Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John Rentoul thinks that private poll was leaked by Liz Ken

SystemSystem Posts: 12,219
edited July 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » John Rentoul thinks that private poll was leaked by Liz Kendall

I fear that the story of a private poll that put Corbyn in the lead was a desperate ploy by the Liz Kendall campaign. My view is that Kendall is easily the best candidate, and the only one who has a chance of winning the next election for Labour without relying on the Conservatives to fall apart. But I accept that her campaign, after its flying start, has not gone well.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    notme said:

    Kendall is (unfairly IMO) called a 'Tory', because she appears to sign up for every single policy espoused by the Conservative party.

    Not quite. She's signing up to policies espoused by the electorate.

    That's your problem. Not Liz Kendall.
    So private sector intervention in the public sector is a policy popular with the electorate? So Free Schools is a policy popular with the electorate, then?

    It is Liz Kendall's issue if she's looking to get elected to be Labour leader, and PM of this country. That is her problem.
    Free schools are popular in places where you cant buy yourself a place at a good local comprehensive by having a nice postcode.

    The debate isnt about whether or not free schools or private sector involvement in schools is popular, its about whether or not doing so improves the quality of education. What parents want is a better schools, the argument is how we achieve this.
    I've yet to see evidence that free-schools are popular among a poorer demographic. I'm aware parents want better schools, however so far I don't think any party has convinced electorate that their way is the best way to achieve this.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    Do we really have to put up with another two months of this?

    Watching England meekly capitulate at Lord's is a fantastic day's entertainment by comparison to this leadership race.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    notme said:

    Kendall is (unfairly IMO) called a 'Tory', because she appears to sign up for every single policy espoused by the Conservative party.

    Not quite. She's signing up to policies espoused by the electorate.

    That's your problem. Not Liz Kendall.
    So private sector intervention in the public sector is a policy popular with the electorate? So Free Schools is a policy popular with the electorate, then?

    It is Liz Kendall's issue if she's looking to get elected to be Labour leader, and PM of this country. That is her problem.
    Free schools are popular in places where you cant buy yourself a place at a good local comprehensive by having a nice postcode.

    The debate isnt about whether or not free schools or private sector involvement in schools is popular, its about whether or not doing so improves the quality of education. What parents want is a better schools, the argument is how we achieve this.
    I've yet to see evidence that free-schools are popular among a poorer demographic. I'm aware parents want better schools, however so far I don't think any party has convinced electorate that their way is the best way to achieve this.
    Have you actually looked for any evidence, Miss Apocalypse?
    Would you believe it if it were shown to you?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    GeoffM said:

    notme said:

    Kendall is (unfairly IMO) called a 'Tory', because she appears to sign up for every single policy espoused by the Conservative party.

    Not quite. She's signing up to policies espoused by the electorate.

    That's your problem. Not Liz Kendall.
    So private sector intervention in the public sector is a policy popular with the electorate? So Free Schools is a policy popular with the electorate, then?

    It is Liz Kendall's issue if she's looking to get elected to be Labour leader, and PM of this country. That is her problem.
    Free schools are popular in places where you cant buy yourself a place at a good local comprehensive by having a nice postcode.

    The debate isnt about whether or not free schools or private sector involvement in schools is popular, its about whether or not doing so improves the quality of education. What parents want is a better schools, the argument is how we achieve this.
    I've yet to see evidence that free-schools are popular among a poorer demographic. I'm aware parents want better schools, however so far I don't think any party has convinced electorate that their way is the best way to achieve this.
    Have you actually looked for any evidence, Miss Apocalypse?
    Would you believe it if it were shown to you?
    Lol - wonder what the answer is? not.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    GeoffM said:

    notme said:

    Kendall is (unfairly IMO) called a 'Tory', because she appears to sign up for every single policy espoused by the Conservative party.

    Not quite. She's signing up to policies espoused by the electorate.

    That's your problem. Not Liz Kendall.
    So private sector intervention in the public sector is a policy popular with the electorate? So Free Schools is a policy popular with the electorate, then?

    It is Liz Kendall's issue if she's looking to get elected to be Labour leader, and PM of this country. That is her problem.
    Free schools are popular in places where you cant buy yourself a place at a good local comprehensive by having a nice postcode.

    The debate isnt about whether or not free schools or private sector involvement in schools is popular, its about whether or not doing so improves the quality of education. What parents want is a better schools, the argument is how we achieve this.
    I've yet to see evidence that free-schools are popular among a poorer demographic. I'm aware parents want better schools, however so far I don't think any party has convinced electorate that their way is the best way to achieve this.
    Have you actually looked for any evidence, Miss Apocalypse?
    Would you believe it if it were shown to you?
    I'm not making the assertion though, so the onus is hardly on me to find evidence for something polling I've seen hasn't suggested.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    I feel that TSE should elucidate his experience with and of bikinis (and their wearers). It would appear from his comments that this experience is extensive and his accounts would divert us from the sad state of affairs at Lords.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    On topic, I agree with Rentoul. The Burnham and Cooper campaigns rejected the findings of the 'poll', meanwhile the Kendall campaign didn't. Even Corbyn supporters such as Owen Jones speculated that this was a ploy by the Kendall campaign.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    edited July 2015

    GeoffM said:

    notme said:

    Kendall is (unfairly IMO) called a 'Tory', because she appears to sign up for every single policy espoused by the Conservative party.

    Not quite. She's signing up to policies espoused by the electorate.

    That's your problem. Not Liz Kendall.
    So private sector intervention in the public sector is a policy popular with the electorate? So Free Schools is a policy popular with the electorate, then?

    It is Liz Kendall's issue if she's looking to get elected to be Labour leader, and PM of this country. That is her problem.
    Free schools are popular in places where you cant buy yourself a place at a good local comprehensive by having a nice postcode.

    The debate isnt about whether or not free schools or private sector involvement in schools is popular, its about whether or not doing so improves the quality of education. What parents want is a better schools, the argument is how we achieve this.
    I've yet to see evidence that free-schools are popular among a poorer demographic. I'm aware parents want better schools, however so far I don't think any party has convinced electorate that their way is the best way to achieve this.
    Have you actually looked for any evidence, Miss Apocalypse?
    Would you believe it if it were shown to you?
    I'm not making the assertion though, so the onus is hardly on me to find evidence for something polling I've seen hasn't suggested.
    This sort of public policy polling is notoriously difficult and very susceptible to the phrasing of the question.

    There was for example some polling last year about the elimination of funding for extra rooms in public housing, which was as far at 70/30 in either direction depending on the question asked.

    With regard to schools, when asked about the idea of Free Schools, most parents couldn't care either way - but when presented with the option of a new school run by parents or charities vs what was famously called the "Bog-Standard Comprehensive", the Free Schools are unsurprisingly popular!
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    Sandpit said:

    GeoffM said:

    notme said:

    Kendall is (unfairly IMO) called a 'Tory', because she appears to sign up for every single policy espoused by the Conservative party.

