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.
AV - a system rejected by the British people 68% to 32% in 2011.
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.
In US terms the Democrats are still centre left (eg it also contains Bernie Sanders and Jesse Jackson), a better comparison would be the Tea Party being the GOP's main rival. Farron has now already started shifting the LDs left
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!
He was ousted after the Tories came third in the Brent by-election, he was not exactly storming ahead in the polls to victory, that was why he was ousted
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.
Ireland's two biggest parties in their most recent GE (2011) were:
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!
He was ousted after the Tories came third in the Brent by-election, he was not exactly storming ahead in the polls to victory, that was why he was ousted
And yet it was Howard who lost the subsequent GE as leader!
@Andy_Cooke I am taking issue with your claim that the change is retrospective. It is not. A true retrospective change would be in year X to increase the fees that had been charged in years X-1, X-2, and X-3. As far as I can understand, this is simply a change to the terms on which the student must repay the agreed sum. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is not retrospective. The comparison with tax law is inexact, but the comparison with a bilateral contract for debt doesn't work either, since a student does not owe a debt in the ordinary sense of the term; his obligations are regulated principally by public, not private law.
Let us, however, assume that the comparison with an ordinary contract for debt is apt. Consider the following two examples. (1) Parliament in 2000 chooses to declare void all future and subsisting terms of contracts of a particular character. (2) Parliament in 2000 declares that such terms were void as of 1 January 1990. The second change is genuinely retrospective. The first simply alters existing rights with prospective effect. An individual may plan his affairs on the basis that the general law governing the validity of contracts will stay the same, but he must always be prepared to accept that that that law may change.
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.
Is the absolute amount payable being increased? If not then it's purely a timing issue rather than anything else.
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.
AV - a system rejected by the British people 68% to 32% in 2011.
...for electing a Parliament, probably the sensible decision.
But for electing (only) a single-winner, all other systems are inferior to AV.
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.
AV - a system rejected by the British people 68% to 32% in 2011.
...for electing a Parliament, probably the sensible decision.
But for electing (only) a single-winner, all other systems are inferior to AV.
The Tories' Exhaustive Ballot system has the advantage of electors being able to see what the field is like after casting their first vote.
On another topic, that of which movies / TV shows are worth watching, I can report that "Vacuuming Completely Nude in Paradise" - a BBC TV movie, is absolutely awful.
Which part of the title made you think it was going to be good?
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.
AV - a system rejected by the British people 68% to 32% in 2011.
...for electing a Parliament, probably the sensible decision.
But for electing (only) a single-winner, all other systems are inferior to AV.
The Tories' Exhaustive Ballot system has the advantage of electors being able to see what the field is like after casting their first vote.
"Advantage" to those game-theorists who theorize their games won't blow-up in their faces... See IDS 2001-2003.
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.
AV - a system rejected by the British people 68% to 32% in 2011.
...for electing a Parliament, probably the sensible decision.
But for electing (only) a single-winner, all other systems are inferior to AV.
The Tories' Exhaustive Ballot system has the advantage of electors being able to see what the field is like after casting their first vote.
"Advantage" to those game-theorists who theorize their games won't blow-up in their faces... See IDS 2001-2003.
That was the Ed Miliband equivalent. Still, I repeat: IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader...
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!
He was ousted after the Tories came third in the Brent by-election, he was not exactly storming ahead in the polls to victory, that was why he was ousted
And yet it was Howard who lost the subsequent GE as leader!
Howard still cut 100 seats off the Labour majority, like Kinnock he did much of the hardwork Cameron and Blair finished off
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!
He was ousted after the Tories came third in the Brent by-election, he was not exactly storming ahead in the polls to victory, that was why he was ousted
And yet it was Howard who lost the subsequent GE as leader!
Howard still cut 100 seats off the Labour majority, like Kinnock he did much of the hardwork Cameron and Blair finished off
Whereas Hague hardly did anything for the Tories in 2001 - one measly gain overall!
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.
AV - a system rejected by the British people 68% to 32% in 2011.
...for electing a Parliament, probably the sensible decision.
But for electing (only) a single-winner, all other systems are inferior to AV.
The Tories' Exhaustive Ballot system has the advantage of electors being able to see what the field is like after casting their first vote.
"Advantage" to those game-theorists who theorize their games won't blow-up in their faces... See IDS 2001-2003.
That was the Ed Miliband equivalent. Still, I repeat: IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader...
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!
He was ousted after the Tories came third in the Brent by-election, he was not exactly storming ahead in the polls to victory, that was why he was ousted
And yet it was Howard who lost the subsequent GE as leader!
Howard still cut 100 seats off the Labour majority, like Kinnock he did much of the hardwork Cameron and Blair finished off
Whereas Hague hardly did anything for the Tories in 2001 - one measly gain overall!
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!
He was ousted after the Tories came third in the Brent by-election, he was not exactly storming ahead in the polls to victory, that was why he was ousted
And yet it was Howard who lost the subsequent GE as leader!
Howard still cut 100 seats off the Labour majority, like Kinnock he did much of the hardwork Cameron and Blair finished off
Whereas Hague hardly did anything for the Tories in 2001 - one measly gain overall!
Net. There were about half-a-dozen gains from Lab, offset by losses to the LDs. Just sayin'...
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!
He was ousted after the Tories came third in the Brent by-election, he was not exactly storming ahead in the polls to victory, that was why he was ousted
And yet it was Howard who lost the subsequent GE as leader!
Howard still cut 100 seats off the Labour majority, like Kinnock he did much of the hardwork Cameron and Blair finished off
Whereas Hague hardly did anything for the Tories in 2001 - one measly gain overall!
Net. There were about half-a-dozen gains from Lab, offset by losses to the LDs. Just sayin'...
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".
They should find 47 signatures easily tbh.
It would effectively be a palace coup, though, for the MPs to overturn the votes of the members in short order. And then not to nominate Corbyn to standard again
Excellent news regarding national insurance. Perhaps the combined tax rates will be slightly lower for those claiming their pension but still in work to compensate for the fact they currently do not pay NI.
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.
From time to time governments do difficult and unpleasant things. If the article is right that Vietnam was demanding ransoms for the release of PoWs then it is longstanding American policy - for very good reasons - not to cooperate.
I can quite understand why they would not want that to become public because it would just create pressure to bow to the Vietnamese.
It is a tragedy for the men concerned, and for their families, but that is the nature of the risk they took in serving their country in a time of war.
