I know it's dangerous to demur Henry G. given his record and knowledge of Labour party workings. But I just don't buy the idea of Corbyn even coming close to winning. CLP nominations are meaningless for the reasons stated by Southam and Apocalypse. Let's instead consider the little that we do know:
1) It's members and affiliates who are voting, and there are no block votes.
2) This is a constituency which is impossible to poll in any reliable way.
3) The only possible indication we have as to how they might vote is the way the membership voted in 2010. They voted decisively for David Miliband.
4) The apparent rationale for voting for Corbyn this time around would be that Labour lost in 2015 because of a failure to elect Diane Abbot (who of course finished 5th in 2010).
Seems Arctic ice levels have been quietly dropped as the Gold Standard of climate change indication, after they, er....looks at shoes....mumbles to self... grew by a third in the cool summer of 2013....
Won't someone please knit some jumpers for those poor hypothermic Polar bears?
The science is settled, you are a right wing oil funded seal clubber....
Paragraph 2: "Researchers say the growth continued in 2014" Paragraph 4: "But they say 2013 was a one-off"
I mean FFS.
This is what annoys me. It is clear that there is evidence that shows dumping carbon into that atmosphere could have significant effects on our environment. But we are inundated with supposition presented as fact, when it is not the case.
The more obvious that it becomes that we dont really know what is going on, and that the statistical models that were used to 'prove' that our climate is changing are shown to be not even remotely accurate, the more strident the advocates become.
My position is i dont know. I am deeply sceptical of the behaviour of some scientists and politicians who present their data as if some god like religious text, with very carefully selected gospels that conform to what they want to see. But im also aware that is wise for us to treat our environment as best we can.
The NCPolitics article is excellent and I disagree with it. That is giving me kittens. But I'll explain my view.
First off, I give no weight to twitter. It's where empty vessels make most noise. It tells us about enthusiasm, not numbers. That is as true of party elections as wider elections.
Secondly, I am very wary of relying on second or third hand reports of polls that we have not seen and that may have been selectively leaked with an agenda behind them.
That leaves us with the CLP data, which I do give a lot of weight to. These are real votes cast by real people who are going to have a real say in the process at a later date.
One table that the NCPolitics article gives is worth careful study: the CLP nominations in 2010. Ed Miliband did far better with the CLPs than with the membership as a whole (and David Miliband did better with the membership than with the CLPs). In that election he was the most leftwing serious candidate.
Now it may well be that the Labour party as a whole has moved leftwards. But that seems to me to be fairly clear evidence that the Labour membership is quite a bit more rightwing than the activists who turn up to CLP votes.
If that's so, we can expect Jeremy Corbyn to do less well than the raw CLP figures suggest.
Is it impossible for Jeremy Corbyn to win? No. He has a puncher's chance (which is more than Liz Kendall now seems to have). He is helped by blunders like Andy Burnham made yesterday who probably lost quite a lot of votes after his flipflopping. Most of those lost votes will have gone to Jeremy Corbyn. But he needs to land a haymaker on the first round because he just isn't transfer-friendly enough to progress much more afterwards. Right now it seems unlikely that he has quite enough power. He can't be discounted. But 5/1 for me on the limited data we have seems too short.
I think that's a very sensible take on it. Even on its own merits it suggests Corbyn might be getting around 36% first preferences which I can't think will be enough, even if the run-off is v Cooper. But I have reduced my Corbyn exposure a bit.
Reading Luke Akehurst's more descriptive piece on the CLP nominations will only encourage you to keep backing Yvette. Burnham has had a bad 24 hours in my view and his price hasn't moved to reflect that yet.
We don’t have accurate figures on who came second in each CLP, though some of this is available anecdotally. This is significant because if Yvette Cooper, for instance, was second in many of the CLPs Corbyn won and many that Burnham won (which is exactly what people are saying happened), she might be ahead in the popular vote nationwide but not getting the traction in terms of nominations won.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It's also a trap.
If everything is a trap designed to trip Labour up at some stage Osborne is going to come a cropper. It's not the way to develop coherent, sustainable policy - ask Gordon Brown.
Quite possibly. But right now it's a problem for Labour. However, I would argue the difference between Osborne and Brown is that the former thinks two to three steps ahead and it does fit into his long-term plan. Brown let his emotions about embarassing the Tories with short term headlines cloud his judgment.
FWIW, I think Osborne's doing the right thing. Tax credit payouts had increased fivefold and something had to be done. Restricting the family tax credits to two kids or less after 2017 - thus not affecting existing claimants - is fair in my view.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
This is what annoys me. It is clear that there is evidence that shows dumping carbon into that atmosphere could have significant effects on our environment. But we are inundated with supposition presented as fact, when it is not the case.
The more obvious that it becomes that we dont really know what is going on, and that the statistical models that were used to 'prove' that our climate is changing are shown to be not even remotely accurate, the more strident the advocates become.
My position is i dont know. I am deeply sceptical of the behaviour of some scientists and politicians who present their data as if some god like religious text, with very carefully selected gospels that conform to what they want to see. But im also aware that is wise for us to treat our environment as best we can.
Seems Arctic ice levels have been quietly dropped as the Gold Standard of climate change indication, after they, er....looks at shoes....mumbles to self... grew by a third in the cool summer of 2013....
Won't someone please knit some jumpers for those poor hypothermic Polar bears?
The science is settled, you are a right wing oil funded seal clubber....
Paragraph 2: "Researchers say the growth continued in 2014" Paragraph 4: "But they say 2013 was a one-off"
I mean FFS.
This is what annoys me. It is clear that there is evidence that shows dumping carbon into that atmosphere could have significant effects on our environment. But we are inundated with supposition presented as fact, when it is not the case.
The more obvious that it becomes that we dont really know what is going on, and that the statistical models that were used to 'prove' that our climate is changing are shown to be not even remotely accurate, the more strident the advocates become.
My position is i dont know. I am deeply sceptical of the behaviour of some scientists and politicians who present their data as if some god like religious text, with very carefully selected gospels that conform to what they want to see. But im also aware that is wise for us to treat our environment as best we can.
My position is very similar. I expect some AGW is going on, I expect it's being exaggerated, and I suspect the models are pretty crap beyond about a 10 year horizon.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
It rewards bad behaviour and poor decision making. Thats why widescale benefit sanctions have had such an impact. For the first time some people are actually been held accountable for the decisions they make in life. It is a shocker.
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
For sure. But if it was a Kendall poll, then you ought not to deduct 6 points from Corbyn's alleged lead.
I reckon there'll be a shy Yvette/Liz vote.
How does the Kendall poll deduct points from Corbyn's lead? The poll reports Corbyn has 15 point lead!
NCP was suggesting that private polling tended to favour the commissioner of the poll by c. 6%. But if we are assuming that Kendall commissioned the poll, then there ought to be no need to discount Jeremy's 15% lead at all.
I reckon a week from now Corbyn will be leading the CLP nominations by some margin. They finish on the 31st, so many to come through in this next week.
Whilst it might not be indicative of the party at large, many who attend CLPs will be voting against the other 3 candidates after last night. Especially Burnham.
