Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson with an interesting LAB leadership bet
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson with an interesting LAB leadership bet
In all the discussion about the rights and wrongs of Labour’s response to the government’s Welfare Bill, this article from Gary Gibbon lays out one of the political factors for Burnham – the order of candidates between him and Yvette. Gibbon writes:
0
Comments
FWIW- I'm voting Jezzer, but think Cooper will win in the end
Cooper will be eliminated in round 2 in my view, the final will be Burnham v Corbyn which Burnham will, in the end, likely win
Cooper unfortunately is as bland and stuck in the 2000's as Burnham is, and the lack of distinction is hurting her chances, she simply is looking like a female version of Burnham, and as Kendall is unacceptable to the Labour party then it is logical why so many are drifting towards Corbyn by default.
The tragedy of this leadership contest is that despite having double the number of candidates than the LD had, somehow the LD had a greater variety of candidates.
And if he wins, it is something that Osborne will remind him of for a long time.
Does he not want to win?
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/e6c48f94-1380-45b6-80e4-dbaf5f5f78ad.pdf
"When Iowa Republicans are asked who they would support in their local caucus, Scott Walker is the first choice of 22% followed by Donald Trump at 13%. The next group of candidates includes Ben Carson (8%), Jeb Bush (7%), Ted Cruz (7%), the 2008 Iowa winner Mike Huckabee (6%), Marco Rubio (5%), Rand Paul (5%), and Bobby Jindal (4%). Rick Santorum (3%) – who won the Iowa caucuses in 2012 – Rick Perry (3%), and Carly Fiorina (3%) are tied for 10th place. The rest of the field garners no more than 2% of the vote as a first choice, including John Kasich (2%), Chris Christie (1%), GeorgePataki (<1%), Lindsey Graham (0%), and Jim Gilmore (0%). Another 11% of likely caucusgoers are undecided. "
Jeb Bush joint 4th in Iowa, Rubio joint 7th.
Key theme is as with the national polls Trump is up, Bush & Rubio down.
My trading bet recommendation is still paying off, the GOP debates will be the greatest comedy show on the planet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JFXSnfb5fw
If Labour introduces it then it won't be.
Which is one of the reasons why I favour the Tories introducing it!
The fact that he is voting for Labour's amendments then abstaining on the final vote means the Tories cannot say he was not unwilling to accept some welfare cuts but that he had set out the alternative cuts he would have accepted
1.Is the Benefit Changes bill popular as a whole?
2.Is the Benefit Changes bill popular in the Labour party?
3.Is indecision popular with anyone?
4.Is opposing for the wrong reasons popular?
5.Is supporting for the wrong reasons popular?
You have to wonder at the mentality of treating people like that and then wondering why they grow up to frigging despise you! Bonkers.
A similar pattern is being played out in the Middle East - whilst the US (and apparently ourselves too expressly against the wishes of parliament) is taking swipes at ISIS from the air, nothing has been done disrupt their supplies of weapons, money, food, or personnel. Because we want to get rid of Assad and re-form what was Syria (one of the few half civilised countries in the region) into a balkanised Saudi satellite. The propaganda about how ghastly Assad was didn't work, so now its ISIS we're supposedly wanting to bomb in Syria.
Islamic terror has been used to push through unpopular decisions and accrue unnecessary state power again, and again, and again.
Edit - just checked, noon on the 12th
But your explanation "if A comes 3rd on a 2nd count it means that fewer people voted for A." I mean...mind boggingly confusing. In one sentence you have thirds, seconds, fewer- all frazzling my brain cells.
As said, very confusing, but thank you for your attempt to help out (in vain)
3 quid is a bargain for the fun that can be had.
Going for
1. Kendall
2. Corbyn
3. Cooper
4. Burnham
Kendall
Corbyn
Burnham
Cooper
Worth £3!
Sports- another matter entirely. Today- I threw a tenner on Dustin Johnson- I got half the name right mind. Zachariah- god bless the boy from Iowa. It makes me feel much less hedonistic to think our almighty Lord joined me and indulged in a spot of self indulgent pleasure today to spend a thrilling afternoon rooting for the golf. At least he (GOD) has the power to get his man, Zachariah, to win.
But ICYMI
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/07/01/how-the-alternative-vote-system-could-stop-burnham-becoming-labour-leader/
1.Burnham
2. Kendall
3.Cooper
4. Corbyn
Everyone ranks the candidates, then in each round you get rid of the bottom candidate and move their votes on to the next choice.