    Not quite. She's signing up to policies espoused by the electorate.

    That's your problem. Not Liz Kendall.
    So private sector intervention in the public sector is a policy popular with the electorate? So Free Schools is a policy popular with the electorate, then?

    It is Liz Kendall's issue if she's looking to get elected to be Labour leader, and PM of this country. That is her problem.
    Free schools are popular in places where you cant buy yourself a place at a good local comprehensive by having a nice postcode.

    The debate isnt about whether or not free schools or private sector involvement in schools is popular, its about whether or not doing so improves the quality of education. What parents want is a better schools, the argument is how we achieve this.
    I've yet to see evidence that free-schools are popular among a poorer demographic. I'm aware parents want better schools, however so far I don't think any party has convinced electorate that their way is the best way to achieve this.
    Have you actually looked for any evidence, Miss Apocalypse?
    Would you believe it if it were shown to you?
    I'm not making the assertion though, so the onus is hardly on me to find evidence for something polling I've seen hasn't suggested.
    This sort of public policy polling is notoriously difficult and very susceptible to the phrasing of the question.

    There was for example some polling last year about the elimination of funding for extra rooms in public housing, which was as far at 70/30 in either direction depending on the question asked.

    With regard to schools, when asked about the idea of Free Schools, most parents couldn't care either way - but when presented with the option of a new school run by parents or charities vs what was famously called the "Bog-Standard Comprehensive", the Free Schools are unsurprisingly popular!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9197725/Data-shows-demand-for-free-schools.html
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    This campaign feels like it's never going to end - the longer it goes on the more doubts seem to appear about all of the candidates. The big worry I'd have about Yvette is the Tory negative attack ads - their first ad would be a mock up of No 10's kitchen with Ed Balls at the kitchen table with Yvette - blending 2 of this time around's successful attack ads. Depending on how nasty the Tories want to be they have various other avenues of attack - my sense is the Tories would be as nasty as they need to be to win.

    Labour needs to develop its own attack ad strategy - a Tony Blair would have swept aside the Milliband in Salmond's pocket ad by just saying, in a believable manner, I'm in this to win it not do deals.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    I can see the reasoning in this piece. Kendall is floundering, or so it seems, so this kind of tactic makes sense, but it also appears true that Cooper would benefit before Kendall. Even accepting that CLP nominations need not reflect precisely how the members in that area will vote, perhaps dominated by particular supporter groups - the Ron Paul approach - she hasn't seem to have much good news about her campaign since the start, and that being the case the inexperienced tag hits much harder, and Mrs Blandy seems a better stop Corbyn candidate than Mr Blandy in some ways.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175

    notme said:

    Kendall is (unfairly IMO) called a 'Tory', because she appears to sign up for every single policy espoused by the Conservative party.

    Not quite. She's signing up to policies espoused by the electorate.

    That's your problem. Not Liz Kendall.
    So private sector intervention in the public sector is a policy popular with the electorate? So Free Schools is a policy popular with the electorate, then?

    It is Liz Kendall's issue if she's looking to get elected to be Labour leader, and PM of this country. That is her problem.
    Free schools are popular in places where you cant buy yourself a place at a good local comprehensive by having a nice postcode.

    The debate isnt about whether or not free schools or private sector involvement in schools is popular, its about whether or not doing so improves the quality of education. What parents want is a better schools, the argument is how we achieve this.
    I've yet to see evidence that free-schools are popular among a poorer demographic. I'm aware parents want better schools, however so far I don't think any party has convinced electorate that their way is the best way to achieve this.
    Your original point was to question in general the popularity of private involvement in public services. The key poll which suggests the public are fine with it was the GE result of May 2015. You may not like it but this is the system supported by the main parties for choosing governments. They then enact their manifestos as best they can. Using opinion polls on individual issues to question their legitimacy is quite a popular tactic on the part of the losers.
    You failed to provide any evidence but questioned them anyway.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    That Telegraph Free Schools' link hardly proves that Free Schools are popular among the public overall, which is what I was referring to. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 733
    FPT

    Not sure if this has been mentioned, some expenses embarassment for Andy Burnham:

    http://tinyurl.com/nlmkzgm
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    edited July 2015
    The Bell tolls again.

    Could be finished by tea at this rate.

    Edit: They're Stoking the fire now!
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited July 2015
    felix said:



    Your original point was to question in general the popularity of private involvement in public services. The key poll which suggests the public are fine with it was the GE result of May 2015. You may not like it but this is the system supported by the main parties for choosing governments. They then enact their manifestos as best they can. Using opinion polls on individual issues to question their legitimacy is quite a popular tactic on the part of the losers.
    You failed to provide any evidence but questioned them anyway.

    I've just provided evidence on the Free Schools issue. Using opinion polls is a popular tactic among both winners and losers of an election tbh - it's not restricted to an either/or.

    I questioned the private-public issue in response to an argument that Kendall was supporting polices espoused by the electorate, as opposed to questioning the issue generally. As for the GE poll proving anything, that's pretty disingenuous. The majority of voters do not even read manifestos, let alone agree with all the polices espoused by political parties. Most voters politics are not cut and dried like that. It's like saying in 2001 most voters didn't want to pound when they voted for Blair - which obviously isn't the case.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175

    felix said:



    Your original point was to question in general the popularity of private involvement in public services. The key poll which suggests the public are fine with it was the GE result of May 2015. You may not like it but this is the system supported by the main parties for choosing governments. They then enact their manifestos as best they can. Using opinion polls on individual issues to question their legitimacy is quite a popular tactic on the part of the losers.
    You failed to provide any evidence but questioned them anyway.

    I've just provided evidence on the Free Schools issue. Using opinion polls is a popular tactic among both winners and losers of an election tbh - it's not restricted to an either/or.

    I questioned the private-public issue in response to an argument that Kendall was supporting polices espoused by the electorate, as opposed to questioning the issue generally. As for the GE poll proving anything, that's pretty disingenuous. The majority of voters do not even read manifestos, let alone agree with all the polices espoused by political parties. Most voters politics are not cut and dried like that. It's like saying in 2001 most voters didn't want to pound when they voted for Blair - which obviously isn't the case.
    No idea about what your last sentence means. You assert that voters do this and that but as I said we have a system supported by the main parties for choosing govts. As polls go GE's have the virtue of not being hypothetical. The public/private issue is one which appears to interest you rather more than most voters who just want a good service. Such evidence as we do have suggests that Labour's obsession with benefit receivers does not sit well with the majority of the the benefit providers. That perhaps would be a useful issue for them to ponder.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Jeremy Corbyn nominators now regretting their decision I can understand, changing the rules however, to oust him should he win, undermines the entire spirit of the leadership election. – How many more weeks of these leaked polls, off record briefings, smears and counter smears that dominate this shabby contest do we have to put up with?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175

    That Telegraph Free Schools' link hardly proves that Free Schools are popular among the public overall, which is what I was referring to. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/

    In the light of the subsequent GE result their views [assuming the poll is in any way accurate :) I don't believe YG covered themselves with glory in their GE polling] clearly were not a determining factor in their choice of government.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    felix said:



    No idea about what your last sentence means. You assert that voters do this and that but as I said we have a system supported by the main parties for choosing govts. As polls go GE's have the virtue of not being hypothetical. The public/private issue is one which appears to interest you rather more than most voters who just want a good service. Such evidence as we do have suggests that Labour's obsession with benefit receivers does not sit well with the majority of the the benefit providers. That perhaps would be a useful issue for them to ponder.