And for @taffys - the mention of benefits porn reminded me of a series on C5 now. It's pretty even handed and I'd recommend it, but mainly focused on those out of work/getting a job then packing it in [for reasons]. I haven't on principle watched Benefits St [is that C4?] as that sounded just too sensationalist.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
It rewards bad behaviour and poor decision making. Thats why widescale benefit sanctions have had such an impact. For the first time some people are actually been held accountable for the decisions they make in life. It is a shocker.
My position is very similar. I expect some AGW is going on, I expect it's being exaggerated, and I suspect the models are pretty crap beyond about a 10 year horizon.
The top google hit for AGW science is a Telegraph article by @SeanT of this parish !
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
It rewards bad behaviour and poor decision making. Thats why widescale benefit sanctions have had such an impact. For the first time some people are actually been held accountable for the decisions they make in life. It is a shocker.
"Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach" was favoured by GB as it gave him a baseline of captive voters. Also it is why Labour opposes sales of Council/Housing Association houses to sitting tenants. I do agree that more social housing should be built for UK nationals only.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
The people Field is talking about are in work. But it's a fair argument to have - are they not working as much as they could, or earning enough to live on, because they have made a lifestyle choice or because other factors are involved? That is exactly where the debate should be.
Seems Arctic ice levels have been quietly dropped as the Gold Standard of climate change indication, after they, er....looks at shoes....mumbles to self... grew by a third in the cool summer of 2013....
Won't someone please knit some jumpers for those poor hypothermic Polar bears?
The science is settled, you are a right wing oil funded seal clubber....
Paragraph 2: "Researchers say the growth continued in 2014" Paragraph 4: "But they say 2013 was a one-off"
I mean FFS.
This is what annoys me. It is clear that there is evidence that shows dumping carbon into that atmosphere could have significant effects on our environment. But we are inundated with supposition presented as fact, when it is not the case.
The more obvious that it becomes that we dont really know what is going on, and that the statistical models that were used to 'prove' that our climate is changing are shown to be not even remotely accurate, the more strident the advocates become.
My position is i dont know. I am deeply sceptical of the behaviour of some scientists and politicians who present their data as if some god like religious text, with very carefully selected gospels that conform to what they want to see. But im also aware that is wise for us to treat our environment as best we can.
My position is very similar. I expect some AGW is going on, I expect it's being exaggerated, and I suspect the models are pretty crap beyond about a 10 year horizon.
There's no doubt in my mind that it's going on. The question is what we can or should do about it.
A big reason why political consensus has been lost on this is because of the efforts of far too many academics, scientists and activists to piggyback collectivism and socialism onto the back of it.
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
For sure. But if it was a Kendall poll, then you ought not to deduct 6 points from Corbyn's alleged lead.
I reckon there'll be a shy Yvette/Liz vote.
How does the Kendall poll deduct points from Corbyn's lead? The poll reports Corbyn has 15 point lead!
NCP was suggesting that private polling tended to favour the commissioner of the poll by c. 6%. But if we are assuming that Kendall commissioned the poll, then there ought to be no need to discount Jeremy's 15% lead at all.
I'd be surprised if any of the campaign teams had enough money to commission a genuine poll. They are pricey affairs, aren't they?
Now for a family to have two workers and only earn £10,226 we have two part timer s with circa 16 hours or less of hours worked each week..... If just one works a normal 40 hours then their income will greatly exceed the benefit loss. So there is an incentive to work a normal level of hours.
David Smith The Sunday Times' economics correspondent points out that there is a significant change in employment patterns from part time self employed to full time employed.
I think that Osborne may have calculated that the people affected by the CTC cut would mostly have voted Labour anyway, so they form a relatively easy target for Government expenditure savings. "
Seems Arctic ice levels have been quietly dropped as the Gold Standard of climate change indication, after they, er....looks at shoes....mumbles to self... grew by a third in the cool summer of 2013....
Won't someone please knit some jumpers for those poor hypothermic Polar bears?
The science is settled, you are a right wing oil funded seal clubber....
Paragraph 2: "Researchers say the growth continued in 2014" Paragraph 4: "But they say 2013 was a one-off"
I mean FFS.
This is what annoys me. It is clear that there is evidence that shows dumping carbon into that atmosphere could have significant effects on our environment. But we are inundated with supposition presented as fact, when it is not the case.
The more obvious that it becomes that we dont really know what is going on, and that the statistical models that were used to 'prove' that our climate is changing are shown to be not even remotely accurate, the more strident the advocates become.
My position is i dont know. I am deeply sceptical of the behaviour of some scientists and politicians who present their data as if some god like religious text, with very carefully selected gospels that conform to what they want to see. But im also aware that is wise for us to treat our environment as best we can.
My position is very similar. I expect some AGW is going on, I expect it's being exaggerated, and I suspect the models are pretty crap beyond about a 10 year horizon.
There's no doubt in my mind that it's going on. The question is what we can or should do about it.
A big reason why political consensus has been lost on this is because of the efforts of far too many academics, scientists and activists to piggyback collectivism and socialism onto the back of it.
Why is there no doubt in your mind it's been going on? When we cease to have doubts, we leave the realms of science and enter the realms of faith.
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
For sure. But if it was a Kendall poll, then you ought not to deduct 6 points from Corbyn's alleged lead.
I reckon there'll be a shy Yvette/Liz vote.
How does the Kendall poll deduct points from Corbyn's lead? The poll reports Corbyn has 15 point lead!
NCP was suggesting that private polling tended to favour the commissioner of the poll by c. 6%. But if we are assuming that Kendall commissioned the poll, then there ought to be no need to discount Jeremy's 15% lead at all.
I'd be surprised if any of the campaign teams had enough money to commission a genuine poll. They are pricey affairs, aren't they?
Apparently Jamie Carragher gave Burnham £10k! Don't know about the others but I suspect Cooper will have some decent connections on the basis she may well win and Kendall as she's a Blairite. I can't imagine Corbyn ever commissioning a poll!
Matt Singh's article is fine as far as it goes, and he's quite right to point to the fact that our uncertainty about the current position means that we can't discount a Corbyn win.
However, where I think his analysis goes wrong is that it is too static. Put yourself, if you can bear to, in the shoes of a leftie Labour activist. At the moment saying you'll support Corbyn, or voting for him in a CLP nomination meeting (how earnest and dire must those be?), is a free hit. Under AV, if Corbyn had no hope, it would also be a free hit to put him first, and then your serious choice second.
But in the actual contest, if it's not 100% clear that Corbyn has zero chance of getting into the final two, then it's no longer a free hit to put him first. It could turn out to be a very expensive hit indeed.
Faced with the abyss, head will, for many, overrule heart. Corbyn will still do very well, but not as well as polling - even if we had reliable polling - would tell us today.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
It rewards bad behaviour and poor decision making. Thats why widescale benefit sanctions have had such an impact. For the first time some people are actually been held accountable for the decisions they make in life. It is a shocker.
Having kids is extremely expensive. If I do with my wife - as two working parents - we expect our income to drop thousands of pounds, or to spend thousands of pounds on childcare. We will be far more 'worse off'. However, that is a choice we will need to review according to our finances and decide what kids we can afford and when.
I see no reason why others should not have to make similar choices. I recognise that life on a low income is no cakewalk and at the moment there are quite generous tax credits available from taxes I pay that do to some extent insulate many families from the impact of those same choices.
Matt Singh's article is fine as far as it goes, and he's quite right to point to the fact that our uncertainty about the current position means that we can't discount a Corbyn win.
