I honestly expected Labour to have realised by now that band-wagoning, soundbites without strategy and no policies until the last minute were vote losers.
Apparently not. Now they're likely to replace them with oodles of self-righteous posturing with 5% of the Corbynites thinking this will win an election or unite their Party. I think @Tim_B was spot on. If 1983 was a suicide note, this is a point-blank headshot.
I think the Cooper dirty tricks team are trying not to come fourth themselves. If they genuinely were sure that Kendall was fourth then it would be no advantage to force her out.
i think it would be hilarious if there was actually a shy blairite surge and kendall comes in the top 2, and Coybyn 3rd or 4th - imagine the wailing hurt and confusion. its probably true that we are at peak Corbyn and Burnham will win easily in the end, but people are starting to dream otherwise, and others dread a poor showing for Kendall, and a surprise turnaround would be amusing.
I just feel that given the remarks made there are now two very distinct factions in the PLP. Previously they were left of centre and a few loony rebels. Now the extreme left are a force with the CLP members behind them. Whoever wins is going to have a very very tough time.
Meanwhile elections are won by whomsoever holds the centre ground. That won't be Labour of course as their members 2nd highest requirement is simply to oppose the Tories right or wrong even if the policy straddles the centre ground. Meanwhile while sitting out there on the fringes of the left pointing and sneaking their priority is to connect with ordinary people. Well quite.
I think the Cooper dirty tricks team are trying not to come fourth themselves. If they genuinely were sure that Kendall was fourth then it would be no advantage to force her out.
i think it would be hilarious if there was actually a shy blairite surge and kendall comes in the top 2, and Coybyn 3rd or 4th - imagine the wailing hurt and confusion. its probably true that we are at peak Corbyn and Burnham will win easily in the end, but people are starting to dream otherwise, and others dread a poor showing for Kendall, and a surprise turnaround would be amusing.
I just feel that given the remarks made there are now two very distinct factions in the PLP. Previously they were left of centre and a few loony rebels. Now the extreme left are a force with the CLP members behind them. Whoever wins is going to have a very very tough time.
Meanwhile elections are won by whomsoever holds the centre ground. That won't be Labour of course as their members 2nd highest requirement is simply to oppose the Tories right or wrong even if the policy straddles the centre ground. Meanwhile while sitting out there on the fringes of the left pointing and sneaking their priority is to connect with ordinary people. Well quite.
I honestly expected Labour to have realised by now that band-wagoning, soundbites without strategy and no policies until the last minute were vote losers.
Apparently not. Now they're likely to replace them with oodles of self-righteous posturing with 5% of the Corbynites thinking this will win an election or unite their Party. I think @Tim_B was spot on. If 1983 was a suicide note, this is a point-blank headshot.
As we've all discovered over the last 5 years, hyperbolic screaming in the manner of Bonnie Langford is not 'effective opposition'.
Good morning all. Based on the poll, Labour supporters don't want to win. They're not for anything (other than the usual platitudes that anyone would espouse). They're against the Tories, the evil, selfish, baby-eating, privatising, bankster Tories. Rinse and repeat.
"Really the Nats should be voting out to embarass Cameron."
Surely the Nats want RUK to vote out and Scotland In? If lots of Nats vote tactically for out they could find Scotland votes out and then their argument loses traction
Kendall has kept most of her powder dry - there is over a month to go. Cooper and Burnham have used most of theirs in sparklers and rockets that have gone in different directions or just fizzled out and nobody can recall where they went or what they looked like.
JC has used limited but impressive mortars that have spread their colours across the sky and the crowd has gazed in wonderment - does he have enough ammunition to last or will it all be a distant but glorious memory?
I honestly expected Labour to have realised by now that band-wagoning, soundbites without strategy and no policies until the last minute were vote losers.
Apparently not. Now they're likely to replace them with oodles of self-righteous posturing with 5% of the Corbynites thinking this will win an election or unite their Party. I think @Tim_B was spot on. If 1983 was a suicide note, this is a point-blank headshot.
As we've all discovered over the last 5 years, hyperbolic screaming in the manner of Bonnie Langford is not 'effective opposition'.
Good morning all. Based on the poll, Labour supporters don't want to win. They're not for anything (other than the usual platitudes that anyone would espouse). They're against the Tories, the evil, selfish, baby-eating, privatising, bankster Tories. Rinse and repeat.
The real danger for Labour is that they become a parodoy of themselves. They are at risk of becoming ridiculous with hyperbolic student union screaming and ranting at anything tory. In so doing they will jeopardise the most valuable asset they have, which is not NHS but a monopoly on the ownership of language that is used to show the left as a soft, caring, safe, fair and egalitarian place.
If Labour relinquish the vice like grip they have had on language, which has grown stronger from the late 60s onwards, they will truly be in an unrecoverable position.
I honestly expected Labour to have realised by now that band-wagoning, soundbites without strategy and no policies until the last minute were vote losers.
Apparently not. Now they're likely to replace them with oodles of self-righteous posturing with 5% of the Corbynites thinking this will win an election or unite their Party. I think @Tim_B was spot on. If 1983 was a suicide note, this is a point-blank headshot.
As we've all discovered over the last 5 years, hyperbolic screaming in the manner of Bonnie Langford is not 'effective opposition'.
Good morning all. Based on the poll, Labour supporters don't want to win. They're not for anything (other than the usual platitudes that anyone would espouse). They're against the Tories, the evil, selfish, baby-eating, privatising, bankster Tories. Rinse and repeat.
The real danger for Labour is that they become a parodoy of themselves. They are at risk of becoming ridiculous with hyperbolic student union screaming and ranting at anything tory. In so doing they will jeopardise the most valuable asset they have, which is not NHS but a monopoly on the ownership of language that is used to show the left as a soft, caring, safe, fair and egalitarian place.
