I don't blame LDs for gloating. I'd gloat if I was an LD as well, given all the flack LDs have taken from Labour activists/members/MPs.
It was pretty much unrelenting. They paraded their moral superiority about not being in a coalition government with the Conservatives.
Then they abstained on social welfare. You would despair for them.
I didn't know you were an LD. I personally, didn't begrudge the LDs for entering coalition - I thought it was the right decision, all things considered.
Labour are embarrassing right now. I'm wondering whether I'll even pay the £3 to vote for in the leadership election, at this stage.
I am not a member of any party and not even UK resident but objectively the Labour-LD relationship soured so badly in 2010-15 that LDs have the right to gloat. LDs would make you despair too.
@BethRigby: Yvette campaign on times poll. Labour cant win by "shifting a narrow party further to the left or by returning to dismal days of 1980s"
This is an opportunity for Yvette: if she tacks slightly right, as the sane unifying figure who's actually vaguely electable and who isn't an obvious loser like Andy B, she could garner support from a wide spectrum of the party.
If Yvette tacks right then she could prompt the result she most fears. Suppose she does so and ends up picking up enough of Kendall's vote to finish ahead of Burnham in the second round. Burnham's next preferences then have to be split between Corbyn and Cooper, and they'd probably lean more to Corbyn than Cooper's would if Burnham finished second.
The obligations run up by the student were run up under condition A. Now that the repayment phase commences, he or she is told that actually the obligations are being treated under condition B.
The total amount that will be paid has changed after the transaction was completed. The terms under which the transaction was entered were valid as of 2012; Parliament has decreed that the 2012 transaction be treated under different terms. The service has already been consumed; the price of it is being changed subsequent to its consumption.
The repayment thresholds are currently set out in regulation 29(7)-(9) of the Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2009 SI 2009/470. Since Parliament has given the government the power to vary the repayment threshold, including for those who already have loans, the situations is all but identical to planning your affairs on the basis of a current tax rate. No one could reasonably expect that the repayment threshold would never be altered by the government in the exercise of its discretionary powers.
@BethRigby: Yvette campaign on times poll. Labour cant win by "shifting a narrow party further to the left or by returning to dismal days of 1980s"
This is an opportunity for Yvette: if she tacks slightly right, as the sane unifying figure who's actually vaguely electable and who isn't an obvious loser like Andy B, she could garner support from a wide spectrum of the party.
Well the only thing positive for Labour with a Corbyn leadership is that they might take Scotland back from the SNP, the overlap of Corbyn and the SNP's policies is almost 100%.
As for the rest of the country, time will tell.
Nope - Scotland is about identity not policy. A bearded London lefty is not going to win vote backs from the SNP.
I doubt that, the big problem in scotland is that the middle of the road is to the left of what it is in E&W. Labour were swept away in scotland because they were perceived as not left wing enough and not caring about their voters.
How do they 'just replace him'? Possibly if the whole of the front bench refuse to serve it might make his position untenable but it'd also look like incredible sour grapes.
They need 47 signatures. The Independent quoted an MP as saying that they "could do this before Christmas".
If Yvette tacks right then she could prompt the result she most fears. Suppose she does so and ends up picking up enough of Kendall's vote to finish ahead of Burnham in the second round. Burnham's next preferences then have to be split between Corbyn and Cooper, and they'd probably lean more to Corbyn than Cooper's would if Burnham finished second.
She needs to crush Burnham, or, better still, let him crush himself.
Beyond that, I don't really have any ideas other than 'I wouldn't have started from here'.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 9m9 minutes ago There will be pressure for Labour to unite around one anti-Corbyn candidate after YouGov poll showing him on course to win.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 9m9 minutes ago There will be pressure for Labour to unite around one anti-Corbyn candidate after YouGov poll showing him on course to win.
@BethRigby: Yvette campaign on times poll. Labour cant win by "shifting a narrow party further to the left or by returning to dismal days of 1980s"
This is an opportunity for Yvette: if she tacks slightly right, as the sane unifying figure who's actually vaguely electable and who isn't an obvious loser like Andy B, she could garner support from a wide spectrum of the party.
Corbyn speaks with passion and righteous anger. Yvette is a 'speak your weight' machine on mogadon.