Do you think Trump was right to give out Sen. Graham's private cell phone number to hundreds of his supporters?
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.
In US terms the Democrats are still centre left (eg it also contains Bernie Sanders and Jesse Jackson), a better comparison would be the Tea Party being the GOP's main rival. Farron has now already started shifting the LDs left
Is US terms, yes, they are centre left.
But I'm talking about shifting the Overton window in the UK to be more aligned to where it is in the States.
Not sure which is more amusing, the YouGov opinion poll showing Corbyn leads by quite some margin, or Yvette Cooper’s claim that the poll does not match their internal forecasts.
Wonder if Ma Beckett is still singing ‘Non, je ne regrette rien’ ?
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 Fink misses a crucial point. In the 80s, the hard left thought they could win a general election. It wasn't until Militant were kicked out that Labour became a party of Government again.
If Corbyn wins the leadership, i expect those Labour MPs who still have an aspiration to actually be in power again in their lifetimes would split and form the SDPv2
I don't care how transfer unfriendly a candidate is, 43% first pref is very unlikely to be overturned in AV.
I wonder whether in a small field of four, there is less inclination to actually use the second preference than in a field of say 10? Or conversely, it is more likely who the winner will be if not your guy - so a polarising potential winner creates an "anyone but X" mindset to use that second preference? Anyone know of any studies on this?
@Andy_Cooke I am taking issue with your claim that the change is retrospective. It is not. A true retrospective change would be in year X to increase the fees that had been charged in years X-1, X-2, and X-3. As far as I can understand, this is simply a change to the terms on which the student must repay the agreed sum. It may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it is not retrospective. The comparison with tax law is inexact, but the comparison with a bilateral contract for debt doesn't work either, since a student does not owe a debt in the ordinary sense of the term; his obligations are regulated principally by public, not private law.
Let us, however, assume that the comparison with an ordinary contract for debt is apt. Consider the following two examples. (1) Parliament in 2000 chooses to declare void all future and subsisting terms of contracts of a particular character. (2) Parliament in 2000 declares that such terms were void as of 1 January 1990. The second change is genuinely retrospective. The first simply alters existing rights with prospective effect. An individual may plan his affairs on the basis that the general law governing the validity of contracts will stay the same, but he must always be prepared to accept that that that law may change.
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.
Is the absolute amount payable being increased? If not then it's purely a timing issue rather than anything else.
For all but the richest 90% of graduates, yes (as only the richest 10% will ever reach the monetary cap prior to the temporal cap). To the tune of an average of 6k.
Sky's Deputy Political Editor Joey Jones said: "The idea was he (Corbyn) would broaden the debate and you could have all different sections of Labour Party opinion represented.
"A lot of the people, the MPs who allowed him to enter … don’t agree with him. What must they now be thinking that Jeremy Corbyn is not just out in front but way out in front?" Jones added: "It’s an extraordinary situation the Labour Party finds itself in. This poll will send absolute convulsions through the party. "When they look at who is the most rebellious MP, Jeremy Corbyn has won that on the Labour side three parliaments running. Yet he might be the leader in a few weeks’ time. It’s a complete mess that the Labour Party finds themselves in at the moment. It’s not head-scratching time but panic time."
BBC news ......
tumbleweed NHS more money needed... Tumbleweed... NHS, NHS NHS......more tumbleweed
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.
Me too. I would have voted Portillo, but the membership were left with an impossible choice. Ken Clarke's campaign material was also poor, whilst IDS did have some interesting ideas. I don't regret my choice.
Incidentally, Ken Clarke's wife - Gillian - passed away last week at the age of 74, which I found quite sad.
Morning. Is it allowed just to say Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I haven't laughed so much since I saw the exit poll at the last GE.
Mind you as someone pointed out up thread. We seem to be believing in pollsters again ...... Mmmm.
But this poll is likely to convince even more Tories that it is worth the £3 to have a bit of a laugh... It would be like Labour voters signing up to make Teresa Gorman the Tory leader. If they are dumb enough to allow it....
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 Fink misses a crucial point. In the 80s, the hard left thought they could win a general election. It wasn't until Militant were kicked out that Labour became a party of Government again.
If Corbyn wins the leadership, i expect those Labour MPs who still have an aspiration to actually be in power again in their lifetimes would split and form the SDPv2
But they are unlikely to form an alliance with Farron's LDs and under FPTP it would likely get nowhere, especially as such a Party would effectively be Cameron lite
If Corbyn wins it will accelerate the realignment on the left that has been needed in the UK for a number of years now. So while it will clearly be very bad news in the short to medium term for Labour, it may well be much better news for the centre left generally further down the line. His victory will do two things: - It will kill off the remaining ministerial flotsam of the Blair/Brown years. - It will demonstrate that a far left prospectus cannot deliver power.
Both are very necessary. And there is a chance that it could all happen pretty swiftly. As soon as Corbyn wins, it the careers of Burnham, Cooper and other ex-ministers come to an end. Then Corbyn-led Labour will be smashed in Scotland next year by the SNP, could see severe setbacks in Wales and is likely to be hammered in the English local elections. Where then the argument that the only reason Labour gets beaten is because it is too right wing?
I think Dan Jarvis is now more than likely to be leading Labour in 2020. But if I am wrong and it is Jezza, Labour will be replaced as the main party on the centre left in the 2025 election.
Sky's Deputy Political Editor Joey Jones said: "The idea was he (Corbyn) would broaden the debate and you could have all different sections of Labour Party opinion represented.
"A lot of the people, the MPs who allowed him to enter … don’t agree with him. What must they now be thinking that Jeremy Corbyn is not just out in front but way out in front?" Jones added: "It’s an extraordinary situation the Labour Party finds itself in. This poll will send absolute convulsions through the party. "When they look at who is the most rebellious MP, Jeremy Corbyn has won that on the Labour side three parliaments running. Yet he might be the leader in a few weeks’ time. It’s a complete mess that the Labour Party finds themselves in at the moment. It’s not head-scratching time but panic time."
BBC news ......
tumbleweed NHS more money needed... Tumbleweed... NHS, NHS NHS......more tumbleweed
IDS too first rose to prominence as a rebel over Maastricht
If Corbyn wins it will accelerate the realignment on the left that has been needed in the UK for a number of years now. So while it will clearly be very bad news in the short to medium term for Labour, it may well be much better news for the centre left generally further down the line. His victory will do two things: - It will kill off the remaining ministerial flotsam of the Blair/Brown years. - It will demonstrate that a far left prospectus cannot deliver power.