If Labour relinquish the vice like grip they have had on language, which has grown stronger from the late 60s onwards, they will truly be in an unrecoverable position.
On the leaders, I have only caught snippets of the candidates, which may make me close to normal for the population.
Liz - I haven't heard anything really memorable, except 'The country comes first' Andy - Seems earnest, needs to be loved, not solid on many positions Yvette - I can't be objective, she leaves me cold Jeremy - Speaks with authenticity, which makes him more animated than the others
From a righties viewpoint at the start I thought Andy would be the biggest problem for the Tory party, the little I have seen of him now makes me think he isn't a threat that couldn't be neutered pretty easily.
To show how little Labour activists understand about our electoral system, I show below a post form LabourList..
Julia • 9 hours ago At last the chance to have a socialist leading the party. Labour should focus on winning back the millions of people who stopped voting due to the right of centre ONLY option.
Gaining 3 or 4 million of those votes is far more important than the 500,000 votes Labour could gain from the Tories by jumping further right.
The only leadership candidate who defied the whip and voted against Tory cuts ( funny how that didn't get mentioned)
So that's the strategy. Pile up votes in safe Labour seats...
To show how little Labour activists understand about our electoral system, I show below a post form LabourList..
Julia • 9 hours ago At last the chance to have a socialist leading the party. Labour should focus on winning back the millions of people who stopped voting due to the right of centre ONLY option.
Gaining 3 or 4 million of those votes is far more important than the 500,000 votes Labour could gain from the Tories by jumping further right.
The only leadership candidate who defied the whip and voted against Tory cuts ( funny how that didn't get mentioned)
So that's the strategy. Pile up votes in safe Labour seats...
After 24 hrs of wavering my vote now definitely goes to Jezza.
No 2nd preference
I have a gut feeling that many will do the same. People voting for an extreme choice (on the spectrum of available choices, that is) are unlikely to have a second preference.
On the leaders, I have only caught snippets of the candidates, which may make me close to normal for the population.
Liz - I haven't heard anything really memorable, except 'The country comes first' Andy - Seems earnest, needs to be loved, not solid on many positions Yvette - I can't be objective, she leaves me cold Jeremy - Speaks with authenticity, which makes him more animated than the others
From a righties viewpoint at the start I thought Andy would be the biggest problem for the Tory party, the little I have seen of him now makes me think he isn't a threat that couldn't be neutered pretty easily.
Bizarre – is anyone else getting weird flashbacks of Déjà vu with the reappearance of Blair, Mandelson, Prescott, Ma Beckett and Dianne Abbott etc. all over the news this week?
Daft profile button is back on Chrome. Stupid thing.
I do not get that argument Kendall should stand down.
If Corbyn has 50%+, he wins anyway. If he does not and Kendall is eliminated, her supporters' second preferences will largely go to someone else anyway.
Bizarre – is anyone else getting weird flashbacks of Déjà vu with the reappearance of Blair, Mandelson, Prescott, Ma Beckett and Dianne Abbott etc. all over the news this week?
It's the rise of the Zombies, labours living dead.
It must be remembered that Jeremy Corbyn wants to see greater democracy in the Labour party,including annual elections of Labour leaders by the membership.Had this been in place Labour would be a far better place as Blair,Brown and Miliband had been given an early bath.If the members want rid of Jeremy,he will give them the means to do so each and every year.
Until Labour can be trusted on the economy, it doesn't really matter who wins. The worst thing about this hapless election is that the Tories are just sitting back and laughing at Labour.. and its hard not to. The Country deserves better. It needs a forthright opposition , questioning the Govt on every aspect of their policies.
....and then abstaining.
I may be wrong, but surely the Tories put up at least a token effort at opposition after their crushing defeat in 1997?
Not in the immediate aftermath and then they were pretty rubbish at it for a good few years. It was only, really, Howard who put them on an even keel and he only took over 6 years after 1997.
I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that when you have been in government for a long time, relearning the art of opposing is difficult skill set. However, Labour has had 5 years to learn. They also have the benefit of taking their Scottish Assembly experience. It just shows how they believed that they could walk into government at the last election: the shock of the Nuneaton result must have been terrifying. The Milliband years were truly wasted ones.
Kendall has kept most of her powder dry - there is over a month to go. Cooper and Burnham have used most of theirs in sparklers and rockets that have gone in different directions or just fizzled out and nobody can recall where they went or what they looked like.
JC has used limited but impressive mortars that have spread their colours across the sky and the crowd has gazed in wonderment - does he have enough ammunition to last or will it all be a distant but glorious memory?
Did Mark Ferguson not give up his Labour List gig for the LK campaign ? And Hopi Sen is involved too.
Either they are keeping their powder dry or the squib is very damp.
Kendall has kept most of her powder dry - there is over a month to go. Cooper and Burnham have used most of theirs in sparklers and rockets that have gone in different directions or just fizzled out and nobody can recall where they went or what they looked like.
JC has used limited but impressive mortars that have spread their colours across the sky and the crowd has gazed in wonderment - does he have enough ammunition to last or will it all be a distant but glorious memory?
Did Mark Ferguson not give up his Labour List gig for the LK campaign ? And Hopi Sen is involved too.
Either they are keeping their powder dry or the squib is very damp.
I don't think they expect the Labour party to be this befevered by Corbyn, they thought the Labour party actually wanted to win in 2020
I recall reading a piece by Portillo about how impotent many of his old colleagues felt out of power.
It was no longer "we will do" but "we will talk about".