But you're in good company tyson, no less a person than David Cameron is on record as saying he didn't understand it, and he wouldn't lie about that I'd hope.
Which is why candidates can win with less than 50% of the votes cast, and the system is possibly the worst ever devised by mankind for the purposes of election.
[ducks]
As in any system with one winner - Coming third is a bad thing!
If it is good enough for the Tories and Labour, it should be good enough for the country.
The Tory leadership election is FPTP, winner takes all. Cameron beat Davis, there was no mucking about with preferences.
With FPTP people tactically vote by trying to work out which candidates can't win and guess how they should change their vote accordingly, AV just takes removes that guesswork.
As voting systems go it's far less complicated than many.
The Tory contest is not FPTP, (in the first round with four candidates Davis won, although that may have been different if they had been actually using FPTP).
The candidate selection may use some obscure system nobody cares about...
@paulwaugh: Labour rebellion was 48, I'm told
I'm torn between "democratic" and "vulnerable". Though the US experience (where candidates try to appeal to their party wingnuts before calming down to appeal to the wider electorate if they actually get selected) is not very appealing, even on the "democratic" front. And there is the argument that at least in the Tory party, they may make it harder to get a broad slate of BAME/women candidates, though I have no idea how true that is.
You are a card carrying labourite now!
I just did it myself, gonna vote Corbyn.
Labour say they only want people who share Labour values/Labour's best interests at heart to partake in this leadership election, and that's not unreasonable
If not, defo Diane.
She was my 1st choice for the leadership last time.
My view was shared with a rocking 10 other members of Hertsmere CLP
Everyone, you can thank ScottP for this.
I did not lie when registering as a supporter.
2. That would be a spectacular bit of sophistry.
In Britain parties endorse candidates essentially however they like, their endorsement is separate to the process of people standing for election.
In the US the big two party selection processes are built into the electoral system itself, which is something I dislike on principle (which means that unlike the UK where you get smaller parties existing, in the US you get sub-parties floating around but being kept within the umbrella of the larger parties).
Reply :'Angela Merkel '
Customs Officer:"Nationality? "
Reply :"German "
Customs Officer :"Occupation? "
Reply :"No..Only visting"
Not even a few hours later and:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-gains-shows-vulnerability-crowded-contentious-gop-race/story?id=32576808
Trump 24%
Walker 13%
Bush 12%
Huckabee 8%
Rubio 7%
Paul 6%
Trump's 24% and 11% lead are the highest in the 2016 GOP race so far for any candidate.
Last time anyone has seen such numbers for a GOP frontrunner it was Romney in April 2012.
Now I understand more Tories would have turned up had that been the case however the numbers are what they are.
The fact that Bunrham was complicit in that will really not play well for him, I think a lot of his would be supporters feel betrayed now.
BBC balance does not mean giving a platform to extremist voices, and certainly not an unchallenged platform.
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/48-mps-break-whip-to-vote-against-welfare-bill-full-list/
(Seems more like the usual suspects, but make of it what you will)
On a point of order, Pete Wishart asks if the Commons seating arrangements can be changed to show that the SNP is now the official opposition.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/jul/20/reaction-to-camerons-speech-on-tackling-extremism-politics-live
“In a general election trial heat, Clinton leads Bush, the GOP fundraising leader, by
a slight 50-44 percent among registered voters. But with Trump as an independent candidate that
goes to 46-30-20 percent, Clinton-Bush-Trump – with Trump drawing support disproportionately from Bush, turning a 6-point Clinton advantage into 16 points.”
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1170a22016Politics.pdf
Corbyn 43 votes
Burnham 15
Cooper 6
Kendall 2
Cooper and Kendall didn't have a rep present at the meeting advocating their case
Cameron's really impressing me at the moment (and as you may have observed I'm not that easy to impress)
Seem's Richard Nabavi has been right about Cam all along!!!!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/jul/20/the-guardians-labour-london-mayoral-hustings-politics-live
@andyburnhammp: To clarify - I will be voting to oppose the Welfare Reform Bill tonight by voting for a Labour motion which I helped secure.
AV is a great system, because it is almost impossible to "game." I'm really enjoying this Labour leadership contest. I hope Corbyn beats the androids...
@corporeal. The UK system became uniform in 1950, not 1945, with the abolition of the STV (University) seats and the last few double-members.
@Scott_P Any election with just two candidates is necessarily FPTP, including the final round of an AV election. The Tories have an AV election. The twist is the electorate changes for the final round...