Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Peak Corbyn?

SystemSystem Posts: 11,684
edited July 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Peak Corbyn?

As noted yesterday, there appears to be the start of the Stop Corbyn campaign, yesterday’s Observer editorial weighed in with “If Jeremy Corbyn is the answer then Labour is asking the wrong question.” The above tweet from Ladbrokes points out Corbyn’s chances are ticking down, perhaps it might be prudent to take the 5/1 on Corbyn finishing last in the Labour leadership …

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    Nice graph Shadsy.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2015
    This sums up how strange things are becoming http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11750642/Is-Labour-heading-for-another-SDP-split.html
    Meanwhile, anyone who suggests anything other than outright opposition to the machinations of the evil Conservative government risks being denounced as a Tory (Liz Kendall) or a Tory stooge (Harriet Harman, for God’s sake.) How far has Labour’s centre of gravity shifted here? Look at welfare. MPs like Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, once both young tyros of the New Labour movement, forced Miss Harman into more strident opposition to the Government’s cuts. These are strange days.
    and
    (A note on language: he might as well have said “Blairites” since that’s still the term applied to anyone in the Labour Party who has a passing acquaintance with political reality these days, whether or not they have any association with TB himself; some people now described as “Blairites” were actually Brownites, but the importance of the distinction fades with time; all the New Labour witches must be burnt at the stake.)
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Kendall's curve looks like the most exciting Tour de France stage.

  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,010
    Harriet Harman was on board with New Labour. It is only her feminism that makes Tories think of her as a raving left-wing extremist, as an advocate of hysteric ideas like publishing how much less firms pay women.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    EPG said:

    Harriet Harman was on board with New Labour. It is only her feminism that makes Tories think of her as a raving left-wing extremist, as an advocate of hysteric ideas like publishing how much less firms pay women.

    Why didn't Hattie stand ? She might have won - far more sensible than any of the 4 currently in the traps.

  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Interesting to note that the below the line comments on the Observer article were almost universal in their bile and conviction that the author was a Tory stooge. Labour appears to be having an attack of the vapours at the moment, and electing Corbyn might be the required dose of smelling salts required to get them back into sensible land.

    If I was a Labourite my concern would be the apparent huge divergence between the activists and the Labour-inclined voters. Before, such as in Blair's day, this didn't matter much because there weren't any credible alternatives, but they now risk a large group of activists peeling off to the Greens, or potentially even the kippers if they continue their move toward left-wing economics.

    Labour are in danger of being able to have either their activists, or voter friendly policies, and without activists, those voter friendly policies might not be enough.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,454
    From a Labour friend, the best way to stop Corbyn becoming leader, get Blair to endorse Corbyn for leader.

    That's how much we're fucked.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    5-1 Cooper dead last looks a bit stingy.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Pulpstar said:

    5-1 Cooper dead last looks a bit stingy.

    Even though there's still a long way to go, Liz is pretty much nailed on for last place IMO. I think I'd want 20/1 at least for Jeremy and 50/1 for Yvette.
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    JEO said:

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not to mention being able to buy EU Passports over the counter in at least two EU Member states.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/10699637/EU-citizenship-for-sale-to-non-Europeans-in-Bulgaria-for-as-little-as-150000.html
    http://epthinktank.eu/2014/01/15/eu-citizenship-and-residence-permits-for-sale/
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not an obvious flaw in itself, unless you think Portugal is going lax. I know there were some concerns e.g. Malta might be "selling" EU national status but this is rather different.
  • Options
    handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 213
    edited July 2015
    5/1 against Corbyn finishing last on first preferences? That's a terrible bet.

    Short of the contest being halted or JC withdrawing (in which case I assume the bets will be voided), that's extremely unlikely. The union signups alone should make sure of that. Thousands of activists have been motivated to get involved by JC's message, they're not going to switch to another candidate at the last minute!

    Meanwhile the other candidates on offer are uninspiring. Even people who seem like they should be nailed-on Kendall supporters are having second thoughts having seen her in action (see the previous thread), and Burnham & Cooper clearly offer little more than continuity. Will their supporters 'turn out'?
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited July 2015
    It has taken me a long time to work out why so many said David Milliband was the hope and future star for Labour.

    David Milliband, a man who was unable to visit India without needing Mandleson to smooth over and clean up after him, a man who was unable to have the self belief, bravery and conviction to stand up to Brown, even after others resigned, a man who has one of the biggest political questions marks still to answer with the bulky and poisonous sword of Rendition hanging over his head unanswered, indeed a man who has had a long ministerial career but one in which solid long lasting beneficial achievements are remarkable sparse and hard to find.

    This man with such stellar achievements against his name (and a banana) is seen as the greatest hope for Labour.

    And it is only now that I realise why he is held in such high regard. The quality of the four contestants is dire, if that is the best Labour can provide, then they really are in a mess. I have to say the Tory party are lucky that Ed Balls is absent. He would be be better than any of the candidates by a country mile.
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited July 2015

    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not an obvious flaw in itself, unless you think Portugal is going lax. I know there were some concerns e.g. Malta might be "selling" EU national status but this is rather different.
    Given the top birth nation is India and the top citizenship nation is Portugal, I would guess Goans would account for a large chunk. I have no idea how easy it is for them to get Portuguese citizenship. Or why they're moving to the UK in such large numbers.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    The number of EU nationals living in the UK has nearly tripled in the last decade, so it shouldn't be particularly surprising that the number of non-EU-born EU nationals has tripled, especially as people are tending to move around more what with aeroplanes and internets and things.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TGOHF said:

    Kendall's curve looks like the most exciting Tour de France stage.

    Nah, I'd pick Cooper's. A brutal stage given the exacting summit finish to come.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not an obvious flaw in itself, unless you think Portugal is going lax. I know there were some concerns e.g. Malta might be "selling" EU national status but this is rather different.
    It is potentially a flaw, due to the different rules on becoming a citizen of each EU country. For example as Polish and Romanian tradesmen move to the UK, they are replaced at home by Ukrainian and Belorussian workers. After as little as 12 months in their new homes (or a few well-spent Euros towards the right officials), these Ukrainians and Belorussians can get Polish or Romanian passports - thus entitling them to free movement within the EU.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    What chances do I see for the four candidates?