Both are very necessary. And there is a chance that it could all happen pretty swiftly. As soon as Corbyn wins, it the careers of Burnham, Cooper and other ex-ministers come to an end. Then Corbyn-led Labour will be smashed in Scotland next year by the SNP, could see severe setbacks in Wales and is likely to be hammered in the English local elections. Where then the argument that the only reason Labour gets beaten is because it is too right wing?
I think Dan Jarvis is now more than likely to be leading Labour in 2020. But if I am wrong and it is Jezza, Labour will be replaced as the main party on the centre left in the 2025 election.
A very similar assessment to my own, SO. My only divergence is on Dan Jarvis. Yet to hear if he would be in the running by then - and even if he is, would he fare any better than Liz Kendall has this time around?
If Corbyn wins it will accelerate the realignment on the left that has been needed in the UK for a number of years now. So while it will clearly be very bad news in the short to medium term for Labour, it may well be much better news for the centre left generally further down the line. His victory will do two things: - It will kill off the remaining ministerial flotsam of the Blair/Brown years. - It will demonstrate that a far left prospectus cannot deliver power.
Both are very necessary. And there is a chance that it could all happen pretty swiftly. As soon as Corbyn wins, it the careers of Burnham, Cooper and other ex-ministers come to an end. Then Corbyn-led Labour will be smashed in Scotland next year by the SNP, could see severe setbacks in Wales and is likely to be hammered in the English local elections. Where then the argument that the only reason Labour gets beaten is because it is too right wing?
I think Dan Jarvis is now more than likely to be leading Labour in 2020. But if I am wrong and it is Jezza, Labour will be replaced as the main party on the centre left in the 2025 election.
A very similar assessment to my own, SO. My only divergence is on Dan Jarvis. Yet to hear if he would be in the running by then - and even if he is, would he fare any better than Liz Kendall has this time around?
Corbyn had double the popularity in Scotland he did in the rest of the UK with yougov, the SNP will find him more of a problem than the Tories. However, whether Farron's LDs have a chance of becoming the main centre left party is debateable. If Jarvis were to take over in 2017/18 a la Howard it would be by acclamation
If Corbyn wins it will accelerate the realignment on the left that has been needed in the UK for a number of years now. So while it will clearly be very bad news in the short to medium term for Labour, it may well be much better news for the centre left generally further down the line. His victory will do two things: - It will kill off the remaining ministerial flotsam of the Blair/Brown years. - It will demonstrate that a far left prospectus cannot deliver power.
Both are very necessary. And there is a chance that it could all happen pretty swiftly. As soon as Corbyn wins, it the careers of Burnham, Cooper and other ex-ministers come to an end. Then Corbyn-led Labour will be smashed in Scotland next year by the SNP, could see severe setbacks in Wales and is likely to be hammered in the English local elections. Where then the argument that the only reason Labour gets beaten is because it is too right wing?
I think Dan Jarvis is now more than likely to be leading Labour in 2020. But if I am wrong and it is Jezza, Labour will be replaced as the main party on the centre left in the 2025 election.
A very similar assessment to my own, SO. My only divergence is on Dan Jarvis. Yet to hear if he would be in the running by then - and even if he is, would he fare any better than Liz Kendall has this time around?
I think a good deal of Corbyn's vote - assuming this YG poll is correct - is more a comment on the insipidness of his rivals than an endorsement of hard left policies. The reality of a Corbyn leadership will smack a fair few of those who vote for him sharply across the face. Kendall has run a poor campaign - the right ideas, but very poorly expressed. Jarvis was not ready this year for perfectly good reasons. Two years on and with Labour on the ropes he may well change his mind. If he does, he will walk it.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, is considering historic plans to merge Income Tax with National Insurance
Bloody Hell George!
He's certainly getting on with stuff at No.11, that is for sure. There's a whole load of anomalies to work out with NI and IT (that's Information Technology as well as Income Tax) and the rules about calculation time periods and refundability are different, as well as different arrangements for different employment types.
If it's going to be revenue neutral there will be a few vocal losers but long term it is a good change to make if it simplifies the system.
If Corbyn wins it will accelerate the realignment on the left that has been needed in the UK for a number of years now. So while it will clearly be very bad news in the short to medium term for Labour, it may well be much better news for the centre left generally further down the line. His victory will do two things: - It will kill off the remaining ministerial flotsam of the Blair/Brown years. - It will demonstrate that a far left prospectus cannot deliver power.
Both are very necessary. And there is a chance that it could all happen pretty swiftly. As soon as Corbyn wins, it the careers of Burnham, Cooper and other ex-ministers come to an end. Then Corbyn-led Labour will be smashed in Scotland next year by the SNP, could see severe setbacks in Wales and is likely to be hammered in the English local elections. Where then the argument that the only reason Labour gets beaten is because it is too right wing?
I think Dan Jarvis is now more than likely to be leading Labour in 2020. But if I am wrong and it is Jezza, Labour will be replaced as the main party on the centre left in the 2025 election.
A very similar assessment to my own, SO. My only divergence is on Dan Jarvis. Yet to hear if he would be in the running by then - and even if he is, would he fare any better than Liz Kendall has this time around?
Interesting concept. Labour lurches to the far left in a cathartic orgy, realises that makes it completely unelectable, then after the 2020 election has another knock down drag out fight but this time on the right
If Corbyn wins it will accelerate the realignment on the left that has been needed in the UK for a number of years now. So while it will clearly be very bad news in the short to medium term for Labour, it may well be much better news for the centre left generally further down the line. His victory will do two things: - It will kill off the remaining ministerial flotsam of the Blair/Brown years. - It will demonstrate that a far left prospectus cannot deliver power.
Both are very necessary. And there is a chance that it could all happen pretty swiftly. As soon as Corbyn wins, it the careers of Burnham, Cooper and other ex-ministers come to an end. Then Corbyn-led Labour will be smashed in Scotland next year by the SNP, could see severe setbacks in Wales and is likely to be hammered in the English local elections. Where then the argument that the only reason Labour gets beaten is because it is too right wing?
I think Dan Jarvis is now more than likely to be leading Labour in 2020. But if I am wrong and it is Jezza, Labour will be replaced as the main party on the centre left in the 2025 election.