However, where I think his analysis goes wrong is that it is too static. Put yourself, if you can bear to, in the shoes of a leftie Labour activist. At the moment saying you'll support Corbyn, or voting for him in a CLP meeting (how earnest and dire must those be?), is a free hit. Under AV, if Corbyn had no hope, it would also be a free hit to put him first, and then your serious choice second.
But in the actual contest, if it's not 100% clear that Corbyn has zero chance, then it's no longer a free hit to put him first. It could turn out to be a very expensive hit indeed.
Faced with the abyss, head will, for many, overrule heart. Corbyn will still do very well, but not as well as polling - even if we had reliable polling - would tell us today.
Every left-winger I know is furious today that none of the other three candidates are opposing benefit cuts, which they seem to think is as bad as the press gangs. They could well be voting for Corbyn in anger.
Matt Singh's article is fine as far as it goes, and he's quite right to point to the fact that our uncertainty about the current position means that we can't discount a Corbyn win.
However, where I think his analysis goes wrong is that it is too static. Put yourself, if you can bear to, in the shoes of a leftie Labour activist. At the moment saying you'll support Corbyn, or voting for him in a CLP meeting (how earnest and dire must those be?), is a free hit. Under AV, if Corbyn had no hope, it would also be a free hit to put him first, and then your serious choice second.
But in the actual contest, if it's not 100% clear that Corbyn has zero chance, then it's no longer a free hit to put him first. It could turn out to be a very expensive hit indeed.
Faced with the abyss, head will, for many, overrule heart. Corbyn will still do very well, but not as well as polling - even if we had reliable polling - would tell us today.
Part of the reason politics is so f*cked is the country, is this cult of wannabe political strategists such as Osborne, and previously Brown who make policy purely through a political lense. It never really works, in the en
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
For sure. But if it was a Kendall poll, then you ought not to deduct 6 points from Corbyn's alleged lead.
I reckon there'll be a shy Yvette/Liz vote.
How does the Kendall poll deduct points from Corbyn's lead? The poll reports Corbyn has 15 point lead!
NCP was suggesting that private polling tended to favour the commissioner of the poll by c. 6%. But if we are assuming that Kendall commissioned the poll, then there ought to be no need to discount Jeremy's 15% lead at all.
I don't think Kendall commissioned the poll; I don't think the poll exists. That's what I'm saying.
Seems Arctic ice levels have been quietly dropped as the Gold Standard of climate change indication, after they, er....looks at shoes....mumbles to self... grew by a third in the cool summer of 2013....
Won't someone please knit some jumpers for those poor hypothermic Polar bears?
The science is settled, you are a right wing oil funded seal clubber....
Paragraph 2: "Researchers say the growth continued in 2014" Paragraph 4: "But they say 2013 was a one-off"
I mean FFS.
This is what annoys me. It is clear that there is evidence that shows dumping carbon into that atmosphere could have significant effects on our environment. But we are inundated with supposition presented as fact, when it is not the case.
The more obvious that it becomes that we dont really know what is going on, and that the statistical models that were used to 'prove' that our climate is changing are shown to be not even remotely accurate, the more strident the advocates become.
My position is i dont know. I am deeply sceptical of the behaviour of some scientists and politicians who present their data as if some god like religious text, with very carefully selected gospels that conform to what they want to see. But im also aware that is wise for us to treat our environment as best we can.
My position is very similar. I expect some AGW is going on, I expect it's being exaggerated, and I suspect the models are pretty crap beyond about a 10 year horizon.
There's no doubt in my mind that it's going on. The question is what we can or should do about it.
A big reason why political consensus has been lost on this is because of the efforts of far too many academics, scientists and activists to piggyback collectivism and socialism onto the back of it.
Why is there no doubt in your mind it's been going on? When we cease to have doubts, we leave the realms of science and enter the realms of faith.
I have a scientific background, and an engineering degree. I am convinced by the evidence.
Part of the reason politics is so f*cked is the country, is this cult of wannabe political strategists such as Osborne, and previously Brown who make policy purely through a political lense. It never really works, in the en
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
For sure. But if it was a Kendall poll, then you ought not to deduct 6 points from Corbyn's alleged lead.
I reckon there'll be a shy Yvette/Liz vote.
How does the Kendall poll deduct points from Corbyn's lead? The poll reports Corbyn has 15 point lead!
NCP was suggesting that private polling tended to favour the commissioner of the poll by c. 6%. But if we are assuming that Kendall commissioned the poll, then there ought to be no need to discount Jeremy's 15% lead at all.
I don't think Kendall commissioned the poll; I don't think the poll exists. That's what I'm saying.
Over at the Guradian,Pbs favourite newssite,Andrew Sparrow is asking for feedback re his blog.Good information is the key to betting strategy. For anyone who has 4 minutes to spare on politics a week,the information contained in Andrew's blog is the best use of time to keep up-to-date.Good information is key to any betting strategy which brings me on to Henry G. Manson's last blog.After last night's shenanigans in parliament,his advice on Corbyn with most 1st preferences must be even stronger and it is probably going to be a 2nd pref. election.The way the CLPs are adding up I suspect it could be so close to be a 3rd pref. election.
Part of the reason politics is so f*cked is the country, is this cult of wannabe political strategists such as Osborne, and previously Brown who make policy purely through a political lense. It never really works, in the en
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
For sure. But if it was a Kendall poll, then you ought not to deduct 6 points from Corbyn's alleged lead.
I reckon there'll be a shy Yvette/Liz vote.
How does the Kendall poll deduct points from Corbyn's lead? The poll reports Corbyn has 15 point lead!
NCP was suggesting that private polling tended to favour the commissioner of the poll by c. 6%. But if we are assuming that Kendall commissioned the poll, then there ought to be no need to discount Jeremy's 15% lead at all.
I don't think Kendall commissioned the poll; I don't think the poll exists. That's what I'm saying.
I suspect you're right about that. I don't know how it would be possible to reliably poll the people who've signed up as affiliates.
Matt Singh's article is fine as far as it goes, and he's quite right to point to the fact that our uncertainty about the current position means that we can't discount a Corbyn win.
However, where I think his analysis goes wrong is that it is too static. Put yourself, if you can bear to, in the shoes of a leftie Labour activist. At the moment saying you'll support Corbyn, or voting for him in a CLP meeting (how earnest and dire must those be?), is a free hit. Under AV, if Corbyn had no hope, it would also be a free hit to put him first, and then your serious choice second.
But in the actual contest, if it's not 100% clear that Corbyn has zero chance, then it's no longer a free hit to put him first. It could turn out to be a very expensive hit indeed.
Faced with the abyss, head will, for many, overrule heart. Corbyn will still do very well, but not as well as polling - even if we had reliable polling - would tell us today.
Every left-winger I know is furious today that none of the other three candidates are opposing benefit cuts, which they seem to think is as bad as the press gangs. They could well be voting for Corbyn in anger.
A popular tweet doing the rounds at the mo.
"Voters4Corbyn The 48 rebels will make it a lot easier for Corbyn to pick his Front Bench."
Matt Singh's article is fine as far as it goes, and he's quite right to point to the fact that our uncertainty about the current position means that we can't discount a Corbyn win.