The others need to wait to see if the surge fades like the Cleggasm in 2010 and the Faragasm in 2015. If it doesn't then the Labour suicide bomb goes off!
Ah, I see Yvette doesn't need my advice, she's already on the case, albeit with rather mangled grammar:
Party members know that to change the country, we need to deliver a Labour government. Yvette is the only candidate who can both win support across the Party but take the fight to the Tories as a credible Labour Prime Minister
(from the LabourList article just posted by ScottP)
@JournoStephen: As the slightly less unhinged wing of Labour looks for an Anyone But Corbyn candidate, I'm just going to repost this http://t.co/Rr5VCoJ914
Given the likely non-transferable votes by people who don't understand AV, Corbyn might only need 45% of first prefs to secure victory, perhaps less...
I suspect he'd still need transfers, though taken together with the non-transferables, he'd be a shoo-in on 45%. Assuming something like a 25/20/10 split for the others, it'd take a third of the Kendall / Cooper votes to be non-transferable for Corbyn to be over the line on first preferences alone, and I suspect that's a little too high, but only a little.
He'll surely get (some) transfers...
My back-of-the envelope calcs are:-
If Corbyn gets 45% of first prefs, the anti-Corbyn votes would have to be no worse than 80% transfer-efficient and Corbyn get no more than 10% of transfers (assuming 10% non-transferable), for Corbyn not to win.
At 40% Corbyn first prefs, the equivalent figures are something like 65%:25%:10%...
Other proportions are of course possible, but you get the picture.
You guys are obviously having a lot of fun here, so I feel like a bit of a killjoy. But the reality is that nobody knows anything. Neither Yougov nor anyone else can find a representative sample to do a poll. Even if they could none of the tricks pollsters use to adjust the raw data to adjust for bias in the sample can be used.
Even if it could be predicted that Jeremy Corbyn was going to win, almost nobody knows anything about him, so you cannot tell what kind of policies he will pursue or what kind of impression it will make.
Given that social democrats are being swept out of office all over Europe it is entirely possible that Corbyn is the only person who can save the Labour Party. Or he might well prove to be nowhere near as left wing as he is portrayed. Wilson and Kinnock were both supposed to be ultra lefties and yet both pushed the party to the right.
It isn't even a proven proposition that a hard left position is necessarily as repellent to the voters as the Fleet Street commentators always say. Just because they don't like left wingers doesn't mean that nobody does.
And finally, even if it is true that Corbyn will win - which we don't know, and that he does pursue a left wing agenda- which he probably wouldn't, and that being left wing automatically lose votes- which isn't proven do remember how quickly things can change in politics. Nobody in 2010 foresaw the SNP landslide in Scotland or that the Lib Dems would face a disaster so huge Wagner could get an opera out of it. Labour might be about to elect Corbyn and that might lead to them spending a long time in the wilderness. But nobody knows.
How do they 'just replace him'? Possibly if the whole of the front bench refuse to serve it might make his position untenable but it'd also look like incredible sour grapes.
They need 47 signatures. The Independent quoted an MP as saying that they "could do this before Christmas".
Even if it could be predicted that Jeremy Corbyn was going to win, almost nobody knows anything about him, so you cannot tell what kind of policies he will pursue or what kind of impression it will make..
You don't think 32 years is long enough to form a view?
Labour MPs removing a membership chosen leader right afterwards would be as bad as Tsipras doing the diametric opposite to a referendum result the following week.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 12m12 minutes ago Corbyn didn't stand to become Labour leader, he stood to influence the debate. He never anticipated winning.
Richard Blackman @blackricheuro 10m10 minutes ago @georgeeaton Perhaps he should withdraw? A bit like John Sergeant in Strictly Come Dancing.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 9m9 minutes ago There will be pressure for Labour to unite around one anti-Corbyn candidate after YouGov poll showing him on course to win.
Yes, but who will fall on their sword?
Kendall. She won't win and has already done enough to be the "told you so" candidate next time. And it would help her show she puts the party first.
Even if it could be predicted that Jeremy Corbyn was going to win, almost nobody knows anything about him, so you cannot tell what kind of policies he will pursue or what kind of impression it will make.