A massive shift in how to view your role ahead. As you rightly point out - Labour has had 5yrs to get used to the idea. I can only assume they thought the Tories didn't really win, so didn't need to move on at all. So here they are experiencing 2010 all over again in 2015.
Until Labour can be trusted on the economy, it doesn't really matter who wins. The worst thing about this hapless election is that the Tories are just sitting back and laughing at Labour.. and its hard not to. The Country deserves better. It needs a forthright opposition , questioning the Govt on every aspect of their policies.
....and then abstaining.
I may be wrong, but surely the Tories put up at least a token effort at opposition after their crushing defeat in 1997?
Not in the immediate aftermath and then they were pretty rubbish at it for a good few years. It was only, really, Howard who put them on an even keel and he only took over 6 years after 1997.
I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that when you have been in government for a long time, relearning the art of opposing is difficult skill set. However, Labour has had 5 years to learn. They also have the benefit of taking their Scottish Assembly experience. It just shows how they believed that they could walk into government at the last election: the shock of the Nuneaton result must have been terrifying. The Milliband years were truly wasted ones.
Student politicians - I well remember at Uni some very nasty protests against anyone who sold or even ate Israeli (Jaffa) and S African (Outspan) oranges, by people who not been to either country.
I was (and am still) very partial to large and juicy oranges. Having just bought some, I went into the students' union, got a plate and peeled and sectioned a few oranges ready to eat. In the middle of my feast, in rushed a young lady (not known to me) who put down her protest banner and coming over all friendly said, "Those look lovely, would you like to share with me?" I told her to help herself and gave her some tissues to wipe her face. Then when she had finished and told me these oranges were lovely, I just informed her that she had just eaten Jaffa and Outspan oranges. A look of horror crossed her face and she shrieked that she doubted the legitimacy of my birth. I roared with laughter (and still do at the memory) and put her actions in the next edition of the Student Union newspaper.
I honestly expected Labour to have realised by now that band-wagoning, soundbites without strategy and no policies until the last minute were vote losers.
Apparently not. Now they're likely to replace them with oodles of self-righteous posturing with 5% of the Corbynites thinking this will win an election or unite their Party. I think @Tim_B was spot on. If 1983 was a suicide note, this is a point-blank headshot.
As we've all discovered over the last 5 years, hyperbolic screaming in the manner of Bonnie Langford is not 'effective opposition'.
Good morning all. Based on the poll, Labour supporters don't want to win. They're not for anything (other than the usual platitudes that anyone would espouse). They're against the Tories, the evil, selfish, baby-eating, privatising, bankster Tories. Rinse and repeat.
The real danger for Labour is that they become a parodoy of themselves. They are at risk of becoming ridiculous with hyperbolic student union screaming and ranting at anything tory. In so doing they will jeopardise the most valuable asset they have, which is not NHS but a monopoly on the ownership of language that is used to show the left as a soft, caring, safe, fair and egalitarian place.
If Labour relinquish the vice like grip they have had on language, which has grown stronger from the late 60s onwards, they will truly be in an unrecoverable position.
amongst the more obvious ones, the one that stood out for me is the disparity in fear of the SNP. It makes it worse for Lab as it turns out that all voters didn't really care (or care as much) about potential SNP influence.
One fewer exogenous issue to blame for Lab's failure.
Surely the whole point of AV is that vote-splitting doesn't happen like it would in a FPTP election?
If one person gets over 50% on first round then rest is irrelevant as far as I understand it. Some people in the other campaigns must be starting to wonder whether JC might do this.
Daft profile button is back on Chrome. Stupid thing.
I do not get that argument Kendall should stand down.
If Corbyn has 50%+, he wins anyway. If he does not and Kendall is eliminated, her supporters' second preferences will largely go to someone else anyway.
There is a theoretical scenario where she could help JC.
If Liz polls say 5% and is eliminated, JC has say, 40% in the first round.
If Liz voters have no 2nd preferences recorded, then JC is left with a larger percentage of a smaller electorate, his share would rise from 40% to 42%
On the other hand, if Liz withdrew, many of her supporters may not vote anyway....
It must be remembered that Jeremy Corbyn wants to see greater democracy in the Labour party,including annual elections of Labour leaders by the membership.Had this been in place Labour would be a far better place as Blair,Brown and Miliband had been given an early bath.If the members want rid of Jeremy,he will give them the means to do so each and every year.
I doubt Lab has the money to do this. But anyway what a disaster it would be - annually navel gazing as another election take place.
When John Major was interviewed a few months after 1997, he said the same - he said he felt somewhat disconnected and it was almost like withdrawl symptons from just knowing what was really going on - now he had to rely (as others) on the media.
I recall reading a piece by Portillo about how impotent many of his old colleagues felt out of power.
It was no longer "we will do" but "we will talk about".
A massive shift in how to view your role ahead. As you rightly point out - Labour has had 5yrs to get used to the idea. I can only assume they thought the Tories didn't really win, so didn't need to move on at all. So here they are experiencing 2010 all over again in 2015.
Until Labour can be trusted on the economy, it doesn't really matter who wins. The worst thing about this hapless election is that the Tories are just sitting back and laughing at Labour.. and its hard not to. The Country deserves better. It needs a forthright opposition , questioning the Govt on every aspect of their policies.
....and then abstaining.
I may be wrong, but surely the Tories put up at least a token effort at opposition after their crushing defeat in 1997?
Not in the immediate aftermath and then they were pretty rubbish at it for a good few years. It was only, really, Howard who put them on an even keel and he only took over 6 years after 1997.
I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that when you have been in government for a long time, relearning the art of opposing is difficult skill set. However, Labour has had 5 years to learn. They also have the benefit of taking their Scottish Assembly experience. It just shows how they believed that they could walk into government at the last election: the shock of the Nuneaton result must have been terrifying. The Milliband years were truly wasted ones.