    I'm aware we have system supported by the main parties, I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing that voting for a party a GE suddenly means all voters that vote for them sign up to all their polices, which is pretty disingenuous. A GE is a poll will proves a party has gained enough MPs to govern, not that a majority of the public agree with every policy pursued by the government. Given that voters have disagreed with polices pursued by governments in the past, I would have hardly thought this is a controversial point to make. I also don't know what your point on benefit receivers is in relation to anything I've said, but I've not denied public views on welfare - although benefit receivers and providers aren't necessarily two separate groups. Many of whom receive benefits, have also worked and therefore contributed to the system. As for the public-private issue, it was just something I thought of, off the top of my head that I've seen polling show attitudes sceptical towards government policy, as opposed to an issue I've spent a long time thinking about. I'm sure most voters want a good service, that wasn't what I was questioning - but rather the way in which voters will believe will deliver the best service.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    felix said:

    That Telegraph Free Schools' link hardly proves that Free Schools are popular among the public overall, which is what I was referring to. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/

    In the light of the subsequent GE result their views [assuming the poll is in any way accurate :) I don't believe YG covered themselves with glory in their GE polling] clearly were not a determining factor in their choice of government.
    I don't deny that, my original point was in response to the argument that Kendall is supporting views espoused by the electorate. I doubt that most voters were thinking of Free Schools while casting their votes, - looking at MORI's polling on the issues that concern the electorate, most likely voters would have been thinking of the economy/immigration and leadership over education.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045

    Jeremy Corbyn nominators now regretting their decision I can understand, changing the rules however, to oust him should he win, undermines the entire spirit of the leadership election. – How many more weeks of these leaked polls, off record briefings, smears and counter smears that dominate this shabby contest do we have to put up with?

    Quite. It seems that all they know is negative campaigning. It's really not a good look to see the smearing tactics of McBride and Campbell used against each other.

    Ironically the only one of the four with anything approaching a vision is Mr Corbyn, who is (to someone who hadn't come across him until a month ago) articulate and passionate, even if the ideas themselves seem miles from reality and electability.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Sandpit said:

    Jeremy Corbyn nominators now regretting their decision I can understand, changing the rules however, to oust him should he win, undermines the entire spirit of the leadership election. – How many more weeks of these leaked polls, off record briefings, smears and counter smears that dominate this shabby contest do we have to put up with?

    [snip]

    Ironically the only one of the four with anything approaching a vision is Mr Corbyn, who is (to someone who hadn't come across him until a month ago) articulate and passionate, even if the ideas themselves seem miles from reality and electability.

    That JC, he’s divine
    Changes water into wine.
    Can anybody beat JC? :lol:
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    And his brother is just as *interesting* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn He's a weather expert.

    Sandpit said:

    Jeremy Corbyn nominators now regretting their decision I can understand, changing the rules however, to oust him should he win, undermines the entire spirit of the leadership election. – How many more weeks of these leaked polls, off record briefings, smears and counter smears that dominate this shabby contest do we have to put up with?

    [snip]

    Ironically the only one of the four with anything approaching a vision is Mr Corbyn, who is (to someone who hadn't come across him until a month ago) articulate and passionate, even if the ideas themselves seem miles from reality and electability.

    That JC, he’s divine
    Changes water into wine.
    Can anybody beat JC? :lol:
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    edited July 2015
    The one and only consolation from Lord's is that laying the draw turned out to be right.

    Does being 50 quid up, make up for the humiliation? Maybe a little, but nowhere near enough.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045
    Plato said:

    And his brother is just as *interesting* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn He's a weather expert.

    Sandpit said:

    Jeremy Corbyn nominators now regretting their decision I can understand, changing the rules however, to oust him should he win, undermines the entire spirit of the leadership election. – How many more weeks of these leaked polls, off record briefings, smears and counter smears that dominate this shabby contest do we have to put up with?

    [snip]

    Ironically the only one of the four with anything approaching a vision is Mr Corbyn, who is (to someone who hadn't come across him until a month ago) articulate and passionate, even if the ideas themselves seem miles from reality and electability.

    That JC, he’s divine
    Changes water into wine.
    Can anybody beat JC? :lol:
    I think you are missing some inverted commas there!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    Hillarious that "Blairite" is now an insult. Labour have forgotten that he's the only person in 40 years to win them an election!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    If Kendall leaked that "poll" that showed her with just 4% if I remember correctly, then I wonder what the real result would be.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Plato said:
    More evidence that large corporations don't know what to do with their money.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    I haven't commented much on labour's leadership woes but complete shambles doesn't come near. This going on until September should make every labour party member shudder
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Sandpit said:

    Hillarious that "Blairite" is now an insult. Labour have forgotten that he's the only person in 40 years to win them an election!

    And win them three figure majorities. But it wasnt just Blair, he was the leader and the key. But it was a team of people who spent every minute reassuring all those parts of society that dont normally vote Labour, that they would run the country in the interests of the whole country, and they would do so in a competent and pragmatic way. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, David Blunkett all of them came across as a plausible team of government.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Sandpit said:

    The one and only consolation from Lord's is that laying the draw turned out to be right.

    Does being 50 quid up, make up for the humiliation? Maybe a little, but nowhere near enough.

    Well done, I had a £15 punt on England at 16s when Aus were ~ 250-1 in the first. Oh well !

    Utterly outplayed this time.

    Cook deserved a century in the first innings on a personal level, but Ballance, Lyth & Bell were poor in Cardiff too.

    Summing wickets and runs; 820-10 plays 415-20, has there ever been a more dominant performance ?
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    That Telegraph Free Schools' link hardly proves that Free Schools are popular among the public overall, which is what I was referring to. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/

    Good schools are popular. You win the argument by showing that this is a route to good schools. What you find though is that parents are not interested in structures. Like im not overly interested in how my cars work. Whats important is that the car is reliable and economical.