Do you really believe this? It seems unlikely to me. It seems like Labour members know exactly what he is like, and that is why he attracts more support than more inscrutable candidates like Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham who are ironically more undefined while being more high-profile.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 9m9 minutes ago There will be pressure for Labour to unite around one anti-Corbyn candidate after YouGov poll showing him on course to win.
Yes, but who will fall on their sword?
Kendall. She won't win and has already done enough to be the "told you so" candidate next time. And it would help her show she puts the party first.
She puts country above party - and quite rightly too. If she believes she is the answer, she must stand and fight for her vision.
I think any attempt now to force people out of the race will backfire. The membership will not take kindly to a stitch-up.
So, let's get this straight: 43% of Labour members propose, as their first choice, choosing as their candidate for Prime Minister, with the ultimate control over our nuclear deterrent, Jeremy Corbyn, the well-known CND caampaigner? He who invited the IRA into parliament two weeks after the attack on Her Majesty's government which was almost successful and which left 5 dead and several more horrendously maimed and disabled? He who classes Hamas and Hizbollah amongst his friends, and supports the Argentine claim to the Falklands? That Jeremy Corbyn? Have I got the right one? If I have, and if he does become leader, then a split of the Labour Party is inevitable.
Your logic is unimpeachable. But in the final analysis he will not be elected Labour leader. No matter how stupid the one who is elected happens to be however he/she will look like Gladstone Disraeli Churchill Atlee Wilson and Kennedy all rolled into one.
Way to go Donald Trump, really going after McCain and his role in abandoning American POWs left to rot in Vietnamese prisoner of war camps. One of the most disgraceful acts by any government or politician.
@JournoStephen: As the slightly less unhinged wing of Labour looks for an Anyone But Corbyn candidate, I'm just going to repost this http://t.co/Rr5VCoJ914
'No serious Labour member would throw in their lot with him' the article says of Corbyn, Labour must have a lot of silly members then!!
@BethRigby: Yvette campaign on times poll. Labour cant win by "shifting a narrow party further to the left or by returning to dismal days of 1980s"
This is an opportunity for Yvette: if she tacks slightly right, as the sane unifying figure who's actually vaguely electable and who isn't an obvious loser like Andy B, she could garner support from a wide spectrum of the party.
Corbyn speaks with passion and righteous anger. Yvette is a 'speak your weight' machine on mogadon.
The others need to wait to see if the surge fades like the Cleggasm in 2010 and the Faragasm in 2015. If it doesn't then the Labour suicide bomb goes off!
If Yvette tacks right then she could prompt the result she most fears. Suppose she does so and ends up picking up enough of Kendall's vote to finish ahead of Burnham in the second round. Burnham's next preferences then have to be split between Corbyn and Cooper, and they'd probably lean more to Corbyn than Cooper's would if Burnham finished second.
She needs to crush Burnham, or, better still, let him crush himself.
Beyond that, I don't really have any ideas other than 'I wouldn't have started from here'.
Burnham is now the only clear alternative to Corbyn in this poll, so it is Burnham or bust for Labour!
@BethRigby: Yvette campaign on times poll. Labour cant win by "shifting a narrow party further to the left or by returning to dismal days of 1980s"
This is an opportunity for Yvette: if she tacks slightly right, as the sane unifying figure who's actually vaguely electable and who isn't an obvious loser like Andy B, she could garner support from a wide spectrum of the party.
Corbyn speaks with passion and righteous anger. Yvette is a 'speak your weight' machine on mogadon.
The others need to wait to see if the surge fades like the Cleggasm in 2010 and the Faragasm in 2015. If it doesn't then the Labour suicide bomb goes off!
McCain was an American POW in North Vietnam. What a total saddo bozo you are. Never let a nutjob conspiracy theory go by without scratching your initials on it.
Some very interesting remarks of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs are reported in the Telegraph. In essence, Hammond is suggesting that nothing less than treaty change will be good enough, something Cameron has seemingly recognised to be impossible. It may be that this is all political chicanery. On the other hand, do we now at least have to contemplate the possibility that the Foreign Secretary may be flirting with "No"? If so, that has serious implications for the referendum.
@BethRigby: Yvette campaign on times poll. Labour cant win by "shifting a narrow party further to the left or by returning to dismal days of 1980s"
This is an opportunity for Yvette: if she tacks slightly right, as the sane unifying figure who's actually vaguely electable and who isn't an obvious loser like Andy B, she could garner support from a wide spectrum of the party.