After 24 hrs of wavering my vote now definitely goes to Jezza.
No 2nd preference
Don't you understand how the AV voting system works?
Do you need some threads on AV to help explain to you why you should rank all the candidates?
The vote on the Welfare Bill showed a clear split 3 v1,leading to the conclusion the 3 are as bad as each other and equally unelectable which makes 2/3/4 a false choice,an imposter.a choice of price rather than value.
Has Yvette Cooper had voice coaching? In the LBC debate she seems to be deliberately pitching her voice lower, presumably to sound less shrill, but she ends up sounding monotonous and uninspiring.
It must be remembered that Jeremy Corbyn wants to see greater democracy in the Labour party,including annual elections of Labour leaders by the membership.Had this been in place Labour would be a far better place as Blair,Brown and Miliband had been given an early bath.If the members want rid of Jeremy,he will give them the means to do so each and every year.
I doubt Lab has the money to do this. But anyway what a disaster it would be - annually navel gazing as another election take place.
With no security beyond a year, nobody has any reason to be loyal, no time to set and implement an agenda, always prioritise the latest focus group idea to retain popularity, what is popular over what is right every time - a truly idiotic concept.
On topic: Frankly, watching that clip from the LBC debate where Liz makes such a spectacular mess of answering a trivially simple question about whether she'd want Ed Milband in her Shadow Cabinet, my advice to Labour would be to keep her firmly on the back benches. The idea of making such a total lightweight Shadow Chancellor is risible.
More generally, I think we have to take seriously the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn winning this. The other three are just so useless that one has to sympathise with the proposition that he's Labour's best option out of the four. Of course, he'd be an unmitigated strategic disaster for Labour, but at least he can answer a straightforward question without looking as though he's trying, and failing, to remember the stock answer from Labour Leadership for Dummies.
When people started throwing "JCR politician" around, as an attempt to dig on Cameron, I did wonder what JCRs they'd been in. Thankfully, the media showed footage of a young Ed Milliband, the most archetypal student politician imaginable, just in time to remind people what 'JCR politician' was referring to and why it was A Bad Thing.
When John Major was interviewed a few months after 1997, he said the same - he said he felt somewhat disconnected and it was almost like withdrawl symptons from just knowing what was really going on - now he had to rely (as others) on the media.
I recall reading a piece by Portillo about how impotent many of his old colleagues felt out of power.
It was no longer "we will do" but "we will talk about".
A massive shift in how to view your role ahead. As you rightly point out - Labour has had 5yrs to get used to the idea. I can only assume they thought the Tories didn't really win, so didn't need to move on at all. So here they are experiencing 2010 all over again in 2015.
Until Labour can be trusted on the economy, it doesn't really matter who wins. The worst thing about this hapless election is that the Tories are just sitting back and laughing at Labour.. and its hard not to. The Country deserves better. It needs a forthright opposition , questioning the Govt on every aspect of their policies.
....and then abstaining.
I may be wrong, but surely the Tories put up at least a token effort at opposition after their crushing defeat in 1997?
Not in the immediate aftermath and then they were pretty rubbish at it for a good few years. It was only, really, Howard who put them on an even keel and he only took over 6 years after 1997.
I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that when you have been in government for a long time, relearning the art of opposing is difficult skill set. However, Labour has had 5 years to learn. They also have the benefit of taking their Scottish Assembly experience. It just shows how they believed that they could walk into government at the last election: the shock of the Nuneaton result must have been terrifying. The Milliband years were truly wasted ones.
A massive shift in how to view your role ahead. As you rightly point out - Labour has had 5yrs to get used to the idea. I can only assume they thought the Tories didn't really win, so didn't need to move on at all.
And yet they still seem to think that. #the76percent
It must be remembered that Jeremy Corbyn wants to see greater democracy in the Labour party,including annual elections of Labour leaders by the membership.Had this been in place Labour would be a far better place as Blair,Brown and Miliband had been given an early bath.If the members want rid of Jeremy,he will give them the means to do so each and every year.
I doubt Lab has the money to do this. But anyway what a disaster it would be - annually navel gazing as another election take place.
With no security beyond a year, nobody has any reason to be loyal, no time to set and implement an agenda, always prioritise the latest focus group idea to retain popularity, what is popular over what is right every time - a truly idiotic concept.
Corbyn is the only articulate one with a position that sounds genuine. How Labour got to this point is a wonder. I'm beginning to think its possibly worse than IDS winning.
On topic: Frankly, watching that clip from the LBC debate where Liz makes such a spectacular mess of answering a trivially simple question about whether she'd want Ed Milband in her Shadow Cabinet, my advice to Labour would be to keep her firmly on the back benches. The idea of making such a total lightweight Shadow Chancellor is risible.
More generally, I think we have to take seriously the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn winning this. The other three are just so useless that one has to sympathise with the proposition that he's Labour's best option out of the four. Of course, he'd be an unmitigated strategic disaster for Labour, but at least he can answer a straightforward question without looking as though he's trying, and failing, to remember the stock answer from Labour Leadership for Dummies.
He has ability but lets loyalty to the party get in the way of common sense, simple logic and some necessary gravitas.
Looking at that list, will DM get fed up with the USA and return as 'saviour' in about late 2018? Sure he could count on Mandelson's dark arts. - but perhaps his era will has passed by.
JC does have presence (which the others do not have at all), is a good orator and offers a good degree of certainty in belief (which again the others lack). These factors alone will get him a large following, but will the voters' pencils hover too much at the final count.