    Those who are strongly against are usually those who have some interest greater than a parent. It could be ideological or, they themselves are part of the current system.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    On topic:

    Golden opportunity for Farron.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    I haven't commented much on labour's leadership woes but complete shambles doesn't come near. This going on until September should make every labour party member shudder

    I think it is more or less a leadership contest that is largely invisible, though less invisible that the LD one, but that was because there were only 2 candidates and everyone knew the winner years in advance.

    For instance I still don't know what the 2 leading candidates actually propose, they don't talk much so they are a mystery, with only the past negatives like the NHS and Mr.Balls scrubbed on my mind. On the other hand everyone knows what Corbyn's and Kendall's positions are on everything, so everyone knows what trouble the bottom 2 can be.

    It's an election of 2 flavours (left-right) and 2 intensities (boring- not boring), with one candidate in every category.
    Labour needed a fifth candidate to break the symmetry.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Pulpstar said:

    On topic:

    Golden opportunity for Farron.

    Only if Kendall gets the leadership, Farron is too left wing for Blairites.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    notme said:

    That Telegraph Free Schools' link hardly proves that Free Schools are popular among the public overall, which is what I was referring to. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/

    Good schools are popular. You win the argument by showing that this is a route to good schools. What you find though is that parents are not interested in structures. Like im not overly interested in how my cars work. Whats important is that the car is reliable and economical.

    Those who are strongly against are usually those who have some interest greater than a parent. It could be ideological or, they themselves are part of the current system.
    Or that they are against Free Schools simply because they don't believe that Free Schools are a effective route to improving the system. I think it remains to be seen that Free Schools = Good schools.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    Speedy said:

    I haven't commented much on labour's leadership woes but complete shambles doesn't come near. This going on until September should make every labour party member shudder

    I think it is more or less a leadership contest that is largely invisible, though less invisible that the LD one, but that was because there were only 2 candidates and everyone knew the winner years in advance.

    For instance I still don't know what the 2 leading candidates actually propose, they don't talk much so they are a mystery, with only the past negatives like the NHS and Mr.Balls scrubbed on my mind. On the other hand everyone knows what Corbyn's and Kendall's positions are on everything, so everyone knows what trouble the bottom 2 can be.

    It's an election of 2 flavours (left-right) and 2 intensities (boring- not boring), with one candidate in every category.
    Labour needed a fifth candidate to break the symmetry.
    Speedy said:

    I haven't commented much on labour's leadership woes but complete shambles doesn't come near. This going on until September should make every labour party member shudder

    I think it is more or less a leadership contest that is largely invisible, though less invisible that the LD one, but that was because there were only 2 candidates and everyone knew the winner years in advance.

    For instance I still don't know what the 2 leading candidates actually propose, they don't talk much so they are a mystery, with only the past negatives like the NHS and Mr.Balls scrubbed on my mind. On the other hand everyone knows what Corbyn's and Kendall's positions are on everything, so everyone knows what trouble the bottom 2 can be.

    It's an election of 2 flavours (left-right) and 2 intensities (boring- not boring), with one candidate in every category.
    Labour needed a fifth candidate to break the symmetry.
    Your comments only support mine that every labour party member should shudder. Hattie has been the best so far and if labour have any sense they should cancel the election, install Hattie as temporary leader, decide on acceptable policies, and then invite a new election in 2016.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited July 2015
    Speedy said:

    I haven't commented much on labour's leadership woes but complete shambles doesn't come near. This going on until September should make every labour party member shudder

    I think it is more or less a leadership contest that is largely invisible, though less invisible that the LD one, but that was because there were only 2 candidates and everyone knew the winner years in advance.

    For instance I still don't know what the 2 leading candidates actually propose, they don't talk much so they are a mystery, with only the past negatives like the NHS and Mr.Balls scrubbed on my mind. On the other hand everyone knows what Corbyn's and Kendall's positions are on everything, so everyone knows what trouble the bottom 2 can be.

    It's an election of 2 flavours (left-right) and 2 intensities (boring- not boring), with one candidate in every category.
    Labour needed a fifth candidate to break the symmetry.
    I get the feeling that Burnham hasn't actually thought though much of his stances on various issues through. However, I think Cooper is the exact opposite but is deliberately keeping schtum for now, in order to pick up second preference votes.
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807

    notme said:

    That Telegraph Free Schools' link hardly proves that Free Schools are popular among the public overall, which is what I was referring to. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/

    Good schools are popular. You win the argument by showing that this is a route to good schools. What you find though is that parents are not interested in structures. Like im not overly interested in how my cars work. Whats important is that the car is reliable and economical.

    Those who are strongly against are usually those who have some interest greater than a parent. It could be ideological or, they themselves are part of the current system.
    Or that they are against Free Schools simply because they don't believe that Free Schools are a effective route to improving the system. I think it remains to be seen that Free Schools = Good schools.
    Interesting, how would you define "good school"?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic:

    Golden opportunity for Farron.

    Only if Kendall gets the leadership, Farron is too left wing for Blairites.
    If Corbyn wins I'd expect the LDs to overtake Labour in the polls pretty shortly afterwards.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2015

    I think it remains to be seen that Free Schools = Good schools.

    That comment reflects a profound misunderstanding of the concept of free schools.

    We know that, on the whole, local authority managed schools fail to provide a good enough education for the broad range of pupils: they fail to stretch the best; they allow the weakest to fall behind, without the basic literacy or numeracy skills needed; while the average child leaves school unprepared for the increasingly competitive world in which we live.

    Free Schools are intended to be a mechanism whereby those closest to the needs of the children - the teachers - can experiment and try new approaches. Some of these will succeed, and some will not. Parents can then exercise choice to decide which schools they prefer.

    Where it becomes theory is that parents will choose better schools and, as a result, all schools will adopt those approaches proven to succeed. I believe that this will happen but, to some extent, it is a matter of faith in the power of consumer choice.

    So essentially Free Schools replace a system which has proven to be inadequate and unresponsive with a system which should be more responsive and has the potential to be better.

    I hope that it works.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844
    Pulpstar said:

    On topic:

    Golden opportunity for Farron.

    Not unless he drops the God stuff.

    That really doesn't play well with the voters. Or indeed with members of his party.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844
    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Pulpstar, I think she may be a female version of Brown. I'm very unimpressed by her response to Liz Kendall over child credits (she's a mother, don't you know?). Plus, the further Balls is from power the better.

    She'll be the best campaigner for them, but identity politics can go to hell.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic:

    Golden opportunity for Farron.

    Not unless he drops the God stuff.

    That really doesn't play well with the voters. Or indeed with members of his party.
    I'm not sure that's fair. I don't think I've heard Farron actively promoting his faith - it's the media who are pushing the religious angle.

    Dermot Murnaghan made himself look a complete idiot when interviewing Farron this morning. Clearly it is a fair line of questioning and Farron seemed uncomfortable having to answer very specific questions about his faith and views on homosexuality. But Murnaghan then asked Farron what he thought about journalists asking him about his religious views when journalists wouldn't ask a Muslim similar questions.