Corbyn speaks with passion and righteous anger. Yvette is a 'speak your weight' machine on mogadon.
The others need to wait to see if the surge fades like the Cleggasm in 2010 and the Faragasm in 2015. If it doesn't then the Labour suicide bomb goes off!
Agree, we will need to see what happens
Perhaps Harman is a secret Corbyn supporter - she certainly gave his campaign a boost yesterday
McCain was an American POW in North Vietnam. What a total saddo bozo you are. Never let a nutjob conspiracy theory go by without scratching your initials on it.
The resident neo con nutjob upset. McCain (McInsane) has never stopped his history of collaboration has he, ever willing to send others to die. I can see why you see a kindred spirit.
Indeed. However thats not the way the Labour 'ticket' works is it? A 'ticket' might be Burnham - Kendall. In the same way Labour's '64 ticket was Wilson - Brown. Or Thatcher - Whitelaw. Why would Watson have any influence as deputy leader? At least any more influence than he has now. Its a non-job, apologists for Labour are saying Harman has no authority to say or do anything as deputy even now.
I don't care how transfer unfriendly a candidate is, 43% first pref is very unlikely to be overturned in AV.
Indeed, it is unlikely that a candidate who got 43% of 1st preference would be so toxic and/or his opponents so disciplined that he would get a wildly different proportion of transfers.
Merely in the ball-park would be way more than enough...
Given the likely non-transferable votes by people who don't understand AV, Corbyn might only need 45% of first prefs to secure victory, perhaps less...
I suspect he'd still need transfers, though taken together with the non-transferables, he'd be a shoo-in on 45%. Assuming something like a 25/20/10 split for the others, it'd take a third of the Kendall / Cooper votes to be non-transferable for Corbyn to be over the line on first preferences alone, and I suspect that's a little too high, but only a little.
He'll surely get (some) transfers...
My back-of-the envelope calcs are:- If Corbyn gets 45% of first prefs, the anti-Corbyn votes would have to be no worse than 80% transfer-efficient and Corbyn get no more than 10% of transfers (assuming 10% non-transferable), for Corbyn not to win. At 40% Corbyn first prefs, the equivalent figures are something like 65%:25%:10%... Other proportions are of course possible, but you get the picture.
Its good of Labour to produce this dogs breakfast of a voting system isn't it? And that's before you get to the candidates. Imagine what it would be like them running the country. Whoever wins. Seriously - can you imagine?
If Burnham is eliminated before Cooper, Corbyn does slightly better on preferences, increasing his lead according to this yougov
Those voting in the contest were also asked what qualities they thought most important in choosing the next leader. The top two were “in touch with the concerns of ordinary people” and “provides an effective opposition to the Conservatives”, both of which categories Corbyn was deemed to be the best in. Only around a quarter believed that the ability to achieve electoral success was in the top four qualities required by a leader – and Corbyn was ranked last in that. http://labourlist.org/2015/07/first-poll-of-leadership-race-gives-jeremy-corbyn-runaway-lead/
The people who comment on Labourlist are tragically deluded.
Maybe this a phase all parties have to go through following defeat, like the Tories choosing IDS as their saviour in 2001.
''Quiet man is here to stay and he's turning up the volume''.
I don't understand why party activists make such bizarre decisions.
I voted for IDS as it was him or Ken Clarke. It's not like the parliamentary party gave us much choice.
I assume it was Clarke's views on the EU that swung your vote IDS' way. Who would you have voted for in an ideal situation?
That's right, and I do not regret my vote. With the full-throated support of Ken Clarke, Blair could have overruled Brown and taken us into the Euro without a referendum.
I would have voted for either Portillo or Davis over IDS.
Daniel Finkelstein hits the nail on the head: Corbyn might mean Labour don't win, but he would atleast oppose effectively rather than abstaining on things as pernicious as cuts to the working poor:
A revival of the hard left — with a Corbyn victory or, much more likely, good showing — would make it easier for the Tories to hold power but harder to govern. As happened when Labour tacked left in the 1980s, local government became more militant and less co-operative, the unions became more aggressive, political relations became more bitter. Mrs Thatcher often won the battles — against Arthur Scargill, say — but the poison remains, still in the system years later.
