyAcHUkS4

    kle4 said:

    Although I too worry about the lack of effective opposition (while Corbyn could certainly oppose, if it never even appears credible that he might win a GE, then the opposition's pronouncements will have less impact), as someone from after the Foot era, it would be nice to have an equivalent to see, to discover if it really was as terrible as I hear that time was (for an opposition that wanted to win that is)

    Interesting contrasting times - Leading with fears over nuclear policy and the Labour leader wishing to leave the EC.
    Very interesting. Nuclear disarmament in 1983 seems to have been a similar trump card to what the SNP was for the Tories in 2015.

    Leadership was a big issue in both elections.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Corbyn is SYRIZA
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    JEO said:

    JEO said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCJLandale: House of Lords has just voted to allow 16 & 17 year-olds to vote in local elections, forcing govt to try to overturn in Commons.

    The left wing bias in the Lords needs to be urgently corrected. Preferably by moving to PR.
    Can you imagine a 16 yr old voting on anything.. They are so full of hormones and testosterone, politics is a million miles away..

    Thinking of that.. How's PLUTO ???
    I've been told by several left-leaning friends that the 16 year old girls who went off to join IS are too young to understand their actions.
    Many voters probably don't understand their actions.

    Some people sincerely thought £12 billion of welfare cuts were feasible in July.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    kle4 said:

    Plato said:

    1983 ...

    htts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjyAcHUkS4

    kle4 said:

    Although I too worry about the lack of effective opposition (while Corbyn could certainly oppose, if it never even appears credible that he might win a GE, then the opposition's pronouncements will have less impact), as someone from after the Foot era, it would be nice to have an equivalent to see, to discover if it really was as terrible as I hear that time was (for an opposition that wanted to win that is)

    Interesting contrasting times - Leading with fears over nuclear policy and the Labour leader wishing to leave the EC.
    Very interesting. Nuclear disarmament in 1983 seems to have been a similar trump card to what the SNP was for the Tories in 2015.

    Leadership was a big issue in both elections.
    Foot at least had cabinet experience in government. He was far more capable than Corbyn.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    kle4 said:

    Plato said:

    1983 ...

    htts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjyAcHUkS4

    kle4 said:

    Although I too worry about the lack of effective opposition (while Corbyn could certainly oppose, if it never even appears credible that he might win a GE, then the opposition's pronouncements will have less impact), as someone from after the Foot era, it would be nice to have an equivalent to see, to discover if it really was as terrible as I hear that time was (for an opposition that wanted to win that is)

    Interesting contrasting times - Leading with fears over nuclear policy and the Labour leader wishing to leave the EC.
    Very interesting. Nuclear disarmament in 1983 seems to have been a similar trump card to what the SNP was for the Tories in 2015.

    Leadership was a big issue in both elections.
    Foot at least had cabinet experience in government. He was far more capable than Corbyn.
    You could say something similar about Kendall.

    Plenty of that generation of politicians had terrific experience and ability, however much you might disagree with their views.

    I disagree with Foot about almost everything but I have to admire the honest way he puts his views across in that interview.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Can't see Corbyn winning but I could be wrong!
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited July 2015

    Thanks. Looks like an opposition ambush to me.

    There will be a great many more of these. The Tory whipping in the Lords need to improve.

    If they play too much silly buggers, Cameron should simply appoint (or threaten to appoint) dozens more Tory Lords.

    This is not a disaster for the government, as it is an amendment to the local government, rather than the parliamentary franchise. It would not result, if passed, in children having the vote at general elections or in the referendum on self-government.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    kle4 said:

    Plato said:

    1983 ...

    htts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjyAcHUkS4

    kle4 said:

    Although I too worry about the lack of effective opposition (while Corbyn could certainly oppose, if it never even appears credible that he might win a GE, then the opposition's pronouncements will have less impact), as someone from after the Foot era, it would be nice to have an equivalent to see, to discover if it really was as terrible as I hear that time was (for an opposition that wanted to win that is)

    Interesting contrasting times - Leading with fears over nuclear policy and the Labour leader wishing to leave the EC.
    Very interesting. Nuclear disarmament in 1983 seems to have been a similar trump card to what the SNP was for the Tories in 2015.

    Leadership was a big issue in both elections.
    Foot at least had cabinet experience in government. He was far more capable than Corbyn.
    You could say something similar about Kendall.