    Now many on here have made this point, but Murnaghan looked a complete idiot and if I was Farron I'd have said "well Dermot, that's a question that you need to answer".
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Rexel56 said:

    notme said:

    That Telegraph Free Schools' link hardly proves that Free Schools are popular among the public overall, which is what I was referring to. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/

    Good schools are popular. You win the argument by showing that this is a route to good schools. What you find though is that parents are not interested in structures. Like im not overly interested in how my cars work. Whats important is that the car is reliable and economical.

    Those who are strongly against are usually those who have some interest greater than a parent. It could be ideological or, they themselves are part of the current system.
    Or that they are against Free Schools simply because they don't believe that Free Schools are a effective route to improving the system. I think it remains to be seen that Free Schools = Good schools.
    Interesting, how would you define "good school"?
    A good school in which the vast majority of pupils come out with good qualifications, ready for a competitive world, in which the teachers and teaching is of a high standard.

    @Charles, I'm not defending the current system, I'm also aware of the intentions behind Free Schools, in regard to giving parents 'choice'. But ultimately, this is a method in which is designed to improve education, and lead to good schools, is it not? In which case, it remains to be seen that Free Schools, through choice and competition have led to good schools, and an improved education system.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    edited July 2015
    Charles said:

    I think it remains to be seen that Free Schools = Good schools.

    That comment reflects a profound misunderstanding of the concept of free schools.

    We know that, on the whole, local authority managed schools fail to provide a good enough education for the broad range of pupils: they fail to stretch the best; they allow the weakest to fall behind, without the basic literacy or numeracy skills needed; while the average child leaves school unprepared for the increasingly competitive world in which we live.

    Free Schools are intended to be a mechanism whereby those closest to the needs of the children - the teachers - can experiment and try new approaches. Some of these will succeed, and some will not. Parents can then exercise choice to decide which schools they prefer.

    Where it becomes theory is that parents will choose better schools and, as a result, all schools will adopt those approaches proven to succeed. I believe that this will happen but, to some extent, it is a matter of faith in the power of consumer choice.

    So essentially Free Schools replace a system which has proven to be inadequate and unresponsive with a system which should be more responsive and has the potential to be better.

    I hope that it works.
    The thing is there are really really good state comprehensives out there, and if you are lucky enough to live in the catchment area, you might wonder what all the fuss is about. However some schools are absolute hell holes, in which little to no education reasonably happens. If you happen to live in that postcode, well you might want something a bit better.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    The LDs have 8 MPs right now, and have even more issues than Labour when it comes to voters' trust. I seriously doubt, even with Corbyn at the helm at that the LDs will overtake Labour in the polls.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On topic:

    Golden opportunity for Farron.

    Not unless he drops the God stuff.

    That really doesn't play well with the voters. Or indeed with members of his party.
    I'm not sure that's fair. I don't think I've heard Farron actively promoting his faith - it's the media who are pushing the religious angle.

    Dermot Murnaghan made himself look a complete idiot when interviewing Farron this morning. Clearly it is a fair line of questioning and Farron seemed uncomfortable having to answer very specific questions about his faith and views on homosexuality. But Murnaghan then asked Farron what he thought about journalists asking him about his religious views when journalists wouldn't ask a Muslim similar questions.

    Now many on here have made this point, but Murnaghan looked a complete idiot and if I was Farron I'd have said "well Dermot, that's a question that you need to answer".
    He has gone on record calling everyone a sinner. Now that may be true (for those who hold his very particular biblical perspective), it is not a message that will win him support as a leader.

    Telling everyone who might vote for you that, in your eyes, they are all bad people in some way is not exactly a positive message.

    Redemption does not come at the hands of Farron.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    The stuff about Liz Kendell is nonsense. For sure she comes from the right of the party, but she is hopelessly lightweight and out of her depth.
    Don't forget the Labour membership voted overwhelmingly for David Miliband. They want a credible leader. Out of all the candidates Kendell scores as a nil point, Miliband and Cooper as a 4 point, and Corbyn as a 6 point- Corbyn is unelectable of course because of his politics, but Labour will lose too with Burnham and Cooper at the helm.

    I'm going for Corbyn and hoping that David Miliband returns to frontline politics. Or Chukka resolves his issues. Failing that if Corbyn leads us to a loss, what the hell, the other candidates would do no better and Liz Kendell would lead us to oblivion.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
    The great Blairite hope, Kendal looks like she couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, and the other halfway realistic candidate is "Mid Staffs" Burnham.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Pulpstar said:

    On topic:

    Golden opportunity for Farron.

    Not really Pulps.

    I don't want to be mean, but Farron comes across as someone with special needs. He was marginally better than Lamb who perhaps was the most boring person you could ever imagine creating.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    tyson said:

    The stuff about Liz Kendell is nonsense. For sure she comes from the right of the party, but she is hopelessly lightweight and out of her depth.
    Don't forget the Labour membership voted overwhelmingly for David Miliband. They want a credible leader. Out of all the candidates Kendell scores as a nil point, Miliband and Cooper as a 4 point, and Corbyn as a 6 point- Corbyn is unelectable of course because of his politics, but Labour will lose too with Burnham and Cooper at the helm.

    I'm going for Corbyn and hoping that David Miliband returns to frontline politics. Or Chukka resolves his issues. Failing that if Corbyn leads us to a loss, what the hell, the other candidates would do no better and Liz Kendell would lead us to oblivion.

    Cooper/Burnham may well not lead to a GE, but with Corbyn Labour risk a serious chance of going backwards and not making the progress in 2020, that could position them to take 2025. That's the problem with going for Corbyn.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
    The great Blairite hope, Kendal looks like she couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, and the other halfway realistic candidate is "Mid Staffs" Burnham.
    I am not denying the faults of the other candidates. But Yvette is not the answer.

    By walking on the morning of the defeat, Miliband has ruined the Labour Party for a further 5 years (at least)

    If he had stuck it out for another couple of months, a more realistic set of candidates may well have emerged.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,983
    Surely if evidence were needed that this is the most feeble bunch of prospective leaders the Labour Party have ever put up just look at the favourite. He didn't even come in the top three in a contest won by Ed!

    Cometh the hour cometh the man"


    ...........not this time I'm afraid
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Tyson, I think that's a little overboard. I haven't seen the interview, but previous sightings of the Farron lead me to conclude he's like a particularly irksome churglar come a door-knocking.

    Ms. Apocalypse, could be that Corbyn either works better than expected as leader or Labour finally work out how a coup is done, and you get someone better than any of the current contenders.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,424
    O/T

    In the 2010 general election, politicalbetting.com did a good job of recording the odds immediately prior to the election. But in 2015 this was not the case: so much time was spent on discussing polls that although there were occasional screenshots of SPIN, odds were mostly neglected.