However, where I think his analysis goes wrong is that it is too static. Put yourself, if you can bear to, in the shoes of a leftie Labour activist. At the moment saying you'll support Corbyn, or voting for him in a CLP meeting (how earnest and dire must those be?), is a free hit. Under AV, if Corbyn had no hope, it would also be a free hit to put him first, and then your serious choice second.
But in the actual contest, if it's not 100% clear that Corbyn has zero chance, then it's no longer a free hit to put him first. It could turn out to be a very expensive hit indeed.
Faced with the abyss, head will, for many, overrule heart. Corbyn will still do very well, but not as well as polling - even if we had reliable polling - would tell us today.
Every left-winger I know is furious today that none of the other three candidates are opposing benefit cuts, which they seem to think is as bad as the press gangs. They could well be voting for Corbyn in anger.
I think there is certainly something in this. Remember, the labour membership will be politically aware, far more than the average voter, Andy, more than any other has played this very badly. I think this has betting implications.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
It rewards bad behaviour and poor decision making. Thats why widescale benefit sanctions have had such an impact. For the first time some people are actually been held accountable for the decisions they make in life. It is a shocker.
Having kids is extremely expensive. If I do with my wife - as two working parents - we expect our income to drop thousands of pounds, or to spend thousands of pounds on childcare. We will be far more 'worse off'. However, that is a choice we will need to review according to our finances and decide what kids we can afford and when.
I see no reason why others should not have to make similar choices. I recognise that life on a low income is no cakewalk and at the moment there are quite generous tax credits available from taxes I pay that do to some extent insulate many families from the impact of those same choices.
But they are cutting child tax credits for current claimants. Are single parents in low paid work expected to magically get a pay rise to compensate? Or give their children up for adoption to middle class families?
Every left-winger I know is furious today that none of the other three candidates are opposing benefit cuts, which they seem to think is as bad as the press gangs. They could well be voting for Corbyn in anger.
I agree that many of them are angry (just look at the LabourList comments), but they're not voting in the actual contest yet. Some at least of them will calm down, or heed the warnings from the more serious Labour figures. The movement will be away from Corbyn as the actual choice is presented.
Matt Singh's article is fine as far as it goes, and he's quite right to point to the fact that our uncertainty about the current position means that we can't discount a Corbyn win.
However, where I think his analysis goes wrong is that it is too static. Put yourself, if you can bear to, in the shoes of a leftie Labour activist. At the moment saying you'll support Corbyn, or voting for him in a CLP meeting (how earnest and dire must those be?), is a free hit. Under AV, if Corbyn had no hope, it would also be a free hit to put him first, and then your serious choice second.
But in the actual contest, if it's not 100% clear that Corbyn has zero chance, then it's no longer a free hit to put him first. It could turn out to be a very expensive hit indeed.
Faced with the abyss, head will, for many, overrule heart. Corbyn will still do very well, but not as well as polling - even if we had reliable polling - would tell us today.
Every left-winger I know is furious today that none of the other three candidates are opposing benefit cuts, which they seem to think is as bad as the press gangs. They could well be voting for Corbyn in anger.
I think there is certainly something in this. Remember, the labour membership will be politically aware, far more than the average voter, Andy, more than any other has played this very badly. I think this has betting implications.
"Voters4Corbyn The 48 rebels will make it a lot easier for Corbyn to pick his Front Bench."
The whole Treasury bench are joining in the fun now. Just pointed out a Labour MP "trooped through the lobby in support of one leadership candidate, while publicly backing another..."
Matt Singh's article is fine as far as it goes, and he's quite right to point to the fact that our uncertainty about the current position means that we can't discount a Corbyn win.
However, where I think his analysis goes wrong is that it is too static. Put yourself, if you can bear to, in the shoes of a leftie Labour activist. At the moment saying you'll support Corbyn, or voting for him in a CLP meeting (how earnest and dire must those be?), is a free hit. Under AV, if Corbyn had no hope, it would also be a free hit to put him first, and then your serious choice second.
But in the actual contest, if it's not 100% clear that Corbyn has zero chance, then it's no longer a free hit to put him first. It could turn out to be a very expensive hit indeed.
Faced with the abyss, head will, for many, overrule heart. Corbyn will still do very well, but not as well as polling - even if we had reliable polling - would tell us today.
Every left-winger I know is furious today that none of the other three candidates are opposing benefit cuts, which they seem to think is as bad as the press gangs. They could well be voting for Corbyn in anger.
I think there is certainly something in this. Remember, the labour membership will be politically aware, far more than the average voter, Andy, more than any other has played this very badly. I think this has betting implications.
I understand what he is trying to do and the Kendall think about signalling to the electorate. Ed was labelled as a hopeless left-winger very quickly whereas Blair was challenging to his party from the beginning (but ultimately delivered a minimum wage, better health and education, etc)
Part of the reason politics is so f*cked is the country, is this cult of wannabe political strategists such as Osborne, and previously Brown who make policy purely through a political lense. It never really works, in the end.
On the NCPolitics article: There are several flaws:
Firstly, you have to assume that not only are a majority of activists on social media, but a majority of members too. Now while I buy into activists being heavily on social media (this would correlate with Corbyn's CLP success) , they only represented 10% of Labour membership at all. It remains to be seen whether your average Labour member spends all their time on Twitter and CIF. Somehow, I doubt it. Secondly, if the Broxtowe turn-out reflects anything like the turn-out at other CLPs that are nominating Corbyn, then there is further reason to doubt how representative CLP nominations are of how members will vote. Thirdly, not only are there flaws with private polling (that the article mentions) but there is good reason to even doubt such polling exists in regard to Corbyn. As Rentoul articled in the Independent on Sunday, I think that poll was a ploy leaked by the Kendall campaign. It make sense: she represents a Blairite fraction, also headed by Harman, who want to re-energise her campaign, or at the very least avoid her from coming last. Both the Burnham and Cooper campaigns appeared to dismiss the story of Corbyn leading, while Kendall's campaign did not.
For sure. But if it was a Kendall poll, then you ought not to deduct 6 points from Corbyn's alleged lead.
I reckon there'll be a shy Yvette/Liz vote.
How does the Kendall poll deduct points from Corbyn's lead? The poll reports Corbyn has 15 point lead!
NCP was suggesting that private polling tended to favour the commissioner of the poll by c. 6%. But if we are assuming that Kendall commissioned the poll, then there ought to be no need to discount Jeremy's 15% lead at all.
I don't think Kendall commissioned the poll; I don't think the poll exists. That's what I'm saying.
Successful politicians, yes. Successful for the country? Well....that's another debate.
There will also be the angry-brigade who aren't Labour members or even £3 Labourites on Twitter.
I was very surprised that @justin124 here isn't a Labour Party member. Surely a man of his passion would appear to be one to most ordinary folk. My brother is a Labour Party member and yet he never mentions politics on his very busy Facebook account. I think he's cornered the market in posting pix of dogs and secondhand furniture bargains...
Every left-winger I know is furious today that none of the other three candidates are opposing benefit cuts, which they seem to think is as bad as the press gangs. They could well be voting for Corbyn in anger.
I agree that many of them are angry (just look at the LabourList comments), but they're not voting in the actual contest yet. Some at least of them will calm down, or heed the warnings from the more serious Labour figures. The movement will be away from Corbyn as the actual choice is presented.