    Plenty of that generation of politicians had terrific experience and ability, however much you might disagree with their views.

    I disagree with Foot about almost everything but I have to admire the honest way he puts his views across in that interview.
    Blair and Brown had never been in government either, but while Corbyn was on the governing benches for years, Tony and Gordon were in opposition. Kendall was at least a minister.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @OllyT

    'Agreed, so let's stop pussyfooting around trying to destroy the opposition party's funding, trying to subvert their leadership election, further emasculating the trade unions and undermining the state broadcaster and just create a Tory dictatorship'

    Oh diddums.

    The state broadcaster doesn't need any help, it does a great job undermining itself.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    Thanks. Looks like an opposition ambush to me.

    There will be a great many more of these. The Tory whipping in the Lords need to improve.

    If they play too much silly buggers, Cameron should simply appoint (or threaten to appoint) dozens more Tory Lords.

    This is not a disaster for the government, as it is an amendment to the local government, rather than the parliamentary franchise. It would not result, if passed, in children having the vote at general elections or in the referendum on self-government.
    Still, a slippery slope. I assume this'll be overturned in the commons?
  • Blair and Brown had never been in government either, but while Corbyn was on the governing benches for years, Tony and Gordon were in opposition. Kendall was at least a minister.

    Kendall was first elected in 2010, and has never served as a Minister of the Crown in any capacity.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    How ironic that the largest local Labour party was a Lib Dem seat til this year.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Thanks. Looks like an opposition ambush to me.

    There will be a great many more of these. The Tory whipping in the Lords need to improve.

    If they play too much silly buggers, Cameron should simply appoint (or threaten to appoint) dozens more Tory Lords.

    This is not a disaster for the government, as it is an amendment to the local government, rather than the parliamentary franchise. It would not result, if passed, in children having the vote at general elections or in the referendum on self-government.
    You think 16 and 17 year olds are children?
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Pong

    '2015 northern kippers are the one demographic corbyn will do well with.'

    I'm sure the northern kippers will be swayed by Corbyn's ideas on immigration.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    EPG said:


    Some people sincerely thought £12 billion of welfare cuts were feasible in July.

    Clearly, they are...with probably another £12bn available on top.

    Your point is?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited July 2015

    Blair and Brown had never been in government either, but while Corbyn was on the governing benches for years, Tony and Gordon were in opposition. Kendall was at least a minister.

    Kendall was first elected in 2010, and has never served as a Minister of the Crown in any capacity.
    My mistake. She was shadow minister. Still more than Corbyn, I believe.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    Thanks. Looks like an opposition ambush to me.

    There will be a great many more of these. The Tory whipping in the Lords need to improve.

    If they play too much silly buggers, Cameron should simply appoint (or threaten to appoint) dozens more Tory Lords.

    This is not a disaster for the government, as it is an amendment to the local government, rather than the parliamentary franchise. It would not result, if passed, in children having the vote at general elections or in the referendum on self-government.
    You think 16 and 17 year olds are children?
    Society treats them and those much older like children much of the time, so why not?

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    Thanks. Looks like an opposition ambush to me.

    There will be a great many more of these. The Tory whipping in the Lords need to improve.

    If they play too much silly buggers, Cameron should simply appoint (or threaten to appoint) dozens more Tory Lords.

    This is not a disaster for the government, as it is an amendment to the local government, rather than the parliamentary franchise. It would not result, if passed, in children having the vote at general elections or in the referendum on self-government.
    Slippery slope.
  • RobD said:

    Still, a slippery slope. I assume this'll be overturned in the commons?

    The vote on extending the franchise at the referendum was rejected by the Commons by 310-265 [HC Deb 18 June 2015, col. 563]. Many of those who voted against the amendment did so on the narrow basis that any alteration had to be made to the substantive parliamentary franchise, rather than as an ad hoc measure for a particular referendum. The Conservatives got out 305 votes and 2 tellers. Carswell and 4 DUPers voted for the government. Three Tories voted against the government. All the other opposition parties, including Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone) voted against the government. A properly organised opposition could run the government very close in the Commons on this issue.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,038

    Thanks. Looks like an opposition ambush to me.

    There will be a great many more of these. The Tory whipping in the Lords need to improve.

    If they play too much silly buggers, Cameron should simply appoint (or threaten to appoint) dozens more Tory Lords.