    So: can anybody point me to a site that records the odds on or before May 7th? Many sites do individual odds but tracking down the full book for a given bookie is mighty hard
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Viewcode, I believe the consensus was around (within a range) 283 or so for the Conservatives, and between 10 and 20 fewer seats for Labour.

    SNP around 47, from memory.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?

  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117

    tyson said:

    The stuff about Liz Kendell is nonsense. For sure she comes from the right of the party, but she is hopelessly lightweight and out of her depth.
    Don't forget the Labour membership voted overwhelmingly for David Miliband. They want a credible leader. Out of all the candidates Kendell scores as a nil point, Miliband and Cooper as a 4 point, and Corbyn as a 6 point- Corbyn is unelectable of course because of his politics, but Labour will lose too with Burnham and Cooper at the helm.

    I'm going for Corbyn and hoping that David Miliband returns to frontline politics. Or Chukka resolves his issues. Failing that if Corbyn leads us to a loss, what the hell, the other candidates would do no better and Liz Kendell would lead us to oblivion.

    Cooper/Burnham may well not lead to a GE, but with Corbyn Labour risk a serious chance of going backwards and not making the progress in 2020, that could position them to take 2025. That's the problem with going for Corbyn.

    The problem with Cooper/Burnham is that in all likelihood Labour will crawl onto a GE with little hope of success but no courage to get rid of them- a la Ed Miliband.

    At least with Corbyn I would have some hope that he could get culled- we have much better potential leaders who could win. David Miliband, Chuka, Alan Johnson- maybe Jarvis, Starmer- even Tristan Hunt. Labour need a Blairite- but not Liz Kendell, please.....
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    viewcode said:

    O/T

    In the 2010 general election, politicalbetting.com did a good job of recording the odds immediately prior to the election. But in 2015 this was not the case: so much time was spent on discussing polls that although there were occasional screenshots of SPIN, odds were mostly neglected.

    So: can anybody point me to a site that records the odds on or before May 7th? Many sites do individual odds but tracking down the full book for a given bookie is mighty hard

    Check my Twitter feed. Throughout the campaign I was doing several Tweets a day in order that there could be records.

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2015

    Rexel56 said:

    notme said:

    That Telegraph Free Schools' link hardly proves that Free Schools are popular among the public overall, which is what I was referring to. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/

    Good schools are popular. You win the argument by showing that this is a route to good schools. What you find though is that parents are not interested in structures. Like im not overly interested in how my cars work. Whats important is that the car is reliable and economical.

    Those who are strongly against are usually those who have some interest greater than a parent. It could be ideological or, they themselves are part of the current system.
    Or that they are against Free Schools simply because they don't believe that Free Schools are a effective route to improving the system. I think it remains to be seen that Free Schools = Good schools.
    Interesting, how would you define "good school"?
    A good school in which the vast majority of pupils come out with good qualifications, ready for a competitive world, in which the teachers and teaching is of a high standard.

    @Charles, I'm not defending the current system, I'm also aware of the intentions behind Free Schools, in regard to giving parents 'choice'. But ultimately, this is a method in which is designed to improve education, and lead to good schools, is it not? In which case, it remains to be seen that Free Schools, through choice and competition have led to good schools, and an improved education system.
    I think it is fair to say that Academies have led to an improvement, and Free Schools are really just a development of those (as Labour originally wanted them, before Brown decided to prove that Blair was dependent on his good graces).

    So there is evidence that suggests that Free Schools improving education is a reasonable thesis. Whether that thesis will survive contact with the real world is unproven, although early signs are encouraging.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Tyson, bemused by the love for Starmer. And Hunt would be bloody awful.

    Mr. Root, I think it ends on 12 September.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844

    How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?

    Voting doesn't open for another month - and then 4 weeks after that!

    So it is going on forever
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn
  • madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659
    This debate on Labour Leadership candidates is pointless.

    They are all crap. (so far)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    tyson said:

    The stuff about Liz Kendell is nonsense. For sure she comes from the right of the party, but she is hopelessly lightweight and out of her depth.
    Don't forget the Labour membership voted overwhelmingly for David Miliband. They want a credible leader. Out of all the candidates Kendell scores as a nil point, Miliband and Cooper as a 4 point, and Corbyn as a 6 point- Corbyn is unelectable of course because of his politics, but Labour will lose too with Burnham and Cooper at the helm.

    I'm going for Corbyn and hoping that David Miliband returns to frontline politics. Or Chukka resolves his issues. Failing that if Corbyn leads us to a loss, what the hell, the other candidates would do no better and Liz Kendell would lead us to oblivion.

    Cooper/Burnham may well not lead to a GE, but with Corbyn Labour risk a serious chance of going backwards and not making the progress in 2020, that could position them to take 2025. That's the problem with going for Corbyn.
    Agree, Corbyn risks losing seats in England and Wales, the other 3 actually have a chance at least of victory in 2020 against Osborne
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    The LDs have 8 MPs right now, and have even more issues than Labour when it comes to voters' trust. I seriously doubt, even with Corbyn at the helm at that the LDs will overtake Labour in the polls.

    Corbyn has the genuine support of around 10% of the MPs, virtually none of whom have held a responsible post. That would cause him considerable problems in forming a shadow cabinet (I very much doubt whether the likes of Creasy, Hunt, Kendall, Umuna et al. would serve). He would be massacred by the press - just see his Ch.4 interview last week for a taste of what it would be like. I think very quickly lifelong Labour supporters such as me would desert, and the LDs would be the most obvious beneficiaries. I'd say Labour on 15-20%, with the LDs up to around 25%

    The one upside is that it would be such a disaster that his reign wouldn't last very long; the trauma should be enough to bring the party back to its senses, so that it would look to appoint someone who might feasibly win an election.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    On the Labour Leadership, before today I was fairly confident that Yvette was going to win and that she was Labour's best bet. But having watched the debate on the Sunday Politics, I'm not so sure she is their best bet - though I still think she will win.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Roger said:

    Surely if evidence were needed that this is the most feeble bunch of prospective leaders the Labour Party have ever put up just look at the favourite. He didn't even come in the top three in a contest won by Ed!

    Cometh the hour cometh the man"


    ...........not this time I'm afraid

    Who might energise Labour? Had you anyone in mind or have they still to appear on the horizon? I suppose this could be a good leadership election to lose, but the danger is that Labour might waste another 5 years looking for a leader to win over non core voters.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited July 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
    Come on. That's just silly and attempts to raise it would just backfire.

    I think it's easier for Yvette now that Ed is no longer an MP and, indeed, has now got a job at Harvard.

    I think she's starting to get better in the campaign and I agree with TSE that she'll do very well with 2nd preferences and is the best bet.