A very similar assessment to my own, SO. My only divergence is on Dan Jarvis. Yet to hear if he would be in the running by then - and even if he is, would he fare any better than Liz Kendall has this time around?
Corbyn had double the popularity in Scotland he did in the rest of the UK with yougov, the SNP will find him more of a problem than the Tories. However, whether Farron's LDs have a chance of becoming the main centre left party is debateable. If Jarvis were to take over in 2017/18 a la Howard it would be by acclamation
The SNP vote in Scotland is principally about identity and a distrust/dislike of the Westminster machine. On an issue by issue basis Scottish voters tend to see the world very similarly to English ones. There'll be a difference at the margins, perhaps, but the SNP will still win an overall majority next year. If he were to stick around, Corbyn would deliver a stonking Tory majority in 2020, so would end up being very good news for the independence movement.
Corbyn wins, brings back the hard left who joined The Greens under Miliband, but at what price of votes from the right or centre of his party. Blair realigned Labour, and took seats which had remained Labour free for over 80 years. Corbyn won't be able to repeat that stunt.
The guy has been on the wrong side of the fence on more issues than Tony Benn; a more oddly divisive figure would be harder to find. Bring back more of the hard left and Labour are finished. Go on Jeremy you know all the other parties back you.
If Corbyn wins it will accelerate the realignment on the left that has been needed in the UK for a number of years now. So while it will clearly be very bad news in the short to medium term for Labour, it may well be much better news for the centre left generally further down the line. His victory will do two things: - It will kill off the remaining ministerial flotsam of the Blair/Brown years. - It will demonstrate that a far left prospectus cannot deliver power.
Both are very necessary. And there is a chance that it could all happen pretty swiftly. As soon as Corbyn wins, it the careers of Burnham, Cooper and other ex-ministers come to an end. Then Corbyn-led Labour will be smashed in Scotland next year by the SNP, could see severe setbacks in Wales and is likely to be hammered in the English local elections. Where then the argument that the only reason Labour gets beaten is because it is too right wing?
I think Dan Jarvis is now more than likely to be leading Labour in 2020. But if I am wrong and it is Jezza, Labour will be replaced as the main party on the centre left in the 2025 election.
A very similar assessment to my own, SO. My only divergence is on Dan Jarvis. Yet to hear if he would be in the running by then - and even if he is, would he fare any better than Liz Kendall has this time around?
Interesting concept. Labour lurches to the far left in a cathartic orgy, realises that makes it completely unelectable, then after the 2020 election has another knock down drag out fight but this time on the right
This could go on for generations.
If Corbyn is still leader in 2020 then Labour is finished. But it's hard to see how he would still be there. He will find it impossible to command the parliamentary party. There were 48 rebels on the Welfare bill and many of them are supporting other candidates.
If by some quirk of fate Corbyn did win and end up fighting GE2020, then Labour could easily end up on 200 seats.
Seats like Birmingham Egdbaston, Northfield, Newcastle under Lyme and Southampton Itchen could fall to the Tories, possibly up to 25-30 losses in E&W, whilst he'd claw back 5-10 seats in Scotland at most.
London I don't think would be greatly affected either way.
Not likely, but not completely out of the question, if we run into a recession, and the government is deemed to have responded poorly.
It is completely out of the question. He will not command close to a majority of support in the Parliamentary party. And however poor the government's response, Corbyn's will be worse. I'd say Farron has more chance of being the next PM than Corbyn :-)
Not likely, but not completely out of the question, if we run into a recession, and the government is deemed to have responded poorly.
Interest rate rises would be immediate - and dramatic. Big corporation tax rises. Property taxes through the roof (and "mansion" gets redefined in the Oxford English Dictionary).
Every town is twinned with somewhere in Venezuela.
And heads explode with outrage at the Daily Mail....
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".
Has Labour changed the rules recently to allow for votes of confidence? If not, then they need a good deal more than 47 votes: those who'd want Corbyn out would need an alternative candidate willing to stand openly against Corbyn as well as 47 MPs to openly nominate that alternative - and it wouldn't be 'before Christmas' because (IIRC), unless the NEC decides otherwise, the only time an election can be held is at the party conference, so Corbyn would get at least a year.
If Corbyn wins it will accelerate the realignment on the left that has been needed in the UK for a number of years now. So while it will clearly be very bad news in the short to medium term for Labour, it may well be much better news for the centre left generally further down the line. His victory will do two things: - It will kill off the remaining ministerial flotsam of the Blair/Brown years. - It will demonstrate that a far left prospectus cannot deliver power.
Both are very necessary. And there is a chance that it could all happen pretty swiftly. As soon as Corbyn wins, it the careers of Burnham, Cooper and other ex-ministers come to an end. Then Corbyn-led Labour will be smashed in Scotland next year by the SNP, could see severe setbacks in Wales and is likely to be hammered in the English local elections. Where then the argument that the only reason Labour gets beaten is because it is too right wing?
I think Dan Jarvis is now more than likely to be leading Labour in 2020. But if I am wrong and it is Jezza, Labour will be replaced as the main party on the centre left in the 2025 election.
A very similar assessment to my own, SO. My only divergence is on Dan Jarvis. Yet to hear if he would be in the running by then - and even if he is, would he fare any better than Liz Kendall has this time around?
Corbyn had double the popularity in Scotland he did in the rest of the UK with yougov, the SNP will find him more of a problem than the Tories. However, whether Farron's LDs have a chance of becoming the main centre left party is debateable. If Jarvis were to take over in 2017/18 a la Howard it would be by acclamation
The SNP vote in Scotland is principally about identity and a distrust/dislike of the Westminster machine. On an issue by issue basis Scottish voters tend to see the world very similarly to English ones. There'll be a difference at the margins, perhaps, but the SNP will still win an overall majority next year. If he were to stick around, Corbyn would deliver a stonking Tory majority in 2020, so would end up being very good news for the independence movement.
No is still ahead despite the Tory majority, some of the SNP support is a leftwing protest, the SNP would be ahead but less so if Labour is further left still
Diane Abbott @HackneyAbbott 5m5 minutes ago. Tristram Hunt on @BBCr4today attacks supporters of @jeremycorbyn refuses to accept Jeremy is actually winning the arguments #jeremy4leader
Is Abbott positioning herself as Home Secretary in a Corbyn lead government..?
Not likely, but not completely out of the question, if we run into a recession, and the government is deemed to have responded poorly.