I'd like Corbyn to win. I think he's crazy enough and has little enough to lose to oppose the current reckless America pandering that afflicts our body politic. I would prefer this opposition to come from a sound right wing perspective, but in its absence in parliament, beggars can't be choosers. I don't have any fear of him actually getting into Government.
Every left-winger I know is furious today that none of the other three candidates are opposing benefit cuts, which they seem to think is as bad as the press gangs. They could well be voting for Corbyn in anger.
I agree that many of them are angry (just look at the LabourList comments), but they're not voting in the actual contest yet. Some at least of them will calm down, or heed the warnings from the more serious Labour figures. The movement will be away from Corbyn as the actual choice is presented.
Away from Corbyn, to the say-nothing, offend-no-one candidate, still backable at 5/2.
F1: just scanned some markets. I'll see if it changes, but might not be on Not To Be Classified this time (McLaren are too short). No Safety Car is a little short at 1.66 (likely, but unsure if Ladbrokes covers a VSC or not, and as Yes is 2.1 I'd want 1.8 or so).
Betfair has 1.51 for No Safety Car (VSC doesn't count) but that's also a bit short.
Wary of a car breaking down in a stupid place, which is a credibly possibility given reliability of Honda/Renault.
Anyway, Labour's 24 hours after George Osborne's trolling in the Guardian are up and it seems highly probable that Labour's reputation for this Parliament has now been set as one that is in a mess on austerity and in a mess on welfare reforms. Whoever takes over as Labour leader will have an uphill struggle to persuade the public that Labour have any coherence at all.
Currently, yes. In a few years' time? Well, that pretty much solely depends on the Tories, as far as I can see. Not a great position to be in but it might yet be a winning one.
Currently, yes. In a few years' time? Well, that pretty much solely depends on the Tories, as far as I can see. Not a great position to be in but it might yet be a winning one.
That's exactly as I see it. In my view, Labour's chances in 2020 are now largely dependent on how the Conservatives behave.
Labour should be very glad that we have the EU referendum ahead.
Appealing to Labourites to agree over welfare cuts was just priceless trolling. I can only assume the Guardian wanted the click-bait more than a sensible discussion about the subject within the Labour Party.
Anyway, Labour's 24 hours after George Osborne's trolling in the Guardian are up and it seems highly probable that Labour's reputation for this Parliament has now been set as one that is in a mess on austerity and in a mess on welfare reforms. Whoever takes over as Labour leader will have an uphill struggle to persuade the public that Labour have any coherence at all.
Anyway, Labour's 24 hours after George Osborne's trolling in the Guardian are up and it seems highly probable that Labour's reputation for this Parliament has now been set as one that is in a mess on austerity and in a mess on welfare reforms. Whoever takes over as Labour leader will have an uphill struggle to persuade the public that Labour have any coherence at all.
Well Jeremy Corbyn certainly won't lack coherence if he's elected !
As for Labour being unelectable: of course they are, it's only been some months since being defeated in a GE. The question is, can Labour become electable in the next five years? As for the impact of the welfare bill on the Labour leadership: I suppose it depends on, again activists and members thinking along similar lines. Are activists likely to be drawn towards Corbyn, and away from Burnham after last night? Yes. But polling shows, even a large majority of Labour voters support, much of the individual welfare measures, and appear to agree with the Osborne narrative. If these voters are even somewhat similar to Labour's membership, I'm not so sure all of them will be rushing to Corbyn. There could be an argument that last night, in the long-term, could well be of most benefit to Yvette.
Seems Arctic ice levels have been quietly dropped as the Gold Standard of climate change indication, after they, er....looks at shoes....mumbles to self... grew by a third in the cool summer of 2013....
Won't someone please knit some jumpers for those poor hypothermic Polar bears?
The science is settled, you are a right wing oil funded seal clubber....
Paragraph 2: "Researchers say the growth continued in 2014" Paragraph 4: "But they say 2013 was a one-off"
I mean FFS.
This is what annoys me. It is clear that there is evidence that shows dumping carbon into that atmosphere could have significant effects on our environment. But we are inundated with supposition presented as fact, when it is not the case.
The more obvious that it becomes that we dont really know what is going on, and that the statistical models that were used to 'prove' that our climate is changing are shown to be not even remotely accurate, the more strident the advocates become.
My position is i dont know. I am deeply sceptical of the behaviour of some scientists and politicians who present their data as if some god like religious text, with very carefully selected gospels that conform to what they want to see. But im also aware that is wise for us to treat our environment as best we can.
My position is very similar. I expect some AGW is going on, I expect it's being exaggerated, and I suspect the models are pretty crap beyond about a 10 year horizon.
There's no doubt in my mind that it's going on. The question is what we can or should do about it.
A big reason why political consensus has been lost on this is because of the efforts of far too many academics, scientists and activists to piggyback collectivism and socialism onto the back of it.
Why is there no doubt in your mind it's been going on? When we cease to have doubts, we leave the realms of science and enter the realms of faith.
I have a scientific background, and an engineering degree. I am convinced by the evidence.
Interesting. Would you not agree that given the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on the contention that Co2 and other gases retain a little more of the sun's energy than would otherwise be the case, that the behaviour of the sun itself is by definition a far bigger factor in the rising and falling of the earth's temperatures?
Anyway, Labour's 24 hours after George Osborne's trolling in the Guardian are up and it seems highly probable that Labour's reputation for this Parliament has now been set as one that is in a mess on austerity and in a mess on welfare reforms. Whoever takes over as Labour leader will have an uphill struggle to persuade the public that Labour have any coherence at all.
Osborne hasn't set any traps. What he has done is propose some long-overdue reforms to a welfare system which everyone agrees is a mess, and where everyone agrees savings must be made. This has the side effect of putting Labour in a position where its incoherence is abundantly clear, but the trap is entirely of Labour's own digging.
Anyway, Labour's 24 hours after George Osborne's trolling in the Guardian are up and it seems highly probable that Labour's reputation for this Parliament has now been set as one that is in a mess on austerity and in a mess on welfare reforms. Whoever takes over as Labour leader will have an uphill struggle to persuade the public that Labour have any coherence at all.
It's summer, most people don't pay attention to politics at this time; least of all, I doubt that your average voter will remember these events in 6 months time, let alone five years time.
A big reason why political consensus has been lost on this is because of the efforts of far too many academics, scientists and activists to piggyback collectivism and socialism onto the back of it.
That's a really excellent point!
It's the assumption that the ONLY way to tackle a problem (real or imagined) is to use a left wing solution. For example, the Greens - the "Watermelon party".
That person will need to have really good experience and understanding of international relations as that is most likely to be the number one topic on their agenda. Such people are very rare in the USA.
What a load of condescending tosh.
The problem with selecting the US presidency is nothing to do with lack of talent or understanding, which is available in bucket loads. It is the selection process. And, unless there is war looming, international relations never make it to the top tier of considerations for the public.
As in the UK a year ago, the US economic recovery is insipid, irregular and skewed to the affluent. Much of the middle class down have seen little financial improvement, albeit the fear of losing what one already has is retreating. This election, unless something major happens in the interim, will be about the economy, equity (though not only in the sense the Democrats mean, but also in how much government takes from the private sector) and restoring a sense of optimism to the American endeavour, of which international relations is only a tiny part.