    This is not a disaster for the government, as it is an amendment to the local government, rather than the parliamentary franchise. It would not result, if passed, in children having the vote at general elections or in the referendum on self-government.
    You think 16 and 17 year olds are children?
    You don't?
    Do you think that they should be allowed to serve in a war zone?
    To star in porn movies?
    To take out credit cards, loans, and mortgages?
    To buy alcohol and go freely to nightclubs?
    To continue to be allowed to leave full-time education at 16?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    kle4 said:

    Plato said:

    1983 ...

    htts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjyAcHUkS4

    kle4 said:

    Although I too worry about the lack of effective opposition (while Corbyn could certainly oppose, if it never even appears credible that he might win a GE, then the opposition's pronouncements will have less impact), as someone from after the Foot era, it would be nice to have an equivalent to see, to discover if it really was as terrible as I hear that time was (for an opposition that wanted to win that is)

    Interesting contrasting times - Leading with fears over nuclear policy and the Labour leader wishing to leave the EC.
    Very interesting. Nuclear disarmament in 1983 seems to have been a similar trump card to what the SNP was for the Tories in 2015.

    Leadership was a big issue in both elections.
    Foot at least had cabinet experience in government. He was far more capable than Corbyn.
    You could say something similar about Kendall.

    Plenty of that generation of politicians had terrific experience and ability, however much you might disagree with their views.

    I disagree with Foot about almost everything but I have to admire the honest way he puts his views across in that interview.
    Blair and Brown had never been in government either, but while Corbyn was on the governing benches for years, Tony and Gordon were in opposition. Kendall was at least a minister.
    Government experience isn't the be all and end all. Life experiences and meaningful careers outside politics, that tested people skills and leadership talent, were much more prevalent then.

    Even Foot had a distinguished editorial career in journalism, authored some impressive polemic books - such as Guilty Men - and made great contributions to the debates on most of the major political events of the latter half of the 20th Century.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Not many Con or Lab Peers present today for 16 and 17s vote. But lots of LDs:

    Con 134 out of 227
    Lab 122 out of 213
    LD 82 out of 102

    But even if Con and Lab all turn up, Con has no chance without huge Crossbench support.

    Apparently Dave is appointing about 50 more Peers later this month - numbers not yet known but probably about Con 30, Lab 10, LD 10 - so won't make huge difference.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Pauly said:

    As a northern kipper - I will never vote for Corbyn. His support for mass migration and the fact he dismissed UKIP'ers as a 'devil-may-care vote'. (Naive and wrong)

    Pong said:

    SeanT said:

    Pong said:


    SeanT said:

    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?

    Surely the opposite?
    Corbyn is pro mass immigration, pro giving money to huge Somalian families, wants MORE welfare, calls UKIP voters racist, blah blah.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/08/jeremy-corbyn-bbc-newsnight-ukip-voters-motivated-by-racism_n_7539938.html

    UKIP would devour his WWC vote.


    But Sean, for a huge chunk of the 2015 kippers, the issues aren't really the issue. They're angry at the status quo and attach themselves to the best vehicle to challenge it.

    They're pissed off, angry, resentful. They'd be SNP if they lived in Dundee.

    2015 northern kippers are the one demographic corbyn will do well with.
    You could not be more wrong.

    Corbyn would turn the North into Labour wastelands.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Danny565 said:

    How ironic that the largest local Labour party was a Lib Dem seat til this year.

    It's down to very recent very vigorous organisation:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/16/how-rebuild-labour-political-party-from-ground-up
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Interesting facts from this week:
    Yanis Varoufakis told the New Statesman that George Osborne and the Conservatives were the most supportive of European leaders to SYRIZA because of their anti-euro and eurosceptic position.
    David Cameron told MPs at PMQs that Britain can't assist in a euro crisis, but were Greece to leave the euro, Britain could offer humanitarian aid.

    From outside, it might look almost like deliberately undermining somebody else's currency.
  • redrose82redrose82 Posts: 21
    It is thought that a lot of the more moderate members left in dismay during Ed's leadership.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984

    New Thread

  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    This gives you some of the mentality of those government officials watching us:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/15/police-criticised-spy-cam-tweet-comedian-michael-mcintyre

    The abuse of privacy does not seem to even occur to them.
Sign In or Register to comment.