For the current government to have done badly in a recession any criticism would be from their right, ie should have got rid of deficit faster. Any solution proposed by Corbyn would be Venezuelan in approach and demonstrably make things worse.
The most chaotic situation I could think of would be around the EU referendum, where the people vote Out against the majority of the politicians and forces Cameron's resignation. That could cause the Tories to take a sharpward turn right, exposing the centre flank to Lab and Lib if they wanted to take advantage.
If Corbyn wins it will accelerate the realignment on the left that has been needed in the UK for a number of years now. So while it will clearly be very bad news in the short to medium term for Labour, it may well be much better news for the centre left generally further down the line. His victory will do two things: - It will kill off the remaining ministerial flotsam of the Blair/Brown years. - It will demonstrate that a far left prospectus cannot deliver power.
Both are very necessary. And there is a chance that it could all happen pretty swiftly. As soon as Corbyn wins, it the careers of Burnham, Cooper and other ex-ministers come to an end. Then Corbyn-led Labour will be smashed in Scotland next year by the SNP, could see severe setbacks in Wales and is likely to be hammered in the English local elections. Where then the argument that the only reason Labour gets beaten is because it is too right wing?
I think Dan Jarvis is now more than likely to be leading Labour in 2020. But if I am wrong and it is Jezza, Labour will be replaced as the main party on the centre left in the 2025 election.
A very similar assessment to my own, SO. My only divergence is on Dan Jarvis. Yet to hear if he would be in the running by then - and even if he is, would he fare any better than Liz Kendall has this time around?
Corbyn had double the popularity in Scotland he did in the rest of the UK with yougov, the SNP will find him more of a problem than the Tories. However, whether Farron's LDs have a chance of becoming the main centre left party is debateable. If Jarvis were to take over in 2017/18 a la Howard it would be by acclamation
The SNP vote in Scotland is principally about identity and a distrust/dislike of the Westminster machine. On an issue by issue basis Scottish voters tend to see the world very similarly to English ones. There'll be a difference at the margins, perhaps, but the SNP will still win an overall majority next year. If he were to stick around, Corbyn would deliver a stonking Tory majority in 2020, so would end up being very good news for the independence movement.
No is still ahead despite the Tory majority, some of the SNP support is a leftwing protest, the SNP would be ahead but less so if Labour is further left still
Yes only has a chance when there is a Tory government. If Labour were to be elected in 2020 - very unlikely, I grant you - it would kill off the independence movement for a good while. Hence the SNP's unofficial alliance with the Tories.
Not likely, but not completely out of the question, if we run into a recession, and the government is deemed to have responded poorly.
It is completely out of the question. He will not command close to a majority of support in the Parliamentary party. And however poor the government's response, Corbyn's will be worse. I'd say Farron has more chance of being the next PM than Corbyn :-)
you are , of course, famous for the accuracy of yr predictions.... (OK, you got Ed right, I think?)
Not likely, but not completely out of the question, if we run into a recession, and the government is deemed to have responded poorly.
It is completely out of the question. He will not command close to a majority of support in the Parliamentary party. And however poor the government's response, Corbyn's will be worse. I'd say Farron has more chance of being the next PM than Corbyn :-)
you are , of course, famous for the accuracy of yr predictions.... (OK, you got Ed right, I think?)
I was closer than most on the outcome of the last election.
Not likely, but not completely out of the question, if we run into a recession, and the government is deemed to have responded poorly.
It is completely out of the question. He will not command close to a majority of support in the Parliamentary party. And however poor the government's response, Corbyn's will be worse. I'd say Farron has more chance of being the next PM than Corbyn :-)
you are , of course, famous for the accuracy of yr predictions.... (OK, you got Ed right, I think?)
I was closer than most on the outcome of the last election.
Indeed you were.
We need to award the PB Rogerdamus Crown to someone else.
I nominate IOS for his prescient predictions on Labour's brilliant, election winning ground game
Sky's Deputy Political Editor Joey Jones said: "The idea was he (Corbyn) would broaden the debate and you could have all different sections of Labour Party opinion represented.
"A lot of the people, the MPs who allowed him to enter … don’t agree with him. What must they now be thinking that Jeremy Corbyn is not just out in front but way out in front?" Jones added: "It’s an extraordinary situation the Labour Party finds itself in. This poll will send absolute convulsions through the party. "When they look at who is the most rebellious MP, Jeremy Corbyn has won that on the Labour side three parliaments running. Yet he might be the leader in a few weeks’ time. It’s a complete mess that the Labour Party finds themselves in at the moment. It’s not head-scratching time but panic time."
BBC news ......
tumbleweed NHS more money needed... Tumbleweed... NHS, NHS NHS......more tumbleweed
IDS too first rose to prominence as a rebel over Maastricht
Corbyn and IDS do seem to be similar candidates for their respective parties. Would Labour be able to get rid of Corbyn as effectively as the Tories did with IDS? Although, it should be remembered that IDS remained Tory party leader for two years.
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".
Has Labour changed the rules recently to allow for votes of confidence? If not, then they need a good deal more than 47 votes: those who'd want Corbyn out would need an alternative candidate willing to stand openly against Corbyn as well as 47 MPs to openly nominate that alternative - and it wouldn't be 'before Christmas' because (IIRC), unless the NEC decides otherwise, the only time an election can be held is at the party conference, so Corbyn would get at least a year.
But would the MPs risk de-selection by their local parties to get JC out? What is more likely is some sortcof quid pro quo agreement i.e. "don't rock my leadership and I will stop you getting de-selected".
Also, let's be honest - gaining control of Labour is the Hard Left's dream: why would they let the prize slip once they have it? They will try every trick in the book to keep control.
Not likely, but not completely out of the question, if we run into a recession, and the government is deemed to have responded poorly.
See 1983 and 1992. During recessions, in the first instance voters usually turn to the centre-right as the traditional home of economic competence, particularly when the alternative is out of the far left. Only in despair, as in Greece, will the voters look outside the mainstream.
Labour has lost the economic argument of borrowing vs austerity. I don't think Corbyn would have either the time or opportunity to reverse that even if a recession landed next year.
If JC does get elected, surely one of the future bets worth looking at has to be UKIP seats in 2020: granted a lot can happen and we have the referendum but, for many Northern Labour WWC constituencies, a JC-led party would be the last straw.