Trump will surely crash and burn as soon as anyone starts asking him some specific policy questions, especially on foreign affairs. He'll get "gotcha'd" very easily when interviewers ask him some basic factual questions.
Unless of course his behaviour is a superbly calculated bluff, as he shoots to the top of everyone's attention by making deliberately ludicrous and offensive statements but then switches to be a well-informed and more moderate candidate in the debates. I doubt it.
Ladbrokes offer 4/1 that he runs as a 3rd party candidate. http://ow.ly/PSJUJ
A big reason why political consensus has been lost on this is because of the efforts of far too many academics, scientists and activists to piggyback collectivism and socialism onto the back of it.
That's a really excellent point!
It's the assumption that the ONLY way to tackle a problem (real or imagined) is to use a left wing solution. For example, the Greens - the "Watermelon party".
Is it an assumption, or is it the original intention?
Interesting. Would you not agree that given the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on the contention that Co2 and other gases retain a little more of the sun's energy than would otherwise be the case, that the behaviour of the sun itself is by definition a far bigger factor in the rising and falling of the earth's temperatures?
That logic doesn't follow, for two reasons:
1) The retainability could be a lot more variable than the Sun's activity. For example, if the Sun's activity varies by 10%, while the retainability of the energy could vary from 30% to 60%.
2) The greenhouse effect model also retains the cumulative energy built up in the atmosphere, not just the extra added to it from the Sun that year.
And whilst that's true - the First 100 Days does colour how anoraks and political commentators think. And hence everyelse who's not that bothered listens to.
Having a messy leadership election that lasts 4 months is a nightmare for any Party. It sets the tone for everything that follows it - and the factions dig big trenches that don't go away whomever wins. When/If Corbyn loses, his legacy and the anger of his apostles will cast a very noisy long shadow over the rest of the Parly.
I agree with @tyson that the architect of this Byzantine system needs shooting.
Anyway, Labour's 24 hours after George Osborne's trolling in the Guardian are up and it seems highly probable that Labour's reputation for this Parliament has now been set as one that is in a mess on austerity and in a mess on welfare reforms. Whoever takes over as Labour leader will have an uphill struggle to persuade the public that Labour have any coherence at all.
It's summer, most people don't pay attention to politics at this time; least of all, I doubt that your average voter will remember these events in 6 months time, let alone five years time.
F1: just scanned some markets. I'll see if it changes, but might not be on Not To Be Classified this time (McLaren are too short). No Safety Car is a little short at 1.66 (likely, but unsure if Ladbrokes covers a VSC or not, and as Yes is 2.1 I'd want 1.8 or so).
Betfair has 1.51 for No Safety Car (VSC doesn't count) but that's also a bit short.
Wary of a car breaking down in a stupid place, which is a credibly possibility given reliability of Honda/Renault.
Williams cars each at 6/1 for a podium sounds reasonable, similar odds for either McLaren to be first retirement. Rosberg 2/1 for pole also seems slightly generous, should be a 2 horse race unless it rains.
Trump will surely crash and burn as soon as anyone starts asking him some specific policy questions, especially on foreign affairs. He'll get "gotcha'd" very easily when interviewers ask him some basic factual questions.
Unless of course his behaviour is a superbly calculated bluff, as he shoots to the top of everyone's attention by making deliberately ludicrous and offensive statements but then switches to be a well-informed and more moderate candidate in the debates. I doubt it.
Ladbrokes offer 4/1 that he runs as a 3rd party candidate. http://ow.ly/PSJUJ
If Trump runs third party, the Republicans are done for, aren't they? The Republicans need a 5% swing from last time, then you'd have to add on a percent or two from demographic change, and add on the lost margin to Trump too. They could end up needing a 9% or 10% swing.
Mr. Sandpit, Williams may have a decent crack at a podium.
Also, I didn't mention it because it's not a bet/tip I'm making, but you may be interested n 50/1 for Bottas (same for Massa) to lead lap 1, based on Williams' improved performance and Hamilton's recent bad starts.
Miss Plato, shade unfair. Byzantium sometimes had great leaders, like Basil II or John Comnenus.
I think Byzantium is badly treated due to being called "Byzantium", a very modern term. It was the Roman Empire, and deserved the respect that went with that.
Interesting. Would you not agree that given the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on the contention that Co2 and other gases retain a little more of the sun's energy than would otherwise be the case, that the behaviour of the sun itself is by definition a far bigger factor in the rising and falling of the earth's temperatures?
That logic doesn't follow, for two reasons:
1) The retainability could be a lot more variable than the Sun's activity. For example, if the Sun's activity varies by 10%, while the retainability of the energy could vary from 30% to 60%.
2) The greenhouse effect model also retains the cumulative energy built up in the atmosphere, not just the extra added to it from the Sun that year.
In terms of each increasing or decreasing by a percentage of itself, I'm happy to accept what you say. However, in real terms, we are comparing horses and ants in terms of their contribution. The notion that any form of 'greenhouse effect' could even begin to equal the impact of the very energy source that the effect depends on is surely self-evidently risible, would you not agree?
Labour were utterly unelectable to govern b4 the GE. Nothing has changed save to point out the poor quality of the candidates vying to replace Ed. Would any of these candidates have done any better than Ed???. I doubt it.
580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn.
Think about people earning less than £6420 pa now and before the budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420.
What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income?
Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
The people Field is talking about are in work. But it's a fair argument to have - are they not working as much as they could, or earning enough to live on, because they have made a lifestyle choice or because other factors are involved? That is exactly where the debate should be.
I totally agree with your last sentenced but no-one on the left will even countenance the debate. All of the studies and all of the articles are predicated on people being worse off assuming no change in attitudes to or amounts of, work done. This completely misses the point of the exercise. To most ordinary people the assumption that you only work 16 hours and then get benefits is quite ridiculous. As with most things in life the rule should always be that you get back in proportion to what you put in. Labour under Brown reversed that and cannot move beyond it.
Also, I didn't mention it because it's not a bet/tip I'm making, but you may be interested n 50/1 for Bottas (same for Massa) to lead lap 1, based on Williams' improved performance and Hamilton's recent bad starts.
Who was that with, I didn't see it? Might go for 50p on each of them just for fun.
Remember also that from the next race at Spa they get rid of the automatic clutch starts, replacing them with old fashioned driver-operated analogue levers.
Interesting. Would you not agree that given the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on the contention that Co2 and other gases retain a little more of the sun's energy than would otherwise be the case, that the behaviour of the sun itself is by definition a far bigger factor in the rising and falling of the earth's temperatures?
That logic doesn't follow, for two reasons:
1) The retainability could be a lot more variable than the Sun's activity. For example, if the Sun's activity varies by 10%, while the retainability of the energy could vary from 30% to 60%.
2) The greenhouse effect model also retains the cumulative energy built up in the atmosphere, not just the extra added to it from the Sun that year.
On topic. After the Nate Cohn piece I posted at the start of the thread on the coming implosion of The Donald, here is the other Nate, Silver, on much the same subject and evidence. Love the title:
FYI, for those who want a speculative bet, here is why I think Kasich is the dark horse. The first is by a one-time Kasich staffer, the other by a WP columnist who is a very partisan democrat:
And whilst that's true - the First 100 Days does colour how anoraks and political commentators think. And hence everyelse who's not that bothered listens to.