The rise of the hard left encourages law breakers and demonstrators and terrorist groups seeking concessions from the government. It turns every dispute into a political rebellion against the system. In other words Tories registering to support Jeremy Corbyn are registering to make their own job harder even if they are also voting to retain power. The job of returning to fiscal balance, best done in an atmosphere of national consent, would instead became a war about attrition. In that sense, the Corbyn campaign is not as eccentric as it seems. He would make austerity harder.
In 1972, Richard Nixon crushed George McGovern. But the hatred of the angry liberal-left Democratic party that he had done his bit to create helped to do for Nixon in the end. He lived by the political sword and died by it.
Register as a Labour supporter to support a hard left candidate and you get a hard left outcome. Hilarious.
Given the likely non-transferable votes by people who don't understand AV, Corbyn might only need 45% of first prefs to secure victory, perhaps less...
I suspect he'd still need transfers, though taken together with the non-transferables, he'd be a shoo-in on 45%. Assuming something like a 25/20/10 split for the others, it'd take a third of the Kendall / Cooper votes to be non-transferable for Corbyn to be over the line on first preferences alone, and I suspect that's a little too high, but only a little.
He'll surely get (some) transfers...
My back-of-the envelope calcs are:- If Corbyn gets 45% of first prefs, the anti-Corbyn votes would have to be no worse than 80% transfer-efficient and Corbyn get no more than 10% of transfers (assuming 10% non-transferable), for Corbyn not to win. At 40% Corbyn first prefs, the equivalent figures are something like 65%:25%:10%... Other proportions are of course possible, but you get the picture.
Its good of Labour to produce this dogs breakfast of a voting system isn't it? And that's before you get to the candidates. Imagine what it would be like them running the country. Whoever wins. Seriously - can you imagine?
Ed Miliband not withstanding, AV has time and again been demonstrated as the best system for electing a single-winner.
It ticks the most boxes and has the fewest drawbacks of all the (necessarily) imperfect systems available.
McCain was an American POW in North Vietnam. What a total saddo bozo you are. Never let a nutjob conspiracy theory go by without scratching your initials on it.
The resident neo con nutjob upset. McCain (McInsane) has never stopped his history of collaboration has he, ever willing to send others to die. I can see why you see a kindred spirit.
You are a crude ignorant nutjob of the highest order.
@BethRigby: Yvette campaign on times poll. Labour cant win by "shifting a narrow party further to the left or by returning to dismal days of 1980s"
This is an opportunity for Yvette: if she tacks slightly right, as the sane unifying figure who's actually vaguely electable and who isn't an obvious loser like Andy B, she could garner support from a wide spectrum of the party.
Corbyn speaks with passion and righteous anger. Yvette is a 'speak your weight' machine on mogadon.
The others need to wait to see if the surge fades like the Cleggasm in 2010 and the Faragasm in 2015. If it doesn't then the Labour suicide bomb goes off!
Agree, we will need to see what happens
Perhaps Harman is a secret Corbyn supporter - she certainly gave his campaign a boost yesterday
Indeed, but she also was listening to floating voters
Indeed. However thats not the way the Labour 'ticket' works is it? A 'ticket' might be Burnham - Kendall. In the same way Labour's '64 ticket was Wilson - Brown. Or Thatcher - Whitelaw. Why would Watson have any influence as deputy leader? At least any more influence than he has now. Its a non-job, apologists for Labour are saying Harman has no authority to say or do anything as deputy even now.
It isn't a ticket in terms of people voting in the leadership races. However if these two individuals were elected, the message that sends to the electorate is a very much one that will provoke comment/conjecture (and in some quarters, blind panic)
@BethRigby: Yvette campaign on times poll. Labour cant win by "shifting a narrow party further to the left or by returning to dismal days of 1980s"
This is an opportunity for Yvette: if she tacks slightly right, as the sane unifying figure who's actually vaguely electable and who isn't an obvious loser like Andy B, she could garner support from a wide spectrum of the party.
Corbyn speaks with passion and righteous anger. Yvette is a 'speak your weight' machine on mogadon.
The others need to wait to see if the surge fades like the Cleggasm in 2010 and the Faragasm in 2015. If it doesn't then the Labour suicide bomb goes off!