Not likely, but not completely out of the question, if we run into a recession, and the government is deemed to have responded poorly.
It is completely out of the question. He will not command close to a majority of support in the Parliamentary party. And however poor the government's response, Corbyn's will be worse. I'd say Farron has more chance of being the next PM than Corbyn :-)
you are , of course, famous for the accuracy of yr predictions.... (OK, you got Ed right, I think?)
I was closer than most on the outcome of the last election.
Indeed you were.
We need to award the PB Rogerdamus Crown to someone else.
I nominate IOS for his prescient predictions on Labour's brilliant, election winning ground game
Though it wasn't as good as the Lib Dems', according to Mark Senior.
But take a look at the comments in response. The cifers aren't having it one little bit. Some samples:
"hug a Tory voter
Hug them?
I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire"
"Tory voters are bad people.
They're selfish, ignorant, grasping people who would much rather see disabled kids thrown onto the street that have to pay even a penny more tax on their fuel to drive their 4x4s to Waitrose. They're sociopaths of the very worst kind. At least UKIP voters have the decency to make their inherent racism, hatred of the poor and love of fatcats less hidden.
Sorry, some things need to be said. Tory voters are utter vermin."
"Labour spent the last election chasing the Tory vote, and they've just put the boot in to millions of their core voters in order to show their bollocks are as big and sweaty as the Tories.
How about they start being left wing again, instead of constantly capitulating to Murdoch and the Tories' agenda?"
"I'll only hug a Tory if it's a chance to steal his wallet."
"The problem for Labour is the notion that they somehow lost votes to the Tories that they might get back if they play their cards right, that is move to the right. First, those votes are lost; second, there weren't that many - the Tories only got 24 % of eligible voters anyway. Is anyone in there crunching numbers? The future of labour is in the great well of non-participants. Labour has to cut a path that counters the three big lies that have led to debt slavery and submission for much of the population: emancipation through consumption, freedom through individual 'free agency' of work, and the bogus 'heroism' of entrepreneurial risk. Labour will flounder until it manages to fully expose and discredit the long con."
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".
Has Labour changed the rules recently to allow for votes of confidence? If not, then they need a good deal more than 47 votes: those who'd want Corbyn out would need an alternative candidate willing to stand openly against Corbyn as well as 47 MPs to openly nominate that alternative - and it wouldn't be 'before Christmas' because (IIRC), unless the NEC decides otherwise, the only time an election can be held is at the party conference, so Corbyn would get at least a year.
But would the MPs risk de-selection by their local parties to get JC out? What is more likely is some sortcof quid pro quo agreement i.e. "don't rock my leadership and I will stop you getting de-selected".
Also, let's be honest - gaining control of Labour is the Hard Left's dream: why would they let the prize slip once they have it? They will try every trick in the book to keep control.
I think the bigger problem is that they'd need an alternative leader in place before the nominations went in. Unlike the Tories (again, I'm assuming I've not missed Labour changing the rules recently), it's not a two-stage process, firstly with a vote for or against the sitting leader and then for an alternative if the VoNC is carried; it's a straightforward election: Corbyn vs whoever. And who could be 'whoever'? One of the current candidates he's just beaten? Could they be persuaded to risk a second beating? Someone else? But would that person be a credible and acceptable leader?
And your point is right: a lot of CLP's have nominated Corbyn. Going against the democratic will of the movement may well be viewed dimly by activists if the coup fails.
I don't think there's a realistic procedural way for Labour to remove a leader; as always, it would all come down to whether they could pressure him out.
If JC does get elected, surely one of the future bets worth looking at has to be UKIP seats in 2020: granted a lot can happen and we have the referendum but, for many Northern Labour WWC constituencies, a JC-led party would be the last straw.
They'll be the last to go. Labour will lose all its marginal though, wherever in the country they are.
Poor old Tony Blair must be having nightmares.. Look what has happened since he left.. The party has disintegrated and Brown is largely to blame.. he was the one who used the dark arts to damage any possible opponent and Labour are now paying the price of the vacuum . If you were a Blairite type Labour person, would you join Labour now.. ?? There's going to a long time in the wilderness.
Is it time for the Mirror to stick a crappy mock up of a parchment on their front page with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall promising any old bollox as long as members vote for them?
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".
Has Labour changed the rules recently to allow for votes of confidence? If not, then they need a good deal more than 47 votes: those who'd want Corbyn out would need an alternative candidate willing to stand openly against Corbyn as well as 47 MPs to openly nominate that alternative - and it wouldn't be 'before Christmas' because (IIRC), unless the NEC decides otherwise, the only time an election can be held is at the party conference, so Corbyn would get at least a year.
But would the MPs risk de-selection by their local parties to get JC out? What is more likely is some sortcof quid pro quo agreement i.e. "don't rock my leadership and I will stop you getting de-selected".
Also, let's be honest - gaining control of Labour is the Hard Left's dream: why would they let the prize slip once they have it? They will try every trick in the book to keep control.
That depends on why Corbyn gets his votes. It may be that people are buying into his policies, or it may be a reaction to the insipidness of the other candidates. A string of electoral blows next year may well concentrate minds.
London I don't think would be greatly affected either way.
Apart from every house in London suddenly becoming eligible for the Mansion Tax...
I think someone like Corbyn would be upfront about income tax rises for middle earners, as he believes in them, which could be a very brave decision for a manifesto.
So it wasn't a dream then. We are on for the Tom & Jerry Show in about a month's time?
I'd love to see a thread comparing a Corbyn vs Foot. Arguably Foot was a great deal more sensible.
Yes, that would be good. According to the Wikipedia entry Foot was presented as the compromise candidate, Benn was the left winger. I'd not realised that Callaghan had stayed on for the next year and a half, it was a different era.
"Following Labour's 1979 general election defeat by Margaret Thatcher, James Callaghan remained party leader for the next 18 months before he resigned. Foot was elected Labour leader on 10 November 1980, beating Denis Healey in the second round of the leadership election (the last leadership contest to involve only Labour MPs). Foot presented himself as a compromise candidate capable, unlike Healey, of uniting the party,[19] which at the time was riven by the grassroots left-wing insurgency centred around Tony Benn.
But take a look at the comments in response. The cifers aren't having it one little bit. Some samples:
"hug a Tory voter
Hug them?
I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire"
"Tory voters are bad people.