Having a messy leadership election that lasts 4 months is a nightmare for any Party. It sets the tone for everything that follows it - and the factions dig big trenches that don't go away whomever wins. When/If Corbyn loses, his legacy and the anger of his apostles will cast a very noisy long shadow over the rest of the Parly.
I agree with @tyson that the architect of this Byzantine system needs shooting.
Anyway, Labour's 24 hours after George Osborne's trolling in the Guardian are up and it seems highly probable that Labour's reputation for this Parliament has now been set as one that is in a mess on austerity and in a mess on welfare reforms. Whoever takes over as Labour leader will have an uphill struggle to persuade the public that Labour have any coherence at all.
It's summer, most people don't pay attention to politics at this time; least of all, I doubt that your average voter will remember these events in 6 months time, let alone five years time.
But the question is, do the public listen to political anoraks and commentators? I'd say no. The vast majority of people don't care about politics, and only tune into it on bread and butter issues, or coming up to an election. Furthermore, the views/thoughts of political anoraks/commentators can change pretty quickly. In a mere few days, political anoraks/commentators went from arguing that a hung parliament was a cert, Ed Miliband had a chance, and the Tories would never win a majority, to arguing Labour are doomed, Osborne is a genius, and so on. These people told us UKIP were a danger to the Tories for the most part, when they turned out to be impacting Labour more than any other party. The SNP, Greens, and Plaid apparently 'won' the debate, when large quarters of the English public disliked the SNP, and voted to avoid them having any shot at government. They thought a Con-LD coalition, was plausible, and not any of them guessed at how much the LDs would be decimated. Lastly, political commentators and anoraks can also misjudge the public mood (as the previous examples show). A large amount of them are stuck in a Westminster Village, over-analysing every political detail.
ineForNothing @minefornothing 2m2 minutes ago UK government receipts - Y/Y change in June
VAT +6.9% Income Tax +3.1% Corporation Tax +13.9%
ONS:
Public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks decreased by £6.1 billion to £25.1 billion (1.4% of Gross Domestic Product) in the current financial year-to-date (April 2015 to June 2015) compared to the same period in 2014.
"SNP ministers come under more pressure to justify buying the loss-making airport as it emerges the taxpayer has lent it £10.8 million."
" Ryanair – Prestwick's only passenger airline — then announced it was cutting its winter schedule from the airport from 42 flights per week to 13. Passenger numbers influence around half the airport's income."
Ha Ha Ha , good try Harry, less than a weeks champagne for Westminster, hardly budget bursting , how many squillions are the Tories borrowing again. 100 Billion versus 10 million LOL
@SouthamObserver SouthamObserver 580,100 of Britain’s poorest working families earning less than £6,420 a year face the prospect of being ‘taxed’ for the first time. Those earning between £3,850 and £6,420 will lose 48p in tax credits for each pound they earn. Think about people on less than £6420 pa now and pre budget
16 hours a week at 7.71 per hour for 52 weeks = £6420. What is the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What was the limiting factor in restricting them to 16 hours a week? What is the solution to increasing the family income? What was the solution to increasing family income? Answers on a postcard to:
Yep, this is one of Labour's opportunities. Blaming working families for not working more is clearly going to be the Tory line.
It depends if you think there is a good argument to change behaviour. Benefits certainly do (and I'm not advocating the workhouse here) and not always in a positive (for the recipient) way. Personally I think there is an above average chance that the changes will generate lifestyle improvements, financial improvements and higher self esteem for many. The current system lacks ambition and heart. Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach. To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
It rewards bad behaviour and poor decision making. Thats why widescale benefit sanctions have had such an impact. For the first time some people are actually been held accountable for the decisions they make in life. It is a shocker.
Having kids is extremely expensive. If I do with my wife - as two working parents - we expect our income to drop thousands of pounds, or to spend thousands of pounds on childcare. We will be far more 'worse off'. However, that is a choice we will need to review according to our finances and decide what kids we can afford and when. I see no reason why others should not have to make similar choices. I recognise that life on a low income is no cakewalk and at the moment there are quite generous tax credits available from taxes I pay that do to some extent insulate many families from the impact of those same choices.
But they are cutting child tax credits for current claimants. Are single parents in low paid work expected to magically get a pay rise to compensate? Or give their children up for adoption to middle class families?
Or maybe use a few more hours child care paid by the government and work a few extra hours? The apparent inflexibility and resistance to change is terrifying. Why do you assume a low paid single parent can not alter aspects of life to improve outcomes?
Interesting. Would you not agree that given the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on the contention that Co2 and other gases retain a little more of the sun's energy than would otherwise be the case, that the behaviour of the sun itself is by definition a far bigger factor in the rising and falling of the earth's temperatures?
That logic doesn't follow, for two reasons:
1) The retainability could be a lot more variable than the Sun's activity. For example, if the Sun's activity varies by 10%, while the retainability of the energy could vary from 30% to 60%.
2) The greenhouse effect model also retains the cumulative energy built up in the atmosphere, not just the extra added to it from the Sun that year.
-Most scientists think this, therefore you should, because they've got white jackets and stuff
-Look over there at the climate change DENIERS (bit like holocaust deniers), did we mention they're stupid?
A perfect microcosm of the AGW argument - no actual science in either peice, just creepy admonitions to follow the consensus or risk being like the weirdos. I couldn't have asked you to find better.
Interesting. Would you not agree that given the entire theory of anthropogenic global warming rests on the contention that Co2 and other gases retain a little more of the sun's energy than would otherwise be the case, that the behaviour of the sun itself is by definition a far bigger factor in the rising and falling of the earth's temperatures?
That logic doesn't follow, for two reasons:
1) The retainability could be a lot more variable than the Sun's activity. For example, if the Sun's activity varies by 10%, while the retainability of the energy could vary from 30% to 60%.
2) The greenhouse effect model also retains the cumulative energy built up in the atmosphere, not just the extra added to it from the Sun that year.
LOL. really Logical_Song? I know you know absolutely sweet FA about climate science but posting garbage opinion items that are years out of date to support your views really isn't the way to advance your cause.
'Chancellor, sit down man! I told you to sit down, sit down!': Furious Bercow bellows at Osborne in bizarre Commons outburst
Speaker blasts Chancellor in extraordinary rant during Treasury questions Less than three minutes into Commons session, Osborne told to 'sit down' Bercow also complains that his answers to MPs were 'hopelessly long'
@chrisshipitv: The Treasury also confirms today progression pay will be abolished across the Civil Service (means no more pay rises for length of service)
@chrisshipitv: The Treasury also confirms today progression pay will be abolished across the Civil Service (means no more pay rises for length of service)
@chrisshipitv: The Treasury also confirms today progression pay will be abolished across the Civil Service (means no more pay rises for length of service)
Unless it means more ranks... or more people on higher ranks...
Comments
1) It's members and affiliates who are voting, and there are no block votes.
2) This is a constituency which is impossible to poll in any reliable way.
3) The only possible indication we have as to how they might vote is the way the membership voted in 2010. They voted decisively for David Miliband.
4) The apparent rationale for voting for Corbyn this time around would be that Labour lost in 2015 because of a failure to elect Diane Abbot (who of course finished 5th in 2010).