    Andy Burnham: 10/11
    Yvette Cooper: 7/4
    Jeremy Corbyn: 10/1
    Liz Kendall: 50/1

    So I see marginal value on Andy Burnham at present and substantial value on Yvette Cooper. I've been backing Yvette Cooper accordingly.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,563
    edited July 2015
    JEO said:

    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not an obvious flaw in itself, unless you think Portugal is going lax. I know there were some concerns e.g. Malta might be "selling" EU national status but this is rather different.
    Given the top birth nation is India and the top citizenship nation is Portugal, I would guess Goans would account for a large chunk. I have no idea how easy it is for them to get Portuguese citizenship. Or why they're moving to the UK in such large numbers.
    I'd plump for people from Macau, who Portugal gave full rights to residence while we kept Hong Kong out.

  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    edited July 2015
    JEO said:

    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not an obvious flaw in itself, unless you think Portugal is going lax. I know there were some concerns e.g. Malta might be "selling" EU national status but this is rather different.
    Given the top birth nation is India and the top citizenship nation is Portugal, I would guess Goans would account for a large chunk. I have no idea how easy it is for them to get Portuguese citizenship. Or why they're moving to the UK in such large numbers.
    That's possible but the top three countries of birth (India, South Africa, USA/Canada) are countries that have a lot of connections with the UK anyhow and will have had a fair bit of of direct migration from, so it seems plausible that they're just people who already had connections with both the UK and some other EU country.

    As for Portugal what does EU-born migration look like? They've had a very shitty economy so they may just have quite a few people moving to Britain.
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Sandpit said:

    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not an obvious flaw in itself, unless you think Portugal is going lax. I know there were some concerns e.g. Malta might be "selling" EU national status but this is rather different.
    It is potentially a flaw, due to the different rules on becoming a citizen of each EU country. For example as Polish and Romanian tradesmen move to the UK, they are replaced at home by Ukrainian and Belorussian workers. After as little as 12 months in their new homes (or a few well-spent Euros towards the right officials), these Ukrainians and Belorussians can get Polish or Romanian passports - thus entitling them to free movement within the EU.
    I did not know this. Would you mind linking me where you read this?
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,563
    Indigo said:

    Interesting to note that the below the line comments on the Observer article were almost universal in their bile and conviction that the author was a Tory stooge.

    Isn't that just the Delusional Left being themselves?

    Or did they borrow some conspiraloons from the SNP?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,454
    @GaryGibbonBlog: Andy Burnham decides rebelling on welfare too risky http://bit.ly/1IeJZPD #c4news
  • Options
    FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Indigo said:

    Interesting to note that the below the line comments on the Observer article were almost universal in their bile and conviction that the author was a Tory stooge. Labour appears to be having an attack of the vapours at the moment, and electing Corbyn might be the required dose of smelling salts required to get them back into sensible land.

    If I was a Labourite my concern would be the apparent huge divergence between the activists and the Labour-inclined voters. Before, such as in Blair's day, this didn't matter much because there weren't any credible alternatives, but they now risk a large group of activists peeling off to the Greens, or potentially even the kippers if they continue their move toward left-wing economics.

    Labour are in danger of being able to have either their activists, or voter friendly policies, and without activists, those voter friendly policies might not be enough.

    In Blair's day the activists persuaded themselves that Brown was really in charge of the important thing in the country. And of course he was. Unfortunately.
    As it is there is clearly a divergence, a chasm, between activists and the PLP.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    In Blair's day the activists persuaded themselves that Brown was really in charge of the important thing in the country. And of course he was. Unfortunately.
    As it is there is clearly a divergence, a chasm, between activists and the PLP.

    That's a good point. Maybe what Labour need to succeed is not a new leader, but a new leadership team
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:

    In Blair's day the activists persuaded themselves that Brown was really in charge of the important thing in the country. And of course he was. Unfortunately.
    As it is there is clearly a divergence, a chasm, between activists and the PLP.

    That's a good point. Maybe what Labour need to succeed is not a new leader, but a new leadership team
    Yvette and Corbyn - a pair of Jerballs ?
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not an obvious flaw in itself, unless you think Portugal is going lax. I know there were some concerns e.g. Malta might be "selling" EU national status but this is rather different.
    Given the top birth nation is India and the top citizenship nation is Portugal, I would guess Goans would account for a large chunk. I have no idea how easy it is for them to get Portuguese citizenship. Or why they're moving to the UK in such large numbers.
    That's possible but the top three countries of birth (India, South Africa, USA/Canada) are countries that have a lot of connections with the UK anyhow and will have had a fair bit of of direct migration from, so it seems plausible that they're just people who already had connections with both the UK and some other EU country.

    As for Portugal what does EU-born migration look like? They've had a very shitty economy so they may just have quite a few people moving to Britain.
    Yet most of them align with other nations mentioned in the most common list:
    - Portugal has strong connection to India via Goa
    - South Africa has strong connection with the Netherlands
    - USA/Canada has strong connections to Ireland

    It's worth noting that the numbers for top five country of birth are a lot smaller than the numbers for top five country of citizenship. I imagine those coming from France, Italy and Spain are likely to be scattered among various African nationalities.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    JEO said:

    Sandpit said:

    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not an obvious flaw in itself, unless you think Portugal is going lax. I know there were some concerns e.g. Malta might be "selling" EU national status but this is rather different.
    It is potentially a flaw, due to the different rules on becoming a citizen of each EU country. For example as Polish and Romanian tradesmen move to the UK, they are replaced at home by Ukrainian and Belorussian workers. After as little as 12 months in their new homes (or a few well-spent Euros towards the right officials), these Ukrainians and Belorussians can get Polish or Romanian passports - thus entitling them to free movement within the EU.
    I did not know this. Would you mind linking me where you read this?
    I have a pile of information on this, as my wife seriously considered doing it a couple of years ago (she has Ukrainian passport)!! I'll try and dig it out and post tomorrow if I get the chance.

    A quick link starting point, the story of a Moldovan man who managed to easily buy himself Romanian documents. https://euobserver.com/justice/117551 and another link to the same story http://www.journalismfund.eu/workinggrant/buy-your-way-eu-citizenship (these seem respectable journalists rather than just a guy with a blog). Romanian government statistics show 250,000 new citizenships issued since 2007.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    @GaryGibbonBlog: Andy Burnham decides rebelling on welfare too risky http://bit.ly/1IeJZPD #c4news

    Rather weak from him really. It's not something you can really sit on the fence on.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    @GaryGibbonBlog: Andy Burnham decides rebelling on welfare too risky http://bit.ly/1IeJZPD #c4news

    "Which position should I take to maximise second preferences of the likely third and fourth place candidates whilst not losing so many first preferences that I fail to make it into the top two or three."
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,755
    Scott_P said:

    In Blair's day the activists persuaded themselves that Brown was really in charge of the important thing in the country. And of course he was. Unfortunately.
    As it is there is clearly a divergence, a chasm, between activists and the PLP.