They're selfish, ignorant, grasping people who would much rather see disabled kids thrown onto the street that have to pay even a penny more tax on their fuel to drive their 4x4s to Waitrose. They're sociopaths of the very worst kind. At least UKIP voters have the decency to make their inherent racism, hatred of the poor and love of fatcats less hidden.
Sorry, some things need to be said. Tory voters are utter vermin."
"Labour spent the last election chasing the Tory vote, and they've just put the boot in to millions of their core voters in order to show their bollocks are as big and sweaty as the Tories.
How about they start being left wing again, instead of constantly capitulating to Murdoch and the Tories' agenda?"
"I'll only hug a Tory if it's a chance to steal his wallet."
"The problem for Labour is the notion that they somehow lost votes to the Tories that they might get back if they play their cards right, that is move to the right. First, those votes are lost; second, there weren't that many - the Tories only got 24 % of eligible voters anyway. Is anyone in there crunching numbers? The future of labour is in the great well of non-participants. Labour has to cut a path that counters the three big lies that have led to debt slavery and submission for much of the population: emancipation through consumption, freedom through individual 'free agency' of work, and the bogus 'heroism' of entrepreneurial risk. Labour will flounder until it manages to fully expose and discredit the long con."
To be fair, if you took the Telegraph comments pages seriously, once you waded through the LibLabCon, bankster and indigenous comments, you'd naturally assume that all the readers are complete weapons.
Is it time for the Mirror to stick a crappy mock up of a parchment on their front page with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall promising any old bollox as long as members vote for them?
Or promise a nirvanaesque land of social justice and Tennents lager running through the taps paid for by $110 a barrel oil ? Seems to work on plenty suckers.
If JC does get elected, surely one of the future bets worth looking at has to be UKIP seats in 2020: granted a lot can happen and we have the referendum but, for many Northern Labour WWC constituencies, a JC-led party would be the last straw.
They'll be the last to go. Labour will lose all its marginal though, wherever in the country they are.
Any thoughts on which Labour MPs might defect to UKIP if he gets elected? Everyone will mention Danczuk but I think Woodcock in Barrow would be a good bet.
On a SDP Mark 2, why wouldn't splitters from Labour just join a Farron-led LD party?
The modal Labour voter is now a Londoner in her twenties who reads the Guardian and works in the public sector. That is not a coalition for government; it’s a Sophie Kinsella character.
and
Electoral coalitions matter. Gerald Kaufman, Labour MP for Manchester Gorton, might be a bit mad but his mid-90s précis of the Foot/Kinnock years remains bracingly blunt:
“We couldn’t win an election just with the votes of the poor and the deprived and the ethnic minorities. My constituency is a constituency which is predominantly composed of voters who are poor and deprived, with a considerable number of people from the ethnic minorities. I kept increasing my majority at every general election but it didn’t do my constituents any good because what they needed was a different government. The only way we could get a different government was by adding to the votes of the poor and the deprived and the ethnic minorities the votes of affluent people living in the south east of England and other parts of England.”
If JC does get elected, surely one of the future bets worth looking at has to be UKIP seats in 2020: granted a lot can happen and we have the referendum but, for many Northern Labour WWC constituencies, a JC-led party would be the last straw.
They'll be the last to go. Labour will lose all its marginal though, wherever in the country they are.
Any thoughts on which Labour MPs might defect to UKIP if he gets elected? Everyone will mention Danczuk but I think Woodcock in Barrow would be a good bet.
On a SDP Mark 2, why wouldn't splitters from Labour just join a Farron-led LD party?
I think the clue is in the "Farron Led"
Like a player leaving Liverpool to join Aston Villa with Graham Taylor as manager.
@matt True. To date commentisfree has managed a broader spectrum of views.
Perhaps this is part of a wider evisceration of the centre in public political thought. The Lib Dems have evaporated and the remnants are marching left. Labour is slutwalking to the margins. On the right, UKIP have been baying at the moon for years, dragging the Tory right towards them.
The balance of the voters, of course, are going underrepresented, since they still sit in the centre. The politicians who can capture the voice of the confident centre will be highly successful. Right now George Osborne is coming closest to that. He doesn't have a left of centre rival at present.
Comments
Fine Gael (Right-wing)
Irish Labour (Left-wing)
But for electing (only) a single-winner, all other systems are inferior to AV.
Or did it just suck?
Just sayin'...
I can quite understand why they would not want that to become public because it would just create pressure to bow to the Vietnamese.
It is a tragedy for the men concerned, and for their families, but that is the nature of the risk they took in serving their country in a time of war.
Do you think Trump was right to give out Sen. Graham's private cell phone number to hundreds of his supporters?
But I'm talking about shifting the Overton window in the UK to be more aligned to where it is in the States.
It should be Ha. Ha, ha ha, snort. Hah!
I assume Corbyn is a BOO-er.
If he wins, would he be a benefit to the Brexit team or the opposite?
Not sure which is more amusing, the YouGov opinion poll showing Corbyn leads by quite some margin, or Yvette Cooper’s claim that the poll does not match their internal forecasts.
Wonder if Ma Beckett is still singing ‘Non, je ne regrette rien’ ?
Mind you as someone pointed out up thread. We seem to be believing in pollsters again ...... Mmmm.
If Corbyn wins the leadership, i expect those Labour MPs who still have an aspiration to actually be in power again in their lifetimes would split and form the SDPv2
Sky's Deputy Political Editor Joey Jones said: "The idea was he (Corbyn) would broaden the debate and you could have all different sections of Labour Party opinion represented.
"A lot of the people, the MPs who allowed him to enter … don’t agree with him. What must they now be thinking that Jeremy Corbyn is not just out in front but way out in front?" Jones added: "It’s an extraordinary situation the Labour Party finds itself in. This poll will send absolute convulsions through the party. "When they look at who is the most rebellious MP, Jeremy Corbyn has won that on the Labour side three parliaments running. Yet he might be the leader in a few weeks’ time. It’s a complete mess that the Labour Party finds themselves in at the moment. It’s not head-scratching time but panic time."
BBC news ......
tumbleweed NHS more money needed... Tumbleweed... NHS, NHS NHS......more tumbleweed
Nothing is off limits.
Incidentally, Ken Clarke's wife - Gillian - passed away last week at the age of 74, which I found quite sad.
That should get Corbyn comfortably over the line.
Meanwhile don't talk about the oil price.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/eurokrise/griechenland-krise-alexis-tsipras-verzoegert-reformen-13714252.html
- It will kill off the remaining ministerial flotsam of the Blair/Brown years.