I can quite imagine it's a form of grief. All joking aside - it must hit some very hard.
On the Kübler-Ross model of grief as a process moving through denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, Labour are clearly in the throes of the anger stage.
I can quite imagine it's a form of grief. All joking aside - it must hit some very hard.
On the Kübler-Ross model of grief as a process moving through denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, Labour are clearly in the throes of the anger stage.
I would have thought that (looking at the reactions to Liz K) that they are still strongly at the denial stage and hoping that a reverse of fortunes will be enough to get them through. (probably the same odds as winning the lottery).
Good to see Prescott in action this morning - telling everyone to calm down before getting his circular machine gun out and shooting everybody he could think of.
The interesting thing about all of this is the focus on Corbyn's ability to attract back some red Tories and hold onto the Blue Labour folks. If he wins I think Corbyn won't waste his time on these narrow groups, instead he would be targeting the 15 million registered voters who didn't vote plus the few million not even registered.
Good to see Prescott in action this morning - telling everyone to calm down before getting his circular machine gun out and shooting everybody he could think of.
The interesting thing about all of this is the focus on Corbyn's ability to attract back some red Tories and hold onto the Blue Labour folks. If he wins I think Corbyn won't waste his time on these narrow groups, instead he would be targeting the 15 million registered voters who didn't vote plus the few million not even registered.
Kendall has kept most of her powder dry - there is over a month to go. Cooper and Burnham have used most of theirs in sparklers and rockets that have gone in different directions or just fizzled out and nobody can recall where they went or what they looked like.
JC has used limited but impressive mortars that have spread their colours across the sky and the crowd has gazed in wonderment - does he have enough ammunition to last or will it all be a distant but glorious memory?
Did Mark Ferguson not give up his Labour List gig for the LK campaign ? And Hopi Sen is involved too.
Either they are keeping their powder dry or the squib is very damp.
I don't think they expect the Labour party to be this befevered by Corbyn, they thought the Labour party actually wanted to win in 2020
Either way their campaign is very stealthy or very crap.
In an alternate universe, Labour won the election, and the Tories are having a leadership contest
Sarah Wollaston: "I didn't want Genghis Khan to be leader, and I'm surprised by the poll showing him 42 points ahead with our members”
“I only nominated Genghis to broaden the debate. However, I think it's very unfair to dismiss him as unelectable”
"Frankly, it's about time someone challenged the neoliberal consensus that it's wrong to make your enemies drink molten metal"
"Also, it's very patronising and arrogant of the so-called commentariat to keep claiming that Genghis is 'too Right-wing'"
Meanwhile the Labour government can barely contain its glee at seeing the Tory Opposition in such disarray
"They're actually going to pick that nutter Khan as leader!" chortled one minister. "This would be like us electing Jeremy Corbyn!"
Haha!! I had a giggle over that. Top stuff.
Having watched the full LBC leadershp debate yesterday, just wanted to add that I'm very impressed with Iain Dale as chairman/interviewer. Thought he did a really really good job. Far better than Laura K on the BBC Newsnight hustings, though I think the fact that Dale is able to be more open about his own political beliefs without pretending to be some utterly impartial android helped in some ways (particularly his surprising moments of chemistry with Jeremy Corbyn).
Good to see Prescott in action this morning - telling everyone to calm down before getting his circular machine gun out and shooting everybody he could think of.
The interesting thing about all of this is the focus on Corbyn's ability to attract back some red Tories and hold onto the Blue Labour folks. If he wins I think Corbyn won't waste his time on these narrow groups, instead he would be targeting the 15 million registered voters who didn't vote plus the few million not even registered.
I think the SNP were able to target these groups with reasonable success, which is one of the reasons pollsters keep underestimating the SNPs support level - we're entering a new phase in politics with the MSM's ability to influence events diminishing - targeting 20 million verses fighting for the fickle few million doing the rounds of Labour, UKIP, Tories and the LibDems is old style politics.
I think that Labour should call off the leadership election.All that they need to do is to find someone who can speak the words Daily Mail without that BBC sneer coming into their voice and they will be half way to solving their problem
Young people today are less likely to drink or smoke than since records began in 1988 and 1982, which, let's not forget, is more or less an entire generation.
Shadsy's market on the Labour leader at the next GE is absolutely fascinating. Looking at the odds on the four current contenders, and comparing them with the odds on each of them winning the current contest, I think he's rather over-estimating the probability of a defenestration - the 12/1 on Jeremy Corbyn in particular looks good value on that basis.
However, I haven't bet on that. Instead I've had a cheeky tenner's worth of Shadsy's 50/1 on Tristram Hunt. Who knows, Labour might come to their senses, and if they do he'd be a better choice than most of the other antepost nags.
Ed Balls is more of a leader than any of those others, and on his day a politician capable of sorting out Osborne and Cameron.
The rest appear to be also rans, it beggars belief that Labour diverted resources from Morely and Outwood to decapitate Nick Clegg.
Ed Balls' diary for May 2015 will be a must read.
I don't think Ed himself thought there would be an issue. He was happy to go off campaigning in Scotland. As you say I look forward to the memoirs. I'm looking forward to Gordon's even more.
Shadsy's market on the Labour leader at the next GE is absolutely fascinating. Looking at the odds on the four current contenders, and comparing them with the odds on each of them winning the current contest, I think he's rather over-estimating the probability of a defenestration - the 12/1 on Jeremy Corbyn in particular looks good value on that basis.
However, I haven't bet on that. Instead I've had a cheeky tenner's worth of Shadsy's 50/1 on Tristram Hunt. Who knows, Labour might come to their senses, and if they do he'd be a better choice than most of the other antepost nags.
Very unusually, I disagree with you!