    That's a good point. Maybe what Labour need to succeed is not a new leader, but a new leadership team
    Labour are lost atm.

    5 years of sitting back and saying nothing in the hope HMG would make a mistake now leaves them as the party with nothing to say. Voters don't know what they stand for and until they do Labour's in the wilderness. In a multi party UK "not the Tories" is no longer enough.
  • Options

    @GaryGibbonBlog: Andy Burnham decides rebelling on welfare too risky http://bit.ly/1IeJZPD #c4news

    Good news for the Conservatives. Burnham opposes the two child rule etc etc and will lead the vote against at the 3rd stage of the bill.
  • Options
    handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 213
    For the alternative view to most on here about Labour's position on the welfare bill: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/07/20/voting-with-the-tories-on-welfare-will-end-any-credibility-labour-has-left/
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    JEO said:

    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not an obvious flaw in itself, unless you think Portugal is going lax. I know there were some concerns e.g. Malta might be "selling" EU national status but this is rather different.
    Given the top birth nation is India and the top citizenship nation is Portugal, I would guess Goans would account for a large chunk. I have no idea how easy it is for them to get Portuguese citizenship. Or why they're moving to the UK in such large numbers.
    Quite a large Portuguese Indian population in Leicester, but mostly from Mozambique rather than Goa. We have quite a noticeable Dutch Somali population and also French Algerian, a Belgian colleague of mine says that he hears a lot of Marseillais accents from under burkas.

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,454
    @GuidoFawkes: UKIP: From un-resigning, to un-sacking, to un-not ‘grubbing around after public money' http://t.co/6XDpOO3GsZ http://t.co/LZQpHOMIn4
  • Options
    What do the New Labour MPs number in the PLP? My guess would be about 80. Now if we get any of the non-Kendall options are they all really going to sit back and do nothing as their party slides to what looks like certain defeat in 2020? They did that from 2010-2015 under EdM but will they really settle for another 5 years of the same with a full 10 years out of power until 2025? What also do the ambitious pragmatists who only seek office and power? They also face 10 more years out of power until 2025.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,454
    Deepest, unbridled joy at this news

    @TelePolitics: SNP 'laying groundwork' for second referendum http://t.co/SjoR7cRRT6
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    JEO said:

    This seems to be a flaw in the EU's free movement of labour:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11742020/New-immigration-figures-prompt-back-door-to-Britain-fears.html

    The number of immigrants born outside Europe who came to live in this country after winning EU citizenship elsewhere has tripled in the last decade, a new report has confirmed. Research by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory will raise concerns about non-EU migrants coming to live here “by the back door”.

    It showed there are now 264,000 foreigners in Britain who were born outside Europe and then obtained “free movement” rights by living in another European country. After obtaining their citizenship of their adopted EU country, the foreigners then moved here. In 2004 the number stood at just 78,000, meaning there has been a 238 per cent increase in little over a decade.

    More than a fifth of the total – 54,000 migrants - came to Britain after first living in Portugal. The second largest group came via Italy, with 36,000, followed by France (33,000), Spain (30,000), Ireland (21,000) and the Netherlands (19,000).

    Not an obvious flaw in itself, unless you think Portugal is going lax. I know there were some concerns e.g. Malta might be "selling" EU national status but this is rather different.
    Given the top birth nation is India and the top citizenship nation is Portugal, I would guess Goans would account for a large chunk. I have no idea how easy it is for them to get Portuguese citizenship. Or why they're moving to the UK in such large numbers.
    Quite a large Portuguese Indian population in Leicester, but mostly from Mozambique rather than Goa. We have quite a noticeable Dutch Somali population and also French Algerian, a Belgian colleague of mine says that he hears a lot of Marseillais accents from under burkas.

    It doesn't seem to make much sense that we let in Dutch Somalis and Marseillais burkha-wearers while making things more difficult for entrepreneurs.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150

    What do the New Labour MPs number in the PLP? My guess would be about 80. Now if we get any of the non-Kendall options are they all really going to sit back and do nothing as their party slides to what looks like certain defeat in 2020? They did that from 2010-2015 under EdM but will they really settle for another 5 years of the same with a full 10 years out of power until 2025? What also do the ambitious pragmatists who only seek office and power? They also face 10 more years out of power until 2025.

    Let's not exaggerate, it's not certain defeat or anything like it. I think they'd be better off with Kendall, but if it's Cooper or Burnham they'll suck it up and hope they get lucky.
  • Options
    MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642

    @GuidoFawkes: UKIP: From un-resigning, to un-sacking, to un-not ‘grubbing around after public money' http://t.co/6XDpOO3GsZ http://t.co/LZQpHOMIn4

    Meanwhile Tory MP claims 9p for a 0.3 mile car journey.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    What do the New Labour MPs number in the PLP? My guess would be about 80. Now if we get any of the non-Kendall options are they all really going to sit back and do nothing as their party slides to what looks like certain defeat in 2020? They did that from 2010-2015 under EdM but will they really settle for another 5 years of the same with a full 10 years out of power until 2025? What also do the ambitious pragmatists who only seek office and power? They also face 10 more years out of power until 2025.

    The new MPs don't care - take this ringing endorsement for picking a selection to be supreme leader of the country

    " I was impressed by her knowledge and warm approach"



    "Labour MP Daniel Zeichner has thrown his support behind Yvette Cooper to be the next leader of the Labour Party.

    Labour MPs nominate their preferred candidate and then those with 35 nominations or more, are voted on by party members and supporters.

    He said: “I believe this is an historic opportunity for the Labour Party to choose a woman leader – and it’s a chance I want to seize.

    I have previously taken Yvette to meet representatives from the Cambridge Women’s Resource Centre, to meet officers at Parkside Police Station and to talk to low paid Cambridge workers struggling to get by – on each of these occasions I was impressed by her knowledge and warm approach.

    At the Parliamentary Labour Party hustings on Monday, Yvette’s experience and gravitas shone out. I know she will be able to stand up to Cameron at the dispatch box week in, week out."
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    edited July 2015
    MP_SE said:

    @GuidoFawkes: UKIP: From un-resigning, to un-sacking, to un-not ‘grubbing around after public money' http://t.co/6XDpOO3GsZ http://t.co/LZQpHOMIn4

    Meanwhile Tory MP claims 9p for a 0.3 mile car journey.
    Why are they claiming only 30p/mile ?