Agree, we will need to see what happens
Perhaps Harman is a secret Corbyn supporter - she certainly gave his campaign a boost yesterday
Indeed, but she also was listening to floating voters
She may have been listening - but the end result was so confused and confusing as to do more harm than good.
Some very interesting remarks of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs are reported in the Telegraph. In essence, Hammond is suggesting that nothing less than treaty change will be good enough, something Cameron has seemingly recognised to be impossible. It may be that this is all political chicanery. On the other hand, do we now at least have to contemplate the possibility that the Foreign Secretary may be flirting with "No"? If so, that has serious implications for the referendum.
Well, he's right, isn't he? No use ducking facts when they've been made as plain as that.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 12m12 minutes ago Corbyn didn't stand to become Labour leader, he stood to influence the debate. He never anticipated winning. Richard Blackman @blackricheuro 10m10 minutes ago @georgeeaton Perhaps he should withdraw? A bit like John Sergeant in Strictly Come Dancing.
And he hasn't won yet and probably won't. I'm happy enough with the mess Burnham and/or Cooper will make of Labour. And on top of that any notion that Labour can reform themselves, never mind our economy is clearly shot to pieces without Corbyn even actually leading them.
@BethRigby: Yvette campaign on times poll. Labour cant win by "shifting a narrow party further to the left or by returning to dismal days of 1980s"
This is an opportunity for Yvette: if she tacks slightly right, as the sane unifying figure who's actually vaguely electable and who isn't an obvious loser like Andy B, she could garner support from a wide spectrum of the party.
Corbyn speaks with passion and righteous anger. Yvette is a 'speak your weight' machine on mogadon.
The others need to wait to see if the surge fades like the Cleggasm in 2010 and the Faragasm in 2015. If it doesn't then the Labour suicide bomb goes off!
Agree, we will need to see what happens
Perhaps Harman is a secret Corbyn supporter - she certainly gave his campaign a boost yesterday
Indeed, but she also was listening to floating voters
She may have been listening - but the end result was so confused and confusing as to do more harm than good.
She had to find a balance between Labour activists and voters views and floating voters views
@BethRigby: Yvette campaign on times poll. Labour cant win by "shifting a narrow party further to the left or by returning to dismal days of 1980s"
This is an opportunity for Yvette: if she tacks slightly right, as the sane unifying figure who's actually vaguely electable and who isn't an obvious loser like Andy B, she could garner support from a wide spectrum of the party.
Corbyn speaks with passion and righteous anger. Yvette is a 'speak your weight' machine on mogadon.
The others need to wait to see if the surge fades like the Cleggasm in 2010 and the Faragasm in 2015. If it doesn't then the Labour suicide bomb goes off!
Agree, we will need to see what happens
Perhaps Harman is a secret Corbyn supporter - she certainly gave his campaign a boost yesterday
Indeed, but she also was listening to floating voters
She may have been listening - but the end result was so confused and confusing as to do more harm than good.
She had to find a balance between Labour activists and voters views and floating voters views
The only way to stop Corbyn may be for either Burnham or Cooper to stand down in favour of the other. The problem is they're pretty close to each other in most of the polls so it isn't clear which one should stand aside.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 12m12 minutes ago Corbyn didn't stand to become Labour leader, he stood to influence the debate. He never anticipated winning. Richard Blackman @blackricheuro 10m10 minutes ago @georgeeaton Perhaps he should withdraw? A bit like John Sergeant in Strictly Come Dancing.
And he hasn't won yet and probably won't. I'm happy enough with the mess Burnham and/or Cooper will make of Labour. And on top of that any notion that Labour can reform themselves, never mind our economy is clearly shot to pieces without Corbyn even actually leading them.
Provided Corbyn does not win I think Labour have a chance, if he does win they have next to no chance, whoever comes second makes little difference
Daniel Finkelstein hits the nail on the head: Corbyn might mean Labour don't win, but he would atleast oppose effectively rather than abstaining on things as pernicious as cuts to the working poor:
A revival of the hard left — with a Corbyn victory or, much more likely, good showing — would make it easier for the Tories to hold power but harder to govern. As happened when Labour tacked left in the 1980s, local government became more militant and less co-operative, the unions became more aggressive, political relations became more bitter. Mrs Thatcher often won the battles — against Arthur Scargill, say — but the poison remains, still in the system years later.