- It will demonstrate that a far left prospectus cannot deliver power.
Both are very necessary. And there is a chance that it could all happen pretty swiftly. As soon as Corbyn wins, it the careers of Burnham, Cooper and other ex-ministers come to an end. Then Corbyn-led Labour will be smashed in Scotland next year by the SNP, could see severe setbacks in Wales and is likely to be hammered in the English local elections. Where then the argument that the only reason Labour gets beaten is because it is too right wing?
I think Dan Jarvis is now more than likely to be leading Labour in 2020. But if I am wrong and it is Jezza, Labour will be replaced as the main party on the centre left in the 2025 election.
He's certainly getting on with stuff at No.11, that is for sure. There's a whole load of anomalies to work out with NI and IT (that's Information Technology as well as Income Tax) and the rules about calculation time periods and refundability are different, as well as different arrangements for different employment types.
If it's going to be revenue neutral there will be a few vocal losers but long term it is a good change to make if it simplifies the system.
This could go on for generations.
The guy has been on the wrong side of the fence on more issues than Tony Benn; a more oddly divisive figure would be harder to find. Bring back more of the hard left and Labour are finished. Go on Jeremy you know all the other parties back you.
Not likely, but not completely out of the question, if we run into a recession, and the government is deemed to have responded poorly.
Seats like Birmingham Egdbaston, Northfield, Newcastle under Lyme and Southampton Itchen could fall to the Tories, possibly up to 25-30 losses in E&W, whilst he'd claw back 5-10 seats in Scotland at most.
London I don't think would be greatly affected either way.
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn is the Syriza candidate - @TristramHuntMP @BBCr4today
Has he forgotten they won?
Yes, Tristram, you tell Labour members how to vote...
Every town is twinned with somewhere in Venezuela.
And heads explode with outrage at the Daily Mail....
Tristram Hunt on @BBCr4today attacks supporters of @jeremycorbyn refuses to accept Jeremy is actually winning the arguments #jeremy4leader
Is Abbott positioning herself as Home Secretary in a Corbyn lead government..?
The most chaotic situation I could think of would be around the EU referendum, where the people vote Out against the majority of the politicians and forces Cameron's resignation. That could cause the Tories to take a sharpward turn right, exposing the centre flank to Lab and Lib if they wanted to take advantage.
Remember (giggles)
it's (laughs)
only (chortles)
one (sniggers)
poll (dies)
http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2015-07-21/go-ahead-given-for-90-000-panel-solar-farm/
We need to award the PB Rogerdamus Crown to someone else.
I nominate IOS for his prescient predictions on Labour's brilliant, election winning ground game
I'd love to see a thread comparing a Corbyn vs Foot. Arguably Foot was a great deal more sensible.
Also, let's be honest - gaining control of Labour is the Hard Left's dream: why would they let the prize slip once they have it? They will try every trick in the book to keep control.
Labour has lost the economic argument of borrowing vs austerity. I don't think Corbyn would have either the time or opportunity to reverse that even if a recession landed next year.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/21/labour-tory-voters
But take a look at the comments in response. The cifers aren't having it one little bit. Some samples:
"hug a Tory voter
Hug them?
I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire"
"Tory voters are bad people.
They're selfish, ignorant, grasping people who would much rather see disabled kids thrown onto the street that have to pay even a penny more tax on their fuel to drive their 4x4s to Waitrose. They're sociopaths of the very worst kind. At least UKIP voters have the decency to make their inherent racism, hatred of the poor and love of fatcats less hidden.
Sorry, some things need to be said. Tory voters are utter vermin."
"Labour spent the last election chasing the Tory vote, and they've just put the boot in to millions of their core voters in order to show their bollocks are as big and sweaty as the Tories.
How about they start being left wing again, instead of constantly capitulating to Murdoch and the Tories' agenda?"
"I'll only hug a Tory if it's a chance to steal his wallet."
"The problem for Labour is the notion that they somehow lost votes to the Tories that they might get back if they play their cards right, that is move to the right. First, those votes are lost; second, there weren't that many - the Tories only got 24 % of eligible voters anyway. Is anyone in there crunching numbers? The future of labour is in the great well of non-participants. Labour has to cut a path that counters the three big lies that have led to debt slavery and submission for much of the population: emancipation through consumption, freedom through individual 'free agency' of work, and the bogus 'heroism' of entrepreneurial risk. Labour will flounder until it manages to fully expose and discredit the long con."
Wow.
And your point is right: a lot of CLP's have nominated Corbyn. Going against the democratic will of the movement may well be viewed dimly by activists if the coup fails.
I don't think there's a realistic procedural way for Labour to remove a leader; as always, it would all come down to whether they could pressure him out.
Poor old Tony Blair must be having nightmares.. Look what has happened since he left.. The party has disintegrated and Brown is largely to blame.. he was the one who used the dark arts to damage any possible opponent and Labour are now paying the price of the vacuum .
If you were a Blairite type Labour person, would you join Labour now.. ?? There's going to a long time in the wilderness.
According to the Wikipedia entry Foot was presented as the compromise candidate, Benn was the left winger. I'd not realised that Callaghan had stayed on for the next year and a half, it was a different era.
"Following Labour's 1979 general election defeat by Margaret Thatcher, James Callaghan remained party leader for the next 18 months before he resigned. Foot was elected Labour leader on 10 November 1980, beating Denis Healey in the second round of the leadership election (the last leadership contest to involve only Labour MPs). Foot presented himself as a compromise candidate capable, unlike Healey, of uniting the party,[19] which at the time was riven by the grassroots left-wing insurgency centred around Tony Benn.
The Bennites were demanding revenge for what they considered to be the betrayals of the Callaghan government."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Foot
On a SDP Mark 2, why wouldn't splitters from Labour just join a Farron-led LD party?
Like a player leaving Liverpool to join Aston Villa with Graham Taylor as manager.
Perhaps this is part of a wider evisceration of the centre in public political thought. The Lib Dems have evaporated and the remnants are marching left. Labour is slutwalking to the margins. On the right, UKIP have been baying at the moon for years, dragging the Tory right towards them.
The balance of the voters, of course, are going underrepresented, since they still sit in the centre. The politicians who can capture the voice of the confident centre will be highly successful. Right now George Osborne is coming closest to that. He doesn't have a left of centre rival at present.
New thread