    I'd put in 45p for a work related bank run or some such.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    Deepest, unbridled joy at this news

    @TelePolitics: SNP 'laying groundwork' for second referendum http://t.co/SjoR7cRRT6

    It'll sort the EVEL problem out.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I feel I ought to look at the new SNP intake, but I have to admit that the prospect of ploughing through all the referendum rhetoric does not immediately enthuse me.
  • Options
    HenryGMansonHenryGManson Posts: 149
    Jeremy Corbyn is not going to finish last. Top 3 in the first round going to be tight. I've filed a column with Mike on a value bet linked to this. But save your money on Guido's tip.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    antifrank said:

    I feel I ought to look at the new SNP intake, but I have to admit that the prospect of ploughing through all the referendum rhetoric does not immediately enthuse me.

    On the other hand the LD new intake should be a breeze!
  • Options
    handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 213
    edited July 2015
    A possibly more pertinent question than the one I posed in passing earlier is whether there is a chance that Kendall might withdraw rather than suffer the ignominy of finishing last by a wide margin?

    If so, how would that change the dynamic of the race?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,454
    antifrank said:

    I feel I ought to look at the new SNP intake, but I have to admit that the prospect of ploughing through all the referendum rhetoric does not immediately enthuse me.

    Use it as an opportunity to troll the Nats.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150

    A possibly more pertinent question than the one I posed in passing earlier is whether there is a chance that Kendall might withdraw rather than suffer the ignominy of finishing last by a wide margin?

    If so, how would that change the dynamic of the race in terms of 2nd preferences?

    If she was really heading for last place I can't see any good reason why it would change the dynamics particularly - AV does a good job of redistributing votes in that situation so the result comes out as if you were never there at all.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,454

    A possibly more pertinent question than the one I posed in passing earlier is whether there is a chance that Kendall might withdraw rather than suffer the ignominy of finishing last by a wide margin?

    If so, how would that change the dynamic of the race in terms of 2nd preferences?

    If she was really heading for last place I can't see any good reason why it would change the dynamics particularly - AV does a good job of redistributing votes in that situation so the result comes out as if you were never there at all.
    I think a few threads explaining the nuances of the AV voting system are needed on PB.
  • Options
    HenryGMansonHenryGManson Posts: 149
    I don't think it's hugely likely given her attacks on Burnham and Cooper as well as Corbyn. But if Kendall does finish in 4th then that will pose some awkward discussions for the Blairite gang. It's not just awkward for her but for those young thrusting Shadow Ministers such as Umunna and Hunt who backed her so much. It could be something that's discussed before ballot papers get printed but I wouldn't bank on it. If Kendall did pull out then I think Yvette Cooper would be the main beneficiary. It would be odd for her to pull out without then backing someone else to win and there's no love lost between her and Burnham.

    A possibly more pertinent question than the one I posed in passing earlier is whether there is a chance that Kendall might withdraw rather than suffer the ignominy of finishing last by a wide margin?

    If so, how would that change the dynamic of the race?

  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Pulpstar said:

    MP_SE said:

    @GuidoFawkes: UKIP: From un-resigning, to un-sacking, to un-not ‘grubbing around after public money' http://t.co/6XDpOO3GsZ http://t.co/LZQpHOMIn4

    Meanwhile Tory MP claims 9p for a 0.3 mile car journey.
    Why are they claiming only 30p/mile ?

    I'd put in 45p for a work related bank run or some such.
    It's also rather unfair. I assume that journey was only one of many given that you would expect MPs to travel througout their seat. sure 9p isn't much, but if you do 100 of those types of journeys every year, on top of all those other mileages, then they would add up to more.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    Haven't been following this very closely but is there any proper polling to support writing off Kendall already, or is it just based on endorsements and the general vibe?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,355
    edited July 2015

    I don't think it's hugely likely given her attacks on Burnham and Cooper as well as Corbyn. But if Kendall does finish in 4th then that will pose some awkward discussions for the Blairite gang. It's not just awkward for her but for those young thrusting Shadow Ministers such as Umunna and Hunt who backed her so much. It could be something that's discussed before ballot papers get printed but I wouldn't bank on it. If Kendall did pull out then I think Yvette Cooper would be the main beneficiary. It would be odd for her to pull out without then backing someone else to win and there's no love lost between her and Burnham.

    A possibly more pertinent question than the one I posed in passing earlier is whether there is a chance that Kendall might withdraw rather than suffer the ignominy of finishing last by a wide margin?

    If so, how would that change the dynamic of the race?

    What surprises me is how poor her Liz for Leader website is. Aside from something on the trade unions, and the importance of the living wage, there's virtually nothing about Her vision. She asserts it will be a fresh start without explaining how:

    http://www.lizforleader.com

    That of course allows her detractors to paint onto her whatever they want - in this turbocharged Blairism Mark II, or Tory lite. Neither of which is fair.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Haven't been following this very closely but is there any proper polling to support writing off Kendall already, or is it just based on endorsements and the general vibe?

    twitter votes it seems to me - perhaps the shy Tories in the Labour ranks will swing it for her..
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    I don't think it's hugely likely given her attacks on Burnham and Cooper as well as Corbyn. But if Kendall does finish in 4th then that will pose some awkward discussions for the Blairite gang. It's not just awkward for her but for those young thrusting Shadow Ministers such as Umunna and Hunt who backed her so much. It could be something that's discussed before ballot papers get printed but I wouldn't bank on it. If Kendall did pull out then I think Yvette Cooper would be the main beneficiary. It would be odd for her to pull out without then backing someone else to win and there's no love lost between her and Burnham.

    A possibly more pertinent question than the one I posed in passing earlier is whether there is a chance that Kendall might withdraw rather than suffer the ignominy of finishing last by a wide margin?

    If so, how would that change the dynamic of the race?

    What surprises me is how poor her Liz for Leader website is. Aside from something on the trade unions, and the importance of the living wage, there's virtually nothing about Her vision. She asserts it will be a fresh start without explaining how:

    http://www.lizforleader.com

    That of course allows her detractors to paint onto her whatever they want - in this turbocharged Blairism Mark II, or Tory lite. Neither of which is fair.
    I thought she had Mark Ferguson and Hopi Sen working for her campaign - all seems very quiet.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    I don't think it's hugely likely given her attacks on Burnham and Cooper as well as Corbyn. But if Kendall does finish in 4th then that will pose some awkward discussions for the Blairite gang. It's not just awkward for her but for those young thrusting Shadow Ministers such as Umunna and Hunt who backed her so much. It could be something that's discussed before ballot papers get printed but I wouldn't bank on it. If Kendall did pull out then I think Yvette Cooper would be the main beneficiary. It would be odd for her to pull out without then backing someone else to win and there's no love lost between her and Burnham.