The rise of the hard left encourages law breakers and demonstrators and terrorist groups seeking concessions from the government. It turns every dispute into a political rebellion against the system. In other words Tories registering to support Jeremy Corbyn are registering to make their own job harder even if they are also voting to retain power. The job of returning to fiscal balance, best done in an atmosphere of national consent, would instead became a war about attrition. In that sense, the Corbyn campaign is not as eccentric as it seems. He would make austerity harder.
In 1972, Richard Nixon crushed George McGovern. But the hatred of the angry liberal-left Democratic party that he had done his bit to create helped to do for Nixon in the end. He lived by the political sword and died by it.
Register as a Labour supporter to support a hard left candidate and you get a hard left outcome. Hilarious.
Indeed, Corbyn will revive the hard left in the unions, the public sector and universities and rally them to war with the government in a way Ed Miliband could not, even if the Government would likely win it will not be pretty!
The only way to stop Corbyn may be for either Burnham or Cooper to stand down in favour of the other. The problem is they're pretty close to each other in most of the polls so it isn't clear which one should stand aside.
The beauty of AV of course is that it is reputedly immune to strategic nomination or withdrawal...
As long as Corbyn remains in pole position, it should make (almost) no difference.
@JEO Do you think Portillo or Davis could have beaten Blair in 2005?
@Danny565 From what I've read Finkelstein and Osborne are quite good friends, so that's an interesting take from him.
Blair would have won in 2005 with a smaller majority, though had IDS remained his majority may have been nearer 100 than the 66 seats he got.
However, in 2020 Cameron will not be leading the Tories and it will be 10 years into the government not 8, so Labour should actually have a better chance of picking the next PM in 2015 than the Tories did in 2001. Yet they may well pick IDS on steroids anyway!
Well, he's right, isn't he? No use ducking facts when they've been made as plain as that.
Hammond is right, but, presumably, if he means what he says, he would have to campaign for "No" if, as seems likely, Cameron returns with some vague and unenforceable promise of reform from the European Council.
The people who comment on Labourlist are tragically deluded.
Maybe this a phase all parties have to go through following defeat, like the Tories choosing IDS as their saviour in 2001.
''Quiet man is here to stay and he's turning up the volume''.
I don't understand why party activists make such bizarre decisions.
I voted for IDS as it was him or Ken Clarke. It's not like the parliamentary party gave us much choice.
I assume it was Clarke's views on the EU that swung your vote IDS' way. Who would you have voted for in an ideal situation?
That's right, and I do not regret my vote. With the full-throated support of Ken Clarke, Blair could have overruled Brown and taken us into the Euro without a referendum.
I would have voted for either Portillo or Davis over IDS.
Comrades!
Don't forget - IDS has the distinction of being the only Tory leader during the Tony Blair years not to lose a GE!
If Corbyn does win there must be an outside chance of UKIP taking second place in the polls in the run-up to and following EU ref
There's this assumption that every country needs a right-wing party and a left-wing party as the big two, but countries like Ireland shows that is not necessarily the case.
And the US...
This might be the chance some people hoped for when Brown was elected for a realignment of the parties to the Tories and the LibDems as the principal parties: both economically rational, but with different priorities.
Comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-considered-the-contender-most-likely-to-improve-partys-general-election-chances-10340208.html
Beyond that, I don't really have any ideas other than 'I wouldn't have started from here'.
There will be pressure for Labour to unite around one anti-Corbyn candidate after YouGov poll showing him on course to win.
The others need to wait to see if the surge fades like the Cleggasm in 2010 and the Faragasm in 2015. If it doesn't then the Labour suicide bomb goes off!
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/21/john-kasich-presidential-announcement.html
Party members know that to change the country, we need to deliver a Labour government. Yvette is the only candidate who can both win support across the Party but take the fight to the Tories as a credible Labour Prime Minister
(from the LabourList article just posted by ScottP)
Come in Nick P - your party needs you.
My back-of-the envelope calcs are:-
If Corbyn gets 45% of first prefs, the anti-Corbyn votes would have to be no worse than 80% transfer-efficient and Corbyn get no more than 10% of transfers (assuming 10% non-transferable), for Corbyn not to win.
