Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov poll finds Corbyn beating Burnham
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov poll finds Corbyn beating Burnham
Bloody hell. Corbyn winning the Labour leadership according to a YouGov poll via @SamCoatesTimes pic.twitter.com/XZWdWyvwy1
0
Comments
I'm slightly surprised that Yvette Cooper doesn't overtake Andy Burnham on second preferences when Liz Kendall is eliminated.
I have just had a vision of Laurel and Hardy trying to get a piano to the top of a very long flight of steps.
To be fair, Corbyn is the only Labour potential leader with a real vision for the party.
I mean it's a crazy, ruin-the-country, vision. But it is a vision.
"LABOUR members are divided on how best to lock the party out of power for a generation, it has emerged.
While many activists hope to accelerate irrelevance by supporting every part of the Conservative manifesto, others are urging the party to embrace an eccentric, unelectable zealot to ensure a rapid and total political meltdown."
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/labour-split-on-how-to-self-destruct-20150714100103
Granted, there wasn't exactly a huge raft of talent to choose from.... but Corbyn? Really?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJwuHJyxkp0
So - a Lib Dem recovery becomes less of a loopy idea ...
FPT: And your reaction was absolutely merited. It would be unfair and disgraceful to retrospectively change the conditions.
As it is for those affected by this. It's disgraceful, and definitely worse than the Lib Dems betrayal of students (albeit with less added sanctimony
And, incidentally, surely creates a precedent to allow the government to actually implement that sort of suggestion.
If it were 11-20-26 among the sane candidates, Cooper would need a 55 percentage point lead (i.e. 6 / 11) in transfers to overtake Burnham despite being less popular on first preference votes.
Shadow home Sec?
Shadow chancellor?
Any betting markets up on this yet....? *bites down on knuckles *
You are conflating changes to existing rights and obligations which have prospective effect, with changes with true retrospective effect (see Wilson v First County Trust (No. 2) [2004] 1 AC 816, 876-879 (HL) per Lord Roger of Earlsferry). Since you have accepted that the new system of "student loans" is in reality a form of graduate taxation, I venture to quote the following:
https://youtu.be/qVFUgYfLhZI
IF yougov is accurate then Corbyn was only 7% away from the finish line BEFORE the Welfare Bill mess yesterday in which Corbyn was the only benefactor.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/623601546866094084
After everyone's gone home.
Well that finishes it.
Good profits no matter what from here on in.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/623606024512122880
If it were the Tory party, perhaps. But then IDS lasted 2 years too.
I mean, four hours before that exit poll came out I was backing a hung parliament on Betfair at 1.04.
IF yougov is accurate and after yesterdays Welfare Bill mess which Corbyn was the big winner and Burnham the big loser, then Corbyn would probably win the leadership on first preferences alone.
Second preferences would no longer be needed if a candidate gets more than 50% of first preferences and Corbyn was only 7% away before the Welfare Bill.
Whilst tax laws can be made in future to reference all of this, precedent from tax law is, at this time, not valid.
It would be as if stamp duty was changed and made retrospective to all transactions made since 2012. Or if a change to income tax levels was then made retrospective to all incomes since, say, 2010.
In another sense, the precedent cited is irrelevant as, due to Constitutional Convention, no Parliament may bind its successor and all legislation may change. Accordingly, the final sentence may accurately be changed to reflect law outside of tax legislation as: "A citizen may plan his affairs in reliance on the laws remaining the same; he takes the risk that the legislation may be changed", which is completely accurate and completely unhelpful (and thus would fairly belong in a computer help manual).
The system is advertised as having certain costs to the graduate. The Government have not chosen to publish it as a taxation system (incorrectly, in my view) but as a loan. Accordingly, if those costs to the graduate change after they have accepted the deal and after they can change their minds, they are unfair. In short, the terms and conditions of a loan (for as such it is publicised, and as such it is accepted) have changed by the unilateral decision of the lender (who has decided that the borrower should start repaying from a lower level) and without any recompense of action by the borrower, and in a scenario where the borrower was previously assured by an entity who could not be overruled that such would not happen.
Happy days.
I don't buy it, and think it's insane, but some do.
I mean toxic in relation to leadership election. Then again, Blair post 2003 isn't a liked leader in the country as whole in general. Not that you'd know, the way *some* Tories talking about him....
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/623607664891834369
Corbyn is much closer to that than the other 3 who look and sound robotic, if they speak at all.
Besides which he might actually be popular with the party in the first few months.
Btw, what's with the paramilitary profile pic?!
How can he stand down if he does win? Sudden ill health? It still leaves a massive shadow over the whole Party that they collectively chose him.
Even if that exposes deep rifts between the members, IMHO it's better to get such rifts out in the open rather than having them simmering under the surface. In the long run Labour will benefit from lancing such a boil.
And Mr Corbyn might be far more effective than many are expecting.
To be fair, if you were trying to avoid another Iraq war, you might praise that kind of conscientiousness over repeating-Blair-and-winning among Labour members, but it's very self-sacrificial of them.
@SouthamObserver What kind of shake-up do think a Corbyn leadership will result in?