    A possibly more pertinent question than the one I posed in passing earlier is whether there is a chance that Kendall might withdraw rather than suffer the ignominy of finishing last by a wide margin?

    If so, how would that change the dynamic of the race?

    Problem is for the Blairites is that the labour party is just rebelling about the notion of New Labour, and it's a known thing that if you tell people things which they don't want to hear, it just makes thems even more anti-you.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    TGOHF said:

    Haven't been following this very closely but is there any proper polling to support writing off Kendall already, or is it just based on endorsements and the general vibe?

    twitter votes it seems to me - perhaps the shy Tories in the Labour ranks will swing it for her..
    Hmm, you have to be careful drawing too many conclusions from looking at politically engaged people. And AV can do quite a bit of lifting if all the candidates are a bit meh, eg:
    1) Corbyn 34 Burnham 24 Kendall 22 Cooper 20
    (redistribute moderates and lovers of lady leaders)
    2) Corbyn 35 Burnham 32 Kendall 33
    (redistribute non-trots)
    3) Corbyn 40 Kendall 60
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    The only reason Cooper and Burnham are there is due to them being the only ones left standing of any note:


    Look at Brown's cabinet and 'where are they now'

    Gordon Brown MP
    Harriet Harman QC MP
    Lord Mandelson PC
    Alistair Darling MP
    David Miliband MP
    Jack Straw MP
    Alan Johnson MP
    Hilary Benn MP
    Douglas Alexander MP
    John Denham MP
    Ed Balls MP
    Ed Miliband MP
    Andy Burnham MP
    Jim Murphy MP
    Yvette Cooper MP
    Liam Byrne MP
    Peter Hain MP

    Burnham and Cooper are pretty much the only ones left. All of the others are either no longer MPs, or well past the stage they would want it (In Harman's and Johnsons case).
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    O/T 3 Ozzies in the top 5 of the golf Open - insult to injury after the test..
  • Options
    If Andy Burnham abstains from the vote, as planned, that is toxic for him.

    He still has a great deal of the centre left who see him as the credible centre left candidate, but I think if he does not oppose this those supporters will think they may as well vote corbyn to show their dissatisfaction.

    I wouldn't be so sure the peak corbyn has passed.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388

    Pulpstar said:

    MP_SE said:

    @GuidoFawkes: UKIP: From un-resigning, to un-sacking, to un-not ‘grubbing around after public money' http://t.co/6XDpOO3GsZ http://t.co/LZQpHOMIn4

    Meanwhile Tory MP claims 9p for a 0.3 mile car journey.
    Why are they claiming only 30p/mile ?

    I'd put in 45p for a work related bank run or some such.
    It's also rather unfair. I assume that journey was only one of many given that you would expect MPs to travel througout their seat. sure 9p isn't much, but if you do 100 of those types of journeys every year, on top of all those other mileages, then they would add up to more.
    Normally this sort of thing is the result of recording all your travel, and automatically (or via some other person) claiming for it.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    Pulpstar said:

    MP_SE said:

    @GuidoFawkes: UKIP: From un-resigning, to un-sacking, to un-not ‘grubbing around after public money' http://t.co/6XDpOO3GsZ http://t.co/LZQpHOMIn4

    Meanwhile Tory MP claims 9p for a 0.3 mile car journey.
    Why are they claiming only 30p/mile ?

    I'd put in 45p for a work related bank run or some such.
    It's also rather unfair. I assume that journey was only one of many given that you would expect MPs to travel througout their seat. sure 9p isn't much, but if you do 100 of those types of journeys every year, on top of all those other mileages, then they would add up to more.
    Normally this sort of thing is the result of recording all your travel, and automatically (or via some other person) claiming for it.
    Indeed, without actually looking at the spreadsheet you can't be sure, but it could be part of an X-Y, Y-Z journey, and just part of that journey was very small.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Jeremy Corbyn has put out a statement explaining why he is voting against the welfare bill. Here’s an extract.

    I am voting against the government on the welfare bill tonight because I believe it will increase child poverty.

    We should be proud of the fact the last Labour government took 800,000 children out of poverty – but the approach of this bill goes in the opposite direction. We cannot stay neutral on that.

    We introduced tax credits to fill the gap between wages and the cost of living. Osborne’s proposals do nothing to close that gap, whilst taking away the vital lifeline tax credits provided.


    Note the 'cannot stay neutral' part.

    Corbyn is right. Not on the actual policy, but actually having a position on it.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    TGOHF said:

    I don't think it's hugely likely given her attacks on Burnham and Cooper as well as Corbyn. But if Kendall does finish in 4th then that will pose some awkward discussions for the Blairite gang. It's not just awkward for her but for those young thrusting Shadow Ministers such as Umunna and Hunt who backed her so much. It could be something that's discussed before ballot papers get printed but I wouldn't bank on it. If Kendall did pull out then I think Yvette Cooper would be the main beneficiary. It would be odd for her to pull out without then backing someone else to win and there's no love lost between her and Burnham.

    A possibly more pertinent question than the one I posed in passing earlier is whether there is a chance that Kendall might withdraw rather than suffer the ignominy of finishing last by a wide margin?

    If so, how would that change the dynamic of the race?

    What surprises me is how poor her Liz for Leader website is. Aside from something on the trade unions, and the importance of the living wage, there's virtually nothing about Her vision. She asserts it will be a fresh start without explaining how:

    http://www.lizforleader.com

    That of course allows her detractors to paint onto her whatever they want - in this turbocharged Blairism Mark II, or Tory lite. Neither of which is fair.
    I thought she had Mark Ferguson and Hopi Sen working for her campaign - all seems very quiet.
    I can only surmise that they have a massive blitz planned for the week the ballots go out - they have certainly been rather absent in public for the past few weeks.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    FPT: Mr, Sandpit, that's an excellent question. Unsure of Ladbrokes, Betfair clarifies it must be a physical safety car. The VSC provision must decrease even more the chances of a real one appearing.

    FPT: Mr. Antifrank, cheers.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    TGOHF said:

    Haven't been following this very closely but is there any proper polling to support writing off Kendall already, or is it just based on endorsements and the general vibe?

    twitter votes it seems to me - perhaps the shy Tories in the Labour ranks will swing it for her..
    Hmm, you have to be careful drawing too many conclusions from looking at politically engaged people. And AV can do quite a bit of lifting if all the candidates are a bit meh, eg:
    1) Corbyn 34 Burnham 24 Kendall 22 Cooper 20
    (redistribute moderates and lovers of lady leaders)
    2) Corbyn 35 Burnham 32 Kendall 33
    (redistribute non-trots)
    3) Corbyn 40 Kendall 60
    Nope. I honestly think, if by some freak of nature the final two was Kendall and Corbyn, Corbyn would win. Kendall has even more outright haters than him, and a lot less diehard fans.