Corbyn: would be defenestrated Burnham: might be defenestrated Cooper: would survive Kendall: n/a
As with the main market, Cooper is the value (though the time horizon is too long to bother). If you're desperate to back a successor, Keir Starmer at 20/1 might make sense.
As noted by @election_data, four successive links on the BBC front page, all under the top headline "Kendall: I won't quit Labour leadership contest"
How bad are Labour's woes? Prescott tells Blair 'calm down' Blair: Labour won't win from the left Corbyn: It's going extremely well
Not possible, the BBC would never show the Labour party in a less than generous light by highlighting internal divisions and confusion that makes them look bad, I know I've read that on the internet, so it must be true.
Young people today are less likely to drink or smoke than since records began in 1988 and 1982, which, let's not forget, is more or less an entire generation.
Bet the Telegraph commentators blame that on immigrants.
As an aside, I take issue with the single generation point. That may be the case in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. For Scotland though that's at least 152 generations.
'In terms of legacy, Dave may still go down as the PM who took the UK out of the EU and then lost the UK. '
Mr. Observer makes them sound like bad things. I doubt it will happen though, leaving the EU is a possibility, albeit a small one, but the Scots will not vote for independence anytime soon - they are not that stupid.
A massive shift in how to view your role ahead. As you rightly point out - Labour has had 5yrs to get used to the idea. I can only assume they thought the Tories didn't really win, so didn't need to move on at all.
And yet they still seem to think that. #the76percent
Of course, using that same logic, I was one of the 70 percent who didn't vote for Tony Blair in his famous landslide of 1997.
No complaints were raised then. They were apparently the political wing of the whole British people.
You might be right, of course, but betting on Labour failing to defenestrate its leader has been a consistently good strategy.
Ahem: they did get rid of one (that Blair fella). The (post-war) Labour leaders that have left between elections fall into just two categories: dead, or ex-PMs.
Young people today are less likely to drink or smoke than since records began in 1988 and 1982, which, let's not forget, is more or less an entire generation.
Bet the Telegraph commentators blame that on immigrants.
As an aside, I take issue with the single generation point. That may be the case in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. For Scotland though that's at least 152 generations.
I think that there has been a trend where by a large proportion of young people, especially young males, take their health, or more precisely how they perceive health i.e how "buff" they look, very very seriously now. It is extremely noticeable in my gym the large number of very young guys who are training extremely hard to get a certain body shape. Smoking and drinking certainly wouldn't allow them to achieve that, instead it is all protein shakes and i dare say in some cases roids.
There are serious issues with the idea of axing Corbyn if he wins. For a start, he's got a lot of support (by definition if he wins a leadership election). It could foster a break-away party, or a serious internal opposition.
We should also remember that Labour are bloody useless at coups. Brown took them to 19% in the polls and they couldn't even manage to axe him.
What if Corbyn loses by 52:48 to either Cooper or Burnham.
It's probably more likely. And would that really be any better for Labour?
The party has some stoked up some serious divisions, and I can't see any easy way out now.
Anything above 35% for Jeremy Corbyn would be seriously problematic for Labour. As it is, we already have a pretty clear sense of the sentiment among the Labour membership. It's going to be hard to keep them disciplined behind any leader who tries to reach out to the wider electorate on their own terms rather than preach the Labour gospel.
What if Corbyn loses by 52:48 to either Cooper or Burnham.
It's probably more likely. And would that really be any better for Labour?
The party has some stoked up some serious divisions, and I can't see any easy way out now.
Anything above 35% for Jeremy Corbyn would be seriously problematic for Labour. As it is, we already have a pretty clear sense of the sentiment among the Labour membership. It's going to be hard to keep them disciplined behind any leader who tries to reach out to the wider electorate on their own terms rather than preach the Labour gospel.
I think the worst of all worlds for Labour is to elect a mediocre leader with Corbyn gets ~45% of the final vote. It means when the mediocre candidate fails to make much progress, people blame it on Corbyn not winning.
You can add to that list Murdoch, the YouGov pollsters, and the editor of the Times.
It was a classic rant. The funniest bit was when he forgot Liz Kendall's name.
It’s Prescott’s new philosophy ‘sounding like the voice of moderation’ didn’t you know.
It was classic Prescott - he was the same as usual; the difference is that now everybody else in his party are even more ranty, bangwagony and easily offended.
Young people today are less likely to drink or smoke than since records began in 1988 and 1982, which, let's not forget, is more or less an entire generation.
Bet the Telegraph commentators blame that on immigrants.
As an aside, I take issue with the single generation point. That may be the case in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. For Scotland though that's at least 152 generations.
I think that there has been a trend where by a large proportion of young people, especially young males, take their health, or more precisely how they perceive health i.e how "buff" they look, very very seriously now. It is extremely noticeable in my gym the large number of very young guys who are training extremely hard to get a certain body shape. Smoking and drinking certainly wouldn't allow them to achieve that, instead it is all protein shakes and i dare say in some cases roids.
I agree with all of that and I think that the messages about smoking have taken hold (plus you see less of it in public so the cycle continues).
What if Corbyn loses by 52:48 to either Cooper or Burnham.
It's probably more likely. And would that really be any better for Labour?
The party has some stoked up some serious divisions, and I can't see any easy way out now.
Anything above 35% for Jeremy Corbyn would be seriously problematic for Labour. As it is, we already have a pretty clear sense of the sentiment among the Labour membership. It's going to be hard to keep them disciplined behind any leader who tries to reach out to the wider electorate on their own terms rather than preach the Labour gospel.
I think the worst of all worlds for Labour is to elect a mediocre leader with Corbyn gets ~45% of the final vote. It means when the mediocre candidate fails to make much progress, people blame it on Corbyn not winning.