  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    @Morris_Dancer, the trouble with Corbyn is, is that I think the same 'image' issues Ed Miliband had, Corbyn will have. He already has controversial views/dealings in regard to the IRA/Hamas, in which I can see the press having a field day with, let alone that many voters, I feel will struggle to envisage him as a credible PM in comparison to David Cameron. It is hard to picture Corbyn, as someone who is statesman like, who is voters could trust in a time of crisis, and whose views could engage swing voters etc. While Corbyn may be a better leader of the opposition than Ed Miliband, in terms of opposing the government in an effective, clear way to voters it is unlikely they'd come away thinking Labour is the answer. On the other hand, I actually think a coup could be successful in the case of a Corbyn win. It's true that many Labour MPs, and senior figures within the party would not want to serve under Corbyn, and would be reluctant to associate themselves with his ideas/stances/polices - especially rising stars such as Umunna, Reeves, perhaps Kendall, Creasy, Jarvis, and so on.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117

    This debate on Labour Leadership candidates is pointless.

    They are all crap. (so far)

    They are not as crap as Ed who was abysmal. I sincerely hope that we never have to see Ed playing any kind of public role in the future- he deserves no second chance for the damage his vanity has done. Not even Have I Got News for You, not anything.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966

    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
    Come on. That's just silly and attempts to raise it would just backfire.

    I think it's easier for Yvette now that Ed is no longer an MP and, indeed, has now got a job at Harvard.

    I think she's starting to get better in the campaign and I agree with TSE that she'll do very well with 2nd preferences and is the best bet.

    Maybe. "Ed Balls in Downing Street" is still a toxic notion, even if it is as a stay at home Dad. (That Harvard talk is a smoke screen.)
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844

    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
    Come on. That's just silly and attempts to raise it would just backfire.

    I think it's easier for Yvette now that Ed is no longer an MP and, indeed, has now got a job at Harvard.

    I think she's starting to get better in the campaign and I agree with TSE that she'll do very well with 2nd preferences and is the best bet.

    It is not silly. She is associated with the Brown/Balls era as well as the Miliband/Balls era. There is no getting away from that. She cannot escape her past - unless she distances herself in ways that she has not shown any willingness to consider.

    She has to condemn the failings of past Labour economic teams - and show that her team would do better.

    Otherwise she is the continuity-Balls candidate. And always risk being painted as such.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
    Come on. That's just silly and attempts to raise it would just backfire.

    I think it's easier for Yvette now that Ed is no longer an MP and, indeed, has now got a job at Harvard.

    I think she's starting to get better in the campaign and I agree with TSE that she'll do very well with 2nd preferences and is the best bet.

    I'd imagine it could work quite well to fire up activists, but should be restricted to them (i.e. an internet meme). Wouldn't be effective with the general public (Ed who?)
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    tyson said:

    This debate on Labour Leadership candidates is pointless.

    They are all crap. (so far)

    They are not as crap as Ed who was abysmal. I sincerely hope that we never have to see Ed playing any kind of public role in the future- he deserves no second chance for the damage his vanity has done. Not even Have I Got News for You, not anything.
    I think thats unfair. Ed was crap, but the rest of his shadow cabinet was as well. The only man holding the thing together was Ed Balls, who played it wrong on many things, but that was because he was playing to the gallery and opposing for the sake of it. Both Yvette and Andy were no less crap than Ed.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    HYUFD said:

    Yvette Cooper has refused to say Labour spent too much, unlike Burnham and wants to restore the 50p top tax rate until a surplus is achieved and her position on spending puts her to Burnham's left in my view. Given Burnham seems to be ahead of Cooper on first preferences and Kendall's voters are just as likely to back Burnham on preferences I doubt she will win. She also has lower favourables than both Burnham and Kendall with the public, though better than Corbyn

    Why effing polling has done favourability ratings. I know of none such.

    How much longer is the farce of the Labour Leadership election going to go on for?

    If you had followed this, which you clearly haven't, a timetable was set out in May and was widely reported and Tweeted. That you find something a farce is irrelevant.

    This is a massive election - effectively choosing the person LAB will put up as the alternative PM. It is also the current biggest political betting market.

    There will be many more posts on here before the result is announced on September 12th. Get used to it.


  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    @Charles I think Academies so far, have had mixed success.

    @ThomasNashe, I agree that a Corbyn leadership would probably pan out in the way you've outlined - but I don't think the LDs would be the beneficiaries of that, as in the 1980s. Unlike in the 80s, there appears to be a clear resentment among those involved in Labour, towards the LDs that I doubt has diminished. I also don't know how some of Farron's more socially conservative views would go down with Labour supporters either.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    @Morris_Dancer, the trouble with Corbyn is, is that I think the same 'image' issues Ed Miliband had, Corbyn will have. He already has controversial views/dealings in regard to the IRA/Hamas, in which I can see the press having a field day with, let alone that many voters, I feel will struggle to envisage him as a credible PM in comparison to David Cameron. It is hard to picture Corbyn, as someone who is statesman like, who is voters could trust in a time of crisis, and whose views could engage swing voters etc. While Corbyn may be a better leader of the opposition than Ed Miliband, in terms of opposing the government in an effective, clear way to voters it is unlikely they'd come away thinking Labour is the answer. On the other hand, I actually think a coup could be successful in the case of a Corbyn win. It's true that many Labour MPs, and senior figures within the party would not want to serve under Corbyn, and would be reluctant to associate themselves with his ideas/stances/polices - especially rising stars such as Umunna, Reeves, perhaps Kendall, Creasy, Jarvis, and so on.

    How would someone like Corbyn cope with the reality of Government? You have to temper and compromise your positions on almost everything, because Governance is not like spouting off at a rally, its cold hard decisions.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
    Wouldn't be the first time a political couple pretended to split up for electoral protection.

    Remember Tessa Mills/Jowell's separation from her husband during his Italian money laundering and tax fraud difficulties?
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117

    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
    Come on. That's just silly and attempts to raise it would just backfire.

    I think it's easier for Yvette now that Ed is no longer an MP and, indeed, has now got a job at Harvard.

    I think she's starting to get better in the campaign and I agree with TSE that she'll do very well with 2nd preferences and is the best bet.