    "Blairites" can win Labour elections, but there's two conditions they have to pass:

    (a) Even if some compromises are necessary, there has to be some red lines which aren't crossed. Supporting welfare cuts is one of those red lines.

    (b) You have to convince that the Blairite candidate is an outstandingly talented and charismatic politician, so that the compromises are worthwhile in that atleast an election win will be guaranteed.

    Blair himself passed both those conditions when he ran, as did to some extent David Miliband. Kendall has failed both dismally.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    Pulpstar said:

    MP_SE said:

    @GuidoFawkes: UKIP: From un-resigning, to un-sacking, to un-not ‘grubbing around after public money' http://t.co/6XDpOO3GsZ http://t.co/LZQpHOMIn4

    Meanwhile Tory MP claims 9p for a 0.3 mile car journey.
    Why are they claiming only 30p/mile ?

    I'd put in 45p for a work related bank run or some such.
    It's also rather unfair. I assume that journey was only one of many given that you would expect MPs to travel througout their seat. sure 9p isn't much, but if you do 100 of those types of journeys every year, on top of all those other mileages, then they would add up to more.
    Normally this sort of thing is the result of recording all your travel, and automatically (or via some other person) claiming for it.
    Indeed, without actually looking at the spreadsheet you can't be sure, but it could be part of an X-Y, Y-Z journey, and just part of that journey was very small.
    That would make sense, they probably have an assistant write down every trip or use a GPS logger in the car.

    But it looks silly, and they know that this stuff gets published so why not just delete lines from the claim form that will invite ridicule. These are supposedly intelligent people, don't they understand how this looks to the public?
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Danny565 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Haven't been following this very closely but is there any proper polling to support writing off Kendall already, or is it just based on endorsements and the general vibe?

    twitter votes it seems to me - perhaps the shy Tories in the Labour ranks will swing it for her..
    Hmm, you have to be careful drawing too many conclusions from looking at politically engaged people. And AV can do quite a bit of lifting if all the candidates are a bit meh, eg:
    1) Corbyn 34 Burnham 24 Kendall 22 Cooper 20
    (redistribute moderates and lovers of lady leaders)
    2) Corbyn 35 Burnham 32 Kendall 33
    (redistribute non-trots)
    3) Corbyn 40 Kendall 60
    Nope. I honestly think, if by some freak of nature the final two was Kendall and Corbyn, Corbyn would win. Kendall has even more outright haters than him, and a lot less diehard fans.

    "Blairites" can win Labour elections, but there's two conditions they have to pass:

    (a) Even if some compromises are necessary, there has to be some red lines which aren't crossed. Supporting welfare cuts is one of those red lines.

    (b) You have to convince that the Blairite candidate is an outstandingly talented and charismatic politician, so that the compromises are worthwhile in that atleast an election win will be guaranteed.

    Blair himself passed both those conditions when he ran, as did to some extent David Miliband. Kendall has failed both dismally.
    Problem is Blair was leader/becoming leader in a time of plenty.

    The world has moved on. The challenge for all parties in many countries is how to do more or how to cope with less.
  • Options
    BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    "but the approach of this bill goes in the opposite direction."

    This is actually shorthand for "I spent the last 5 years saying it would go up, and it didn't, so what do I know?"

  • Options
    FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Casino --''What surprises me is how poor her Liz for Leader website is.''
    She knows what she wants to say but is afraid to say not. Defenestration is a powerful disincentive.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    When you look at the leaders Labour have had-Smith Blair and Brown-you have to wonder where it all went wrong. Compared to Major Hague IDS and Howard the gulf in class is staggering. Now we're reduced to this. I repeat where did it all go wrong.....
  • Options
    William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346
    Do we know how Cooper is going to vote?
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Danny565 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Haven't been following this very closely but is there any proper polling to support writing off Kendall already, or is it just based on endorsements and the general vibe?

    twitter votes it seems to me - perhaps the shy Tories in the Labour ranks will swing it for her..
    Hmm, you have to be careful drawing too many conclusions from looking at politically engaged people. And AV can do quite a bit of lifting if all the candidates are a bit meh, eg:
    1) Corbyn 34 Burnham 24 Kendall 22 Cooper 20
    (redistribute moderates and lovers of lady leaders)
    2) Corbyn 35 Burnham 32 Kendall 33
    (redistribute non-trots)
    3) Corbyn 40 Kendall 60
    Nope. I honestly think, if by some freak of nature the final two was Kendall and Corbyn, Corbyn would win. Kendall has even more outright haters than him, and a lot less diehard fans.

    "Blairites" can win Labour elections, but there's two conditions they have to pass:

    (a) Even if some compromises are necessary, there has to be some red lines which aren't crossed. Supporting welfare cuts is one of those red lines.

    (b) You have to convince that the Blairite candidate is an outstandingly talented and charismatic politician, so that the compromises are worthwhile in that atleast an election win will be guaranteed.

    Blair himself passed both those conditions when he ran, as did to some extent David Miliband. Kendall has failed both dismally.
    If "supporting welfare cuts" is a red line, does this apply regardless of how large the welfare budget is? If a Labour government came in and doubled the welfare budget, would it then be unacceptable to support reducing it by 5% afterwards?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    FPT: Mr, Sandpit, that's an excellent question. Unsure of Ladbrokes, Betfair clarifies it must be a physical safety car. The VSC provision must decrease even more the chances of a real one appearing.

    Yes. The VSC is more likely to appear than an actual SC was before, which was more likely than an SC is now. So the terms are quite important when betting.

    There was an interview with Charlie after Monaco where he said that they intended to clear the accident at Ste. Devote with the VSC as there were cranes on site and lots of brooms. The only reason they called the actual SC was because the driver (Verstappen) did not immediately extricate himself and the first responders called for the medical car, the two vehicles always being deployed together.

    I took that to mean that from now on they will always call the VSC except for when there's a pile of debris on the track or an injured driver - and that the more they all get used to the new system the more likely they are for the VSC rather than the SC to be used.

    Apologies to everyone else for going way off topic!!
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Roger said:

    When you look at the leaders Labour have had-Smith Blair and Brown-you have to wonder where it all went wrong. Compared to Major Hague IDS and Howard the gulf in class is staggering. Now we're reduced to this. I repeat where did it all go wrong.....