Agreed - forcing even one of the more moderate (a.k.a. boring) candidates more to the left.
Young people today are less likely to drink or smoke than since records began in 1988 and 1982, which, let's not forget, is more or less an entire generation.
Bet the Telegraph commentators blame that on immigrants.
As an aside, I take issue with the single generation point. That may be the case in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. For Scotland though that's at least 152 generations.
I think that there has been a trend where by a large proportion of young people, especially young males, take their health, or more precisely how they perceive health i.e how "buff" they look, very very seriously now. It is extremely noticeable in my gym the large number of very young guys who are training extremely hard to get a certain body shape. Smoking and drinking certainly wouldn't allow them to achieve that, instead it is all protein shakes and i dare say in some cases roids.
I am sure that wanting to take health more seriously is the main reason, but I must say, as someone who's never smoked or drank much (or at all anymore), though on drink it was more I don't like the taste, I don't know how anyone ever afforded to smoke or drink regularly!
What if Corbyn loses by 52:48 to either Cooper or Burnham.
It's probably more likely. And would that really be any better for Labour?
The party has some stoked up some serious divisions, and I can't see any easy way out now.
Anything above 35% for Jeremy Corbyn would be seriously problematic for Labour. As it is, we already have a pretty clear sense of the sentiment among the Labour membership. It's going to be hard to keep them disciplined behind any leader who tries to reach out to the wider electorate on their own terms rather than preach the Labour gospel.
I think the worst of all worlds for Labour is to elect a mediocre leader with Corbyn gets ~45% of the final vote. It means when the mediocre candidate fails to make much progress, people blame it on Corbyn not winning.
Correct. A strong second for Corbyn would be the worst result for Labour. At least if Corbyn wins fair and square then the internal crisis can start straightaway, begining with issues like how Corbyn can construct a shadow administration from an overwhelmingly hostile parliamentary party.
Chuka Umunna very nearly got it right when he said that Labour is suffering a relapse. The word that he was looking for was prolapse. The arse is falling out of it.
Labour Party members are - by definition - a touch eccentric. But they’re not psychopaths. When it comes to the actual voting, the majority of votes will be cast for either Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper.
Comments
Apparently not. Now they're likely to replace them with oodles of self-righteous posturing with 5% of the Corbynites thinking this will win an election or unite their Party. I think @Tim_B was spot on. If 1983 was a suicide note, this is a point-blank headshot.
Meanwhile elections are won by whomsoever holds the centre ground. That won't be Labour of course as their members 2nd highest requirement is simply to oppose the Tories right or wrong even if the policy straddles the centre ground. Meanwhile while sitting out there on the fringes of the left pointing and sneaking their priority is to connect with ordinary people. Well quite.
Labour are so screwed.
And IIRC 14 of the new MP intake are Corbynites. The Party has shifted away from the centre quite substantially.
No 2nd preference
Surely the Nats want RUK to vote out and Scotland In? If lots of Nats vote tactically for out they could find Scotland votes out and then their argument loses traction
JC has used limited but impressive mortars that have spread their colours across the sky and the crowd has gazed in wonderment - does he have enough ammunition to last or will it all be a distant but glorious memory?
Do you need some threads on AV to help explain to you why you should rank all the candidates?
If Labour relinquish the vice like grip they have had on language, which has grown stronger from the late 60s onwards, they will truly be in an unrecoverable position.
And a lot of Labourites voting for Corbyn seem very keen to adopt this mantle.
Liz - I haven't heard anything really memorable, except 'The country comes first'
Andy - Seems earnest, needs to be loved, not solid on many positions
Yvette - I can't be objective, she leaves me cold
Jeremy - Speaks with authenticity, which makes him more animated than the others
From a righties viewpoint at the start I thought Andy would be the biggest problem for the Tory party, the little I have seen of him now makes me think he isn't a threat that couldn't be neutered pretty easily.
Julia • 9 hours ago
At last the chance to have a socialist leading the party. Labour should focus on winning back the millions of people who stopped voting due to the right of centre ONLY option.
Gaining 3 or 4 million of those votes is far more important than the 500,000 votes Labour could gain from the Tories by jumping further right.
The only leadership candidate who defied the whip and voted against Tory cuts ( funny how that didn't get mentioned)
So that's the strategy. Pile up votes in safe Labour seats...
Sorry forgot link
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/why-is-jeremy-corbyn-doing-so-well/
More power to their elbow...
Daft profile button is back on Chrome. Stupid thing.
I do not get that argument Kendall should stand down.
If Corbyn has 50%+, he wins anyway. If he does not and Kendall is eliminated, her supporters' second preferences will largely go to someone else anyway.
Either they are keeping their powder dry or the squib is very damp.
Any chance of sticking in 2) Cooper 3) Burnham too
It was no longer "we will do" but "we will talk about".
A massive shift in how to view your role ahead. As you rightly point out - Labour has had 5yrs to get used to the idea. I can only assume they thought the Tories didn't really win, so didn't need to move on at all. So here they are experiencing 2010 all over again in 2015.
I was (and am still) very partial to large and juicy oranges. Having just bought some, I went into the students' union, got a plate and peeled and sectioned a few oranges ready to eat. In the middle of my feast, in rushed a young lady (not known to me) who put down her protest banner and coming over all friendly said, "Those look lovely, would you like to share with me?" I told her to help herself and gave her some tissues to wipe her face. Then when she had finished and told me these oranges were lovely, I just informed her that she had just eaten Jaffa and Outspan oranges. A look of horror crossed her face and she shrieked that she doubted the legitimacy of my birth. I roared with laughter (and still do at the memory) and put her actions in the next edition of the Student Union newspaper.