    Ed Balls is actually an incredibly personable, likeable and charming character outside politics- a la Portillo. He charmed the pants off Aggers and Boycs yesterday at the cricket. He would be an asset to Yvette in any form.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Do most voters even care about Ed Balls? Do most even really know of his record in government, which is realistically the thing which would make the Cooper-Balls connection, a potent argument? On top of that, it's practically accusing Cooper of not being her own woman, which I don't think is a wise route to go down.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Tyson, I have heard contrary stories.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    notme said:

    @Morris_Dancer, the trouble with Corbyn is, is that I think the same 'image' issues Ed Miliband had, Corbyn will have. He already has controversial views/dealings in regard to the IRA/Hamas, in which I can see the press having a field day with, let alone that many voters, I feel will struggle to envisage him as a credible PM in comparison to David Cameron. It is hard to picture Corbyn, as someone who is statesman like, who is voters could trust in a time of crisis, and whose views could engage swing voters etc. While Corbyn may be a better leader of the opposition than Ed Miliband, in terms of opposing the government in an effective, clear way to voters it is unlikely they'd come away thinking Labour is the answer. On the other hand, I actually think a coup could be successful in the case of a Corbyn win. It's true that many Labour MPs, and senior figures within the party would not want to serve under Corbyn, and would be reluctant to associate themselves with his ideas/stances/polices - especially rising stars such as Umunna, Reeves, perhaps Kendall, Creasy, Jarvis, and so on.

    How would someone like Corbyn cope with the reality of Government? You have to temper and compromise your positions on almost everything, because Governance is not like spouting off at a rally, its cold hard decisions.
    The answer is Corbyn wouldn't cope with the reality of government.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    I spent yesterday at Lords watching the Test. Given what's happened I think I was there the best day!
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844

    Do most voters even care about Ed Balls? Do most even really know of his record in government, which is realistically the thing which would make the Cooper-Balls connection, a potent argument? On top of that, it's practically accusing Cooper of not being her own woman, which I don't think is a wise route to go down.

    She has so far refused to say that Labour has got it wrong on the economy - thus she is saying that the way Miliband, Brown and Balls ran things was right.

    She might be her own woman - but unless she acknowledges that the past Labour treasury teams made mistakes - she will be seen as part of the problem and not a potential solution.

    Labour lost because they were not trusted on the economy. She isn't advocating a move away from the Brown/Miliband/Balls way of running the economy.

    And she was, of course, Chief Secretary to the Treasury for a short while - and so was intimately involved in all of this.

    She has to set out a clear new economic message - otherwise she will be easily portrayed as being for more of the same. And that isn't going to win votes.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844

    notme said:

    @Morris_Dancer, the trouble with Corbyn is, is that I think the same 'image' issues Ed Miliband had, Corbyn will have. He already has controversial views/dealings in regard to the IRA/Hamas, in which I can see the press having a field day with, let alone that many voters, I feel will struggle to envisage him as a credible PM in comparison to David Cameron. It is hard to picture Corbyn, as someone who is statesman like, who is voters could trust in a time of crisis, and whose views could engage swing voters etc. While Corbyn may be a better leader of the opposition than Ed Miliband, in terms of opposing the government in an effective, clear way to voters it is unlikely they'd come away thinking Labour is the answer. On the other hand, I actually think a coup could be successful in the case of a Corbyn win. It's true that many Labour MPs, and senior figures within the party would not want to serve under Corbyn, and would be reluctant to associate themselves with his ideas/stances/polices - especially rising stars such as Umunna, Reeves, perhaps Kendall, Creasy, Jarvis, and so on.

    How would someone like Corbyn cope with the reality of Government? You have to temper and compromise your positions on almost everything, because Governance is not like spouting off at a rally, its cold hard decisions.
    The answer is Corbyn wouldn't cope with the reality of government.
    Corbyn won't ever have to deal with the reality of government.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    I wrote earlier that some of Kendalls comments in her 5 live interview nearly made me crash the car.

    I am glad to see the actual car crash was Kendalls performance on DP
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Do most voters even care about Ed Balls? Do most even really know of his record in government, which is realistically the thing which would make the Cooper-Balls connection, a potent argument? On top of that, it's practically accusing Cooper of not being her own woman, which I don't think is a wise route to go down.

    Agree that it would not be a wise route to go down.

    The misery-filled offence-taking horde in general and feminazis in particular would fire up the Outrage Bus and there'd be more whining than a jet engine at full revs.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117

    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
    Come on. That's just silly and attempts to raise it would just backfire.

    I think it's easier for Yvette now that Ed is no longer an MP and, indeed, has now got a job at Harvard.

    I think she's starting to get better in the campaign and I agree with TSE that she'll do very well with 2nd preferences and is the best bet.

    Maybe. "Ed Balls in Downing Street" is still a toxic notion, even if it is as a stay at home Dad. (That Harvard talk is a smoke screen.)
    I mean really? Tory activists really do live in a bubble of self reinforcing, mutually loathing opinions.

    I don't like Gove particularly, but I respect him as genuine talent and intellect.

    Ed Balls is one of the most remarkable politicians of our generation. Like Portillo, Ken Clarke, Heseltine, Hague, Gove, Cook- they are few and far between. They'll never become leaders or PMs but they enrich the political landscape of the UK.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    I spent yesterday at Lords watching the Test. Given what's happened I think I was there the best day!

    Didn't know that you were a cricket fan, Mike?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    edited July 2015
    Mr. M, cuts both ways. People are getting increasingly angry at the outrage bus and fetishising of victimhood.

    Edited extra bit: Mr. Tyson, that post is not absolutely bloody brilliant, if I may say so.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844
    tyson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    I did say a while ago that Cooper would probably be best for Labour. Hope she doesn't win, though.

    Why do you hope that ?

    I think democracy is better served, and the Conservatives will have to keep a higher game up if Cooper is made next leader. She's not great but the rest are all worse.
    Vote Cooper, Get Balls. Simple as that. Unless they split up, that will be trotted out at every available opportunity.
    Come on. That's just silly and attempts to raise it would just backfire.

    I think it's easier for Yvette now that Ed is no longer an MP and, indeed, has now got a job at Harvard.

    I think she's starting to get better in the campaign and I agree with TSE that she'll do very well with 2nd preferences and is the best bet.

    Maybe. "Ed Balls in Downing Street" is still a toxic notion, even if it is as a stay at home Dad. (That Harvard talk is a smoke screen.)
    I mean really? Tory activists really do live in a bubble of self reinforcing, mutually loathing opinions.

    I don't like Gove particularly, but I respect him as genuine talent and intellect.

    Ed Balls is one of the most remarkable politicians of our generation. Like Portillo, Ken Clarke, Heseltine, Hague, Gove, Cook- they are few and far between. They'll never become leaders or PMs but they enrich the political landscape of the UK.
    If he is that remarkable, why didn't he reshape Labour economic policy to make it acceptable to the electorate?

    Did Miliband prevent him in some way? In which case, he could be seen as a coward for not forcing the issue.

    He is able - but not remarkable.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    I wrote earlier that some of Kendalls comments in her 5 live interview nearly made me crash the car.

    I am glad to see the actual car crash was Kendalls performance on DP

    She is truly God-awful.

    Never mind being leader, I'm not sure I see why her and the other ultra-Blairites (Chuka, Tristram Hunt) should even be in the shadow cabinet and steering policy, when it's clear the party totally rejects their approach.
Sign In or Register to comment.