    John Major often had much better judgment than his New Labour successors did. He negotiated the opt-out from the single currency, which all three you mention opposed at the time.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,355
    Danny565 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Haven't been following this very closely but is there any proper polling to support writing off Kendall already, or is it just based on endorsements and the general vibe?

    twitter votes it seems to me - perhaps the shy Tories in the Labour ranks will swing it for her..
    Hmm, you have to be careful drawing too many conclusions from looking at politically engaged people. And AV can do quite a bit of lifting if all the candidates are a bit meh, eg:
    1) Corbyn 34 Burnham 24 Kendall 22 Cooper 20
    (redistribute moderates and lovers of lady leaders)
    2) Corbyn 35 Burnham 32 Kendall 33
    (redistribute non-trots)
    3) Corbyn 40 Kendall 60
    Nope. I honestly think, if by some freak of nature the final two was Kendall and Corbyn, Corbyn would win. Kendall has even more outright haters than him, and a lot less diehard fans.

    "Blairites" can win Labour elections, but there's two conditions they have to pass:

    (a) Even if some compromises are necessary, there has to be some red lines which aren't crossed. Supporting welfare cuts is one of those red lines.

    (b) You have to convince that the Blairite candidate is an outstandingly talented and charismatic politician, so that the compromises are worthwhile in that atleast an election win will be guaranteed.

    Blair himself passed both those conditions when he ran, as did to some extent David Miliband. Kendall has failed both dismally.
    Blairites could easily outflank the Tories on welfare if they supported a move into work for those on benefits at a higher minimum wage, with a smoother tail off rate of benefits withdrawal for those that work extra hours.

    They could pay for it by cutting back on some of the pork for pensioners. Starting with the triple lock.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    If Andy Burnham abstains from the vote, as planned, that is toxic for him.

    He still has a great deal of the centre left who see him as the credible centre left candidate, but I think if he does not oppose this those supporters will think they may as well vote corbyn to show their dissatisfaction.

    I wouldn't be so sure the peak corbyn has passed.

    Welcome to pb, Mr Miaow. It's good to see that the Labour leadership contest has attracted quite a few new commenters.
  • Options
    JEO said:

    Roger said:

    When you look at the leaders Labour have had-Smith Blair and Brown-you have to wonder where it all went wrong. Compared to Major Hague IDS and Howard the gulf in class is staggering. Now we're reduced to this. I repeat where did it all go wrong.....

    John Major often had much better judgment than his New Labour successors did. He negotiated the opt-out from the single currency, which all three you mention opposed at the time.
    He also took us into the ERM and stubbornly kept us in prolonging the recession, so his judgement wasn't always sound.
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited July 2015
    Roger said:

    When you look at the leaders Labour have had-Smith Blair and Brown-you have to wonder where it all went wrong. Compared to Major Hague IDS and Howard the gulf in class is staggering. Now we're reduced to this. I repeat where did it all go wrong.....

    Without wishing to be party political, looking at leaders is a pretty terrifying experience.

    Smith - benefited from groundwork by Kinnock, I think there is an element of enlarging his reputation as a result of his mortality.

    Blair - Was a good leader to win elections. I wonder how he would have got on without Mandleson and Campbell?

    Brown - He had qualities no successful leaders needs or has, in abundance.

    Major - Probably the best leader in this list, he achieved most when things were set against him

    Hague - Too young and unable to connect, which isn't helpful for a leader

    IDS - is recognised as leader that couldn't lead

    Howard - on a par with Smith, steady, hold a line, keep her steady.

    Cameron - wait and see.

    Blair had charm and charisma to win him three elections, Major had guts and determination to win him '92 and his second leadership election.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,355
    JEO said:

    Roger said:

    When you look at the leaders Labour have had-Smith Blair and Brown-you have to wonder where it all went wrong. Compared to Major Hague IDS and Howard the gulf in class is staggering. Now we're reduced to this. I repeat where did it all go wrong.....

    John Major often had much better judgment than his New Labour successors did. He negotiated the opt-out from the single currency, which all three you mention opposed at the time.
    John Major is a much maligned man.

    I mocked him at the time, to my eternal shame. I think Thatcherites like Tebbit, Portillo and Redwood in hindsight may also have one or two regrets.

    Unlike at least one of those, Major remains a loyal Conservative and loyal to his leader today. Willing to help make the case and serve where needed.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,355

    Casino --''What surprises me is how poor her Liz for Leader website is.''
    She knows what she wants to say but is afraid to say not. Defenestration is a powerful disincentive.

    I think she's putting down a marker, and doesn't care too much how disliked that makes her. She wants to be on the right side of history.

    But that doesn't mean she'll pick up the crown post 2018 if it becomes available again.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MP_SE said:

    @GuidoFawkes: UKIP: From un-resigning, to un-sacking, to un-not ‘grubbing around after public money' http://t.co/6XDpOO3GsZ http://t.co/LZQpHOMIn4

    Meanwhile Tory MP claims 9p for a 0.3 mile car journey.
    Why are they claiming only 30p/mile ?

    I'd put in 45p for a work related bank run or some such.
    It's also rather unfair. I assume that journey was only one of many given that you would expect MPs to travel througout their seat. sure 9p isn't much, but if you do 100 of those types of journeys every year, on top of all those other mileages, then they would add up to more.
    Normally this sort of thing is the result of recording all your travel, and automatically (or via some other person) claiming for it.
    Indeed, without actually looking at the spreadsheet you can't be sure, but it could be part of an X-Y, Y-Z journey, and just part of that journey was very small.
    That would make sense, they probably have an assistant write down every trip or use a GPS logger in the car.

    But it looks silly, and they know that this stuff gets published so why not just delete lines from the claim form that will invite ridicule. These are supposedly intelligent people, don't they understand how this looks to the public?
    I'd assume that if there are gaps in the mileage record then the watchdog gets grumpy (not to mention tax complications from shared work/personal usage of said vehicle)
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    If Andy Burnham abstains from the vote, as planned, that is toxic for him.

    He still has a great deal of the centre left who see him as the credible centre left candidate, but I think if he does not oppose this those supporters will think they may as well vote corbyn to show their dissatisfaction.

    I wouldn't be so sure the peak corbyn has passed.

    Welcome to pb, Mr Miaow. It's good to see that the Labour leadership contest has attracted quite a few new commenters.
    Fr. Miaow, surely. not just Mr.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Roger said:

    When you look at the leaders Labour have had-Smith Blair and Brown-you have to wonder where it all went wrong. Compared to Major Hague IDS and Howard the gulf in class is staggering. Now we're reduced to this. I repeat where did it all go wrong.....