One fewer exogenous issue to blame for Lab's failure.
If Liz polls say 5% and is eliminated, JC has say, 40% in the first round.
If Liz voters have no 2nd preferences recorded, then JC is left with a larger percentage of a smaller electorate, his share would rise from 40% to 42%
On the other hand, if Liz withdrew, many of her supporters may not vote anyway....
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/British/Labour-Leader/Politics-N-1z141i5Z1z12j39Z1z141le/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=social&utm_content=sports&utm_campaign=politics&hootPostID=d532d08bbfb9ed373ec426d1b66dbe05
He has more ability than most on that list.
How bad are Labour's woes?
Prescott tells Blair 'calm down'
Blair: Labour won't win from the left
Corbyn: It's going extremely well
That's likely to be Andy or Yvette on current polling, but the 'wrong' one could be knocked out heading to the final round.
More generally, I think we have to take seriously the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn winning this. The other three are just so useless that one has to sympathise with the proposition that he's Labour's best option out of the four. Of course, he'd be an unmitigated strategic disaster for Labour, but at least he can answer a straightforward question without looking as though he's trying, and failing, to remember the stock answer from Labour Leadership for Dummies.
Corbyn is the only articulate one with a position that sounds genuine. How Labour got to this point is a wonder. I'm beginning to think its possibly worse than IDS winning.
Looking at that list, will DM get fed up with the USA and return as 'saviour' in about late 2018? Sure he could count on Mandelson's dark arts. - but perhaps his era will has passed by.
JC does have presence (which the others do not have at all), is a good orator and offers a good degree of certainty in belief (which again the others lack). These factors alone will get him a large following, but will the voters' pencils hover too much at the final count.
The rest appear to be also rans, it beggars belief that Labour diverted resources from Morely and Outwood to decapitate Nick Clegg.
Ed Balls' diary for May 2015 will be a must read.
In an alternate universe, Labour won the election, and the Tories are having a leadership contest
Sarah Wollaston: "I didn't want Genghis Khan to be leader, and I'm surprised by the poll showing him 42 points ahead with our members”
“I only nominated Genghis to broaden the debate. However, I think it's very unfair to dismiss him as unelectable”
"Frankly, it's about time someone challenged the neoliberal consensus that it's wrong to make your enemies drink molten metal"
"Also, it's very patronising and arrogant of the so-called commentariat to keep claiming that Genghis is 'too Right-wing'"
Meanwhile the Labour government can barely contain its glee at seeing the Tory Opposition in such disarray
"They're actually going to pick that nutter Khan as leader!" chortled one minister. "This would be like us electing Jeremy Corbyn!"
Mr. Price, that's rather good.
The interesting thing about all of this is the focus on Corbyn's ability to attract back some red Tories and hold onto the Blue Labour folks. If he wins I think Corbyn won't waste his time on these narrow groups, instead he would be targeting the 15 million registered voters who didn't vote plus the few million not even registered.
EDIT when the Tories/LD start talking about his mates in the IRA, Hezbolla, loving immigrants, CND and giving the Falklands to Argies?
EDIT PS Corbyn attracting Red Tories???! In what universe is this?
http://bit.ly/1KmfDZ2
Having watched the full LBC leadershp debate yesterday, just wanted to add that I'm very impressed with Iain Dale as chairman/interviewer. Thought he did a really really good job. Far better than Laura K on the BBC Newsnight hustings, though I think the fact that Dale is able to be more open about his own political beliefs without pretending to be some utterly impartial android helped in some ways (particularly his surprising moments of chemistry with Jeremy Corbyn).
Are full of passionate intensity.
The commentariat wouldn't describe a non-white person as being "too right wing".
http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB17879/smok-drin-drug-youn-peop-eng-2014-rep.pdf
'In terms of legacy, Dave may still go down as the PM who took the UK out of the EU and then lost the UK. '
A win win for a lot of voters.
However, I haven't bet on that. Instead I've had a cheeky tenner's worth of Shadsy's 50/1 on Tristram Hunt. Who knows, Labour might come to their senses, and if they do he'd be a better choice than most of the other antepost nags.
My colleague @AlanSoady has compiled list of people Prescott attacked during his call for calm this am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKllAdMWUAAQ-vf.jpg
It was a classic rant. The funniest bit was when he forgot Liz Kendall's name.
Corbyn: would be defenestrated
Burnham: might be defenestrated
Cooper: would survive
Kendall: n/a
As with the main market, Cooper is the value (though the time horizon is too long to bother). If you're desperate to back a successor, Keir Starmer at 20/1 might make sense.
As an aside, I take issue with the single generation point. That may be the case in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. For Scotland though that's at least 152 generations.
Mr. Observer makes them sound like bad things. I doubt it will happen though, leaving the EU is a possibility, albeit a small one, but the Scots will not vote for independence anytime soon - they are not that stupid.
No complaints were raised then. They were apparently the political wing of the whole British people.
It's probably more likely. And would that really be any better for Labour?
The party has some stoked up some serious divisions, and I can't see any easy way out now.
We should also remember that Labour are bloody useless at coups. Brown took them to 19% in the polls and they couldn't even manage to axe him.
Who should I vote for?
Either way, I'm a happy Tory bunny this week....
Correct. A strong second for Corbyn would be the worst result for Labour. At least if Corbyn wins fair and square then the internal crisis can start straightaway, begining with issues like how Corbyn can construct a shadow administration from an overwhelmingly hostile parliamentary party.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33629620
Chuka Umunna very nearly got it right when he said that Labour is suffering a relapse. The word that he was looking for was prolapse. The arse is falling out of it.