At 40% Corbyn first prefs, the equivalent figures are something like 65%:25%:10%...
Other proportions are of course possible, but you get the picture.
Even if it could be predicted that Jeremy Corbyn was going to win, almost nobody knows anything about him, so you cannot tell what kind of policies he will pursue or what kind of impression it will make.
Given that social democrats are being swept out of office all over Europe it is entirely possible that Corbyn is the only person who can save the Labour Party. Or he might well prove to be nowhere near as left wing as he is portrayed. Wilson and Kinnock were both supposed to be ultra lefties and yet both pushed the party to the right.
It isn't even a proven proposition that a hard left position is necessarily as repellent to the voters as the Fleet Street commentators always say. Just because they don't like left wingers doesn't mean that nobody does.
And finally, even if it is true that Corbyn will win - which we don't know, and that he does pursue a left wing agenda- which he probably wouldn't, and that being left wing automatically lose votes- which isn't proven do remember how quickly things can change in politics. Nobody in 2010 foresaw the SNP landslide in Scotland or that the Lib Dems would face a disaster so huge Wagner could get an opera out of it. Labour might be about to elect Corbyn and that might lead to them spending a long time in the wilderness. But nobody knows.
@RupertMyers: Basically AV is terrible.
Follow the advice of one of your former leaders, Hugh Gaitskell, who said, "fight, fight and fight again to save the party we love".
Hopefully is poll is either wrong, or some people come to their senses within a month or so.
He might just win it on the first ballot.
I don't understand why party activists make such bizarre decisions.
Corbyn didn't stand to become Labour leader, he stood to influence the debate. He never anticipated winning.
Richard Blackman @blackricheuro 10m10 minutes ago
@georgeeaton Perhaps he should withdraw? A bit like John Sergeant in Strictly Come Dancing.
I'll report back when I have something...
I think any attempt now to force people out of the race will backfire. The membership will not take kindly to a stitch-up.
PS - I see we are all believing the polls again.
Tweeted.
https://youtu.be/vFM1xqqTX_g
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/mccain-and-the-pow-cover-up/
What a total saddo bozo you are. Never let a nutjob conspiracy theory go by without scratching your initials on it.
A 'ticket' might be Burnham - Kendall. In the same way Labour's '64 ticket was Wilson - Brown. Or Thatcher - Whitelaw. Why would Watson have any influence as deputy leader? At least any more influence than he has now. Its a non-job, apologists for Labour are saying Harman has no authority to say or do anything as deputy even now.
Merely in the ball-park would be way more than enough...
Those voting in the contest were also asked what qualities they thought most important in choosing the next leader. The top two were “in touch with the concerns of ordinary people” and “provides an effective opposition to the Conservatives”, both of which categories Corbyn was deemed to be the best in. Only around a quarter believed that the ability to achieve electoral success was in the top four qualities required by a leader – and Corbyn was ranked last in that.
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/first-poll-of-leadership-race-gives-jeremy-corbyn-runaway-lead/
I would have voted for either Portillo or Davis over IDS.
What a dreadful and woefully inadequate road (along with the M6 and M42).
So the EdStone will be delaying people for years to come. What an appropriate fate.
It ticks the most boxes and has the fewest drawbacks of all the (necessarily) imperfect systems available.
@Danny565 From what I've read Finkelstein and Osborne are quite good friends, so that's an interesting take from him.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb
Do you know who actually might help put Corbynmania back in its box? Gordon Brown.
Indeed, Corbyn will revive the hard left in the unions, the public sector and universities and rally them to war with the government in a way Ed Miliband could not, even if the Government would likely win it will not be pretty!
As long as Corbyn remains in pole position, it should make (almost) no difference.
However, in 2020 Cameron will not be leading the Tories and it will be 10 years into the government not 8, so Labour should actually have a better chance of picking the next PM in 2015 than the Tories did in 2001. Yet they may well pick IDS on steroids anyway!
Vote HUM∀N
Don't forget - IDS has the distinction of being the only Tory leader during the Tony Blair years not to lose a GE!
This might be the chance some people hoped for when Brown was elected for a realignment of the parties to the Tories and the LibDems as the principal parties: both economically rational, but with different priorities.