    Where it went wrong is your assessment of Brown - most of the public thought he was a truly terribly PM and leader of the country - and voted accordingly.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), Brown also crushed most leadership rivals, as Blair was too weak/cowardly to stop him, which led to Miliband winning the last (leadership) election.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The only cat to wear a dog collar?

    Welcome @reverend_cat
    Charles said:

    If Andy Burnham abstains from the vote, as planned, that is toxic for him.

    He still has a great deal of the centre left who see him as the credible centre left candidate, but I think if he does not oppose this those supporters will think they may as well vote corbyn to show their dissatisfaction.

    I wouldn't be so sure the peak corbyn has passed.

    Welcome to pb, Mr Miaow. It's good to see that the Labour leadership contest has attracted quite a few new commenters.
    Fr. Miaow, surely. not just Mr.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), Brown also crushed most leadership rivals, as Blair was too weak/cowardly to stop him, which led to Miliband winning the last (leadership) election.

    So in summary - Brown lost 2 general elections ? I can believe it - he was that abject.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), Brown also crushed most leadership rivals, as Blair was too weak/cowardly to stop him, which led to Miliband winning the last (leadership) election.

    Not him personally, he used his team of filthy scum to brief against anyone who was a threat. Ask McBride. he will tell you all about the back room team of smearers at No 10.. and whose careers they damaged. .
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Root, sounds rather like Sejanus.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,454
    edited July 2015
    Baby eating Tories are back

    The Tories are in a jolly good mood indeed as they head into the summer recess, not just because they are in government, but also because Labour is doing everything that they hoped it would to make it easier for them to pass controversial legislation and occupy the centre ground.

    One jubilant MP jokes that ‘we could strap babies to foxes and then tie them up with badgers, shoot them, and Labour wouldn’t know how to oppose it.'

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/tory-mps-congratulate-lynton-crosby-on-his-election-success/
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Eagles, it won't last.

    Well. They elected Miliband last time. But I still find it hard to believe Labour will be quite as bad this term as they were last.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,355

    Baby eating Tories are back

    The Tories are in a jolly good mood indeed as they head into the summer recess, not just because they are in government, but also because Labour is doing everything that they hoped it would to make it easier for them to pass controversial legislation and occupy the centre ground.

    One jubilant MP jokes that ‘we could strap babies to foxes and then tie them up with badgers, shoot them, and Labour wouldn’t know how to oppose it.'

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/tory-mps-congratulate-lynton-crosby-on-his-election-success/

    Sensible policies for a happier Britain.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Danny565 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Haven't been following this very closely but is there any proper polling to support writing off Kendall already, or is it just based on endorsements and the general vibe?

    twitter votes it seems to me - perhaps the shy Tories in the Labour ranks will swing it for her..
    Hmm, you have to be careful drawing too many conclusions from looking at politically engaged people. And AV can do quite a bit of lifting if all the candidates are a bit meh, eg:
    1) Corbyn 34 Burnham 24 Kendall 22 Cooper 20
    (redistribute moderates and lovers of lady leaders)
    2) Corbyn 35 Burnham 32 Kendall 33
    (redistribute non-trots)
    3) Corbyn 40 Kendall 60
    Nope. I honestly think, if by some freak of nature the final two was Kendall and Corbyn, Corbyn would win. Kendall has even more outright haters than him, and a lot less diehard fans.

    "Blairites" can win Labour elections, but there's two conditions they have to pass:

    (a) Even if some compromises are necessary, there has to be some red lines which aren't crossed. Supporting welfare cuts is one of those red lines.

    (b) You have to convince that the Blairite candidate is an outstandingly talented and charismatic politician, so that the compromises are worthwhile in that atleast an election win will be guaranteed.

    Blair himself passed both those conditions when he ran, as did to some extent David Miliband. Kendall has failed both dismally.
    'Supporting welfare cuts is one of those red lines' - that is patently rubbish since your party fought the last election promising welfare cuts! Twas in the manifesto. Unless you're confirming it was all a big fib.
  • Options

    If Andy Burnham abstains from the vote, as planned, that is toxic for him.

    He still has a great deal of the centre left who see him as the credible centre left candidate, but I think if he does not oppose this those supporters will think they may as well vote corbyn to show their dissatisfaction.

    I wouldn't be so sure the peak corbyn has passed.

    Welcome to pb, Mr Miaow. It's good to see that the Labour leadership contest has attracted quite a few new commenters.
    Many thanks :)

    I've been following some of the postings here, been some good insights.

    Me? I backed £100 on Jeremy at 250/1 so have a very large pot to play about with.
    Covered my position at "peak corbyn" so every outcome is clear of loss for me.

    Still sitting on large profit for Corbyn which I want to partly cash out at some point, but I am sitting with interest at this welfare bill, it'll be interesting to see how the factions in labour move now.
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Just got back from hospital from my operation. All OK though I feel knackered and slightly odd.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Welcome to pb.com, Fr. Cat.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    If Andy Burnham abstains from the vote, as planned, that is toxic for him.

    He still has a great deal of the centre left who see him as the credible centre left candidate, but I think if he does not oppose this those supporters will think they may as well vote corbyn to show their dissatisfaction.

    I wouldn't be so sure the peak corbyn has passed.

    Welcome to pb, Mr Miaow. It's good to see that the Labour leadership contest has attracted quite a few new commenters.
    Many thanks :)

    I've been following some of the postings here, been some good insights.

    Me? I backed £100 on Jeremy at 250/1 so have a very large pot to play about with.
    Covered my position at "peak corbyn" so every outcome is clear of loss for me.

    Still sitting on large profit for Corbyn which I want to partly cash out at some point, but I am sitting with interest at this welfare bill, it'll be interesting to see how the factions in labour move now.
    Blimey, who was the 250/1 with?!
  • Options
    Plato said:

    The only cat to wear a dog collar?

    Welcome @reverend_cat

    Charles said:

    If Andy Burnham abstains from the vote, as planned, that is toxic for him.

    He still has a great deal of the centre left who see him as the credible centre left candidate, but I think if he does not oppose this those supporters will think they may as well vote corbyn to show their dissatisfaction.

    I wouldn't be so sure the peak corbyn has passed.

    Welcome to pb, Mr Miaow. It's good to see that the Labour leadership contest has attracted quite a few new commenters.
    Fr. Miaow, surely. not just Mr.
    Ha! Thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.