The more obvious that it becomes that we dont really know what is going on, and that the statistical models that were used to 'prove' that our climate is changing are shown to be not even remotely accurate, the more strident the advocates become.
My position is i dont know. I am deeply sceptical of the behaviour of some scientists and politicians who present their data as if some god like religious text, with very carefully selected gospels that conform to what they want to see. But im also aware that is wise for us to treat our environment as best we can.
Reading Luke Akehurst's more descriptive piece on the CLP nominations will only encourage you to keep backing Yvette. Burnham has had a bad 24 hours in my view and his price hasn't moved to reflect that yet.
We don’t have accurate figures on who came second in each CLP, though some of this is available anecdotally. This is significant because if Yvette Cooper, for instance, was second in many of the CLPs Corbyn won and many that Burnham won (which is exactly what people are saying happened), she might be ahead in the popular vote nationwide but not getting the traction in terms of nominations won.
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/are-there-any-patterns-in-the-clp-nominations-so-far/
FWIW, I think Osborne's doing the right thing. Tax credit payouts had increased fivefold and something had to be done. Restricting the family tax credits to two kids or less after 2017 - thus not affecting existing claimants - is fair in my view.
Creating a system that traps people in poverty and on benefits is one approach.
To encourage self reliance and work over benefits is another.
Whilst it might not be indicative of the party at large, many who attend CLPs will be voting against the other 3 candidates after last night. Especially Burnham.
We shall see of course.
I'd watch one about low paid non-claimants for another perspective. I used to be quite rude about C5 - I must say I've been quite impressed by some of their docus. The one on Jaywick http://www.channel5.com/shows/benefits-by-the-sea-jaywick/episodes/episode-2-754
Mr. Pulpstar, unsurprising, it's an excellent piece.
On-topic: Trump's madder than a box of frogs.
A big reason why political consensus has been lost on this is because of the efforts of far too many academics, scientists and activists to piggyback collectivism and socialism onto the back of it.
He is quick on his feet and has command of his brief.
However, where I think his analysis goes wrong is that it is too static. Put yourself, if you can bear to, in the shoes of a leftie Labour activist. At the moment saying you'll support Corbyn, or voting for him in a CLP nomination meeting (how earnest and dire must those be?), is a free hit. Under AV, if Corbyn had no hope, it would also be a free hit to put him first, and then your serious choice second.
But in the actual contest, if it's not 100% clear that Corbyn has zero chance of getting into the final two, then it's no longer a free hit to put him first. It could turn out to be a very expensive hit indeed.
Faced with the abyss, head will, for many, overrule heart. Corbyn will still do very well, but not as well as polling - even if we had reliable polling - would tell us today.
I see no reason why others should not have to make similar choices. I recognise that life on a low income is no cakewalk and at the moment there are quite generous tax credits available from taxes I pay that do to some extent insulate many families from the impact of those same choices.
I can't.
For anyone who has 4 minutes to spare on politics a week,the information contained in Andrew's blog is the best use of time to keep up-to-date.Good information is key to any betting strategy which brings me on to Henry G. Manson's last blog.After last night's shenanigans in parliament,his advice on Corbyn with most 1st preferences must be even stronger and it is probably going to be a 2nd pref. election.The way the CLPs are adding up I suspect it could be so close to be a 3rd pref. election.
"Voters4Corbyn The 48 rebels will make it a lot easier for Corbyn to pick his Front Bench."
http://www.cityam.com/220545/after-concerns-it-veering-left-labour-danger-making-itself-utterly-unelectable
I was very surprised that @justin124 here isn't a Labour Party member. Surely a man of his passion would appear to be one to most ordinary folk. My brother is a Labour Party member and yet he never mentions politics on his very busy Facebook account. I think he's cornered the market in posting pix of dogs and secondhand furniture bargains...
I must ask him who he's voting for. I've no idea.
Betfair has 1.51 for No Safety Car (VSC doesn't count) but that's also a bit short.
Wary of a car breaking down in a stupid place, which is a credibly possibility given reliability of Honda/Renault.
Labour should be very glad that we have the EU referendum ahead.
It's the assumption that the ONLY way to tackle a problem (real or imagined) is to use a left wing solution. For example, the Greens - the "Watermelon party".
The problem with selecting the US presidency is nothing to do with lack of talent or understanding, which is available in bucket loads. It is the selection process. And, unless there is war looming, international relations never make it to the top tier of considerations for the public.
As in the UK a year ago, the US economic recovery is insipid, irregular and skewed to the affluent. Much of the middle class down have seen little financial improvement, albeit the fear of losing what one already has is retreating. This election, unless something major happens in the interim, will be about the economy, equity (though not only in the sense the Democrats mean, but also in how much government takes from the private sector) and restoring a sense of optimism to the American endeavour, of which international relations is only a tiny part.
Darting eyes fits better, as this cat is very well-trained [and, yes, it's a work of fiction
Unless of course his behaviour is a superbly calculated bluff, as he shoots to the top of everyone's attention by making deliberately ludicrous and offensive statements but then switches to be a well-informed and more moderate candidate in the debates. I doubt it.
Ladbrokes offer 4/1 that he runs as a 3rd party candidate.
http://ow.ly/PSJUJ
1) The retainability could be a lot more variable than the Sun's activity. For example, if the Sun's activity varies by 10%, while the retainability of the energy could vary from 30% to 60%.
2) The greenhouse effect model also retains the cumulative energy built up in the atmosphere, not just the extra added to it from the Sun that year.
Having a messy leadership election that lasts 4 months is a nightmare for any Party. It sets the tone for everything that follows it - and the factions dig big trenches that don't go away whomever wins. When/If Corbyn loses, his legacy and the anger of his apostles will cast a very noisy long shadow over the rest of the Parly.
I agree with @tyson that the architect of this Byzantine system needs shooting.
Rosberg 2/1 for pole also seems slightly generous, should be a 2 horse race unless it rains.
Mr. Sandpit, Williams may have a decent crack at a podium.
Also, I didn't mention it because it's not a bet/tip I'm making, but you may be interested n 50/1 for Bottas (same for Massa) to lead lap 1, based on Williams' improved performance and Hamilton's recent bad starts.
Expected to declare today apparently.
Remember also that from the next race at Spa they get rid of the automatic clutch starts, replacing them with old fashioned driver-operated analogue levers.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/539286/conspiracists-concur-climate-change-is-a-colossal-cover-up/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-the-worlds-greatest-troll/
FYI, for those who want a speculative bet, here is why I think Kasich is the dark horse. The first is by a one-time Kasich staffer, the other by a WP columnist who is a very partisan democrat:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/21/the-case-for-president-john-kasich.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/20/the_kasich-walker_debate_127433.html
Mr. JEO, indeed, 'twas the Eastern Roman Empire.
100 Billion versus 10 million LOL
-Most scientists think this, therefore you should, because they've got white jackets and stuff
-Look over there at the climate change DENIERS (bit like holocaust deniers), did we mention they're stupid?
A perfect microcosm of the AGW argument - no actual science in either peice, just creepy admonitions to follow the consensus or risk being like the weirdos. I couldn't have asked you to find better.
None of us really knows anything(*) - but it's fun talking about it.
(*) Well, Mrs D certainly tells me that I know nothing ...all the time!
PS: I forgot Scottp