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.
Hunt's speech when he stepped down to back Liz was better than his candidacy. I think he's more of a behind-the-scenes strategist than a leader.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
1) Corbyn 2) Cooper 3) Burnham
Very tempted, but as i do not have a death wish for my party he will not get my vote. Genuinely undecided about others as i was not overly impressed by Burnham at the one hustings i was able to attend. A great pity, from my point of view that the best candidates did not stand.
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.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
1) Corbyn 2) Cooper 3) Burnham
Very tempted, but as i do not have a death wish for my party he will not get my vote. Genuinely undecided about others as i was not overly impressed by Burnham at the one hustings i was able to attend. A great pity, from my point of view that the best candidates did not stand.
I'll be voting for Cooper. I think she would give Cameron most problems.
Yes but the problem is the majority of votes in the first round could be cast for either Burnham or Cooper but due to the transfer system it doesn't guarantee that either of those two end up winning the leadership.
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.
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.
Which of the two will be more damaged by the resemblance between Tristram Hunt and Zac Goldsmith?
When I first looked at the advert yesterday my initial thought was "why is Tristram Hunt running for London Mayor as a Tory candidate?"
Mr. Monty, might be right. I said a while ago that if I were Labour I'd probably back her.
It's not actually a difficult choice. Corbyn is out of the question. I'm not a psychopath and he would be a disaster. Kendall would split the party equally but from the opposite side. Burnham is too easy to attack over his record in govt. Cooper is shrewd and Cameron and Osborne seem to have an issue with women.
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.
They are probablyright that Corbyn won't win, it is true after all that the loudest voices at present are not necessarily representative. That said, it's interesting that though they agree on that, Hatwal thinks that means Kendall will do better than expected (though he does not say will win), whereas Hodges still thinks she will be reduced to a humiliating also ran type of position.
Mr. Monty, might be right. I said a while ago that if I were Labour I'd probably back her.
She seems dull as dishwater, and has been invisible for years it seems, but she still comes across as having some substance, I preferred her to her husband quite frankly, and with Burnham seemingly making more mockable moves now and then, she might be better placed as the 'safety first' candidate.
Mr. Monty, not sure she's shrewd, just less bad than Burnham. Her handling of HIPS was poor.
I dislike her use of of her own kids in arguments about child credits/in contrast to Kendall.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Or queen in this case. I think the leader is a caretaker anyway and Yvette is the best on offer. I think she could be effective at winding up Cameron, and there will be lots of strategic opportunities for Labour over Europe. Not all doom and gloom once we have elected someone.
"The establishment is going crazy at the thought of a “left winger” being in charge of the opposition, someone who will dare bring up issues such as poverty and inequality on the national TV networks. The panic has started and the attack dogs are unleashed, including the war criminal. Lets not forget its only 24% of the population running this country right now, Corbyn has a chance. Only 24% Tory voters, just a quarter."
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.
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.
It seems that two cohorts very much in love with the disproven nonsense about a "fear of SNP" determining the outcome of the election are Labour Activists and PB Tories.
Perhaps it is a common view of all groups of deluded zealots.
"The establishment is going crazy at the thought of a “left winger” being in charge of the opposition, someone who will dare bring up issues such as poverty and inequality on the national TV networks. The panic has started and the attack dogs are unleashed, including the war criminal. Lets not forget its only 24% of the population running this country right now, Corbyn has a chance. Only 24% Tory voters, just a quarter."
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.
Until very recently it was my view that Corbyn's support would fade away as the actual choice came into focus, but in the last few days I've begun to have serious doubts about this. As was pointed out here a couple of days ago (apologies to whoever it was, I've forgotten who made the comment), new associates are still signing up, with union encouragement and help, and they are predominantly Corbyn supporters. That will at least partly offset any effect of existing members deciding the abyss they are currently saying they'll jump into is too scary. That, the continued utter uselessness of the three other candidates, and the inability of either Andy or Yvette to establish a clear lead which might act as a unifying factor, makes me think that Corbyn is quite likely to make it.
It's unthinkable, of course. But then so was the SNP virtually wiping out Labour's Scottish MPs.
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.
Until very recently it was my view that Corbyn's support would fade away as the actual choice came into focus, but in the last few days I've begun to have serious doubts about this. As was pointed out here a couple of days ago (apologies to whoever it was, I've forgotten who made the comment), new associates are still signing up, with union encouragement and help, and they are predominantly Corbyn supporters. That will at least partly offset any effect of existing members deciding the abyss they are currently saying they'll jump into is too scary. That, the continued utter uselessness of the three other candidates, and the inability of either Andy or Yvette to establish a clear lead which might act as a unifying factor, makes me think that Corbyn is quite likely to make it.
It's unthinkable, of course. But then so was the SNP virtually wiping out Labour's Scottish MPs.
I seem to recall that there is data to show that Labour's membership is very London-centric - which may well be playing into Corbyn's hands - as he is very much a London MP.
The Labour-SNP line was taken by the party that won a surprise majority. You can argue how much the SNP aspect played a role in that, but it's not insignificant.
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.
Until very recently it was my view that Corbyn's support would fade away as the actual choice came into focus, but in the last few days I've begun to have serious doubts about this. As was pointed out here a couple of days ago (apologies to whoever it was, I've forgotten who made the comment), new associates are still signing up, with union encouragement and help, and they are predominantly Corbyn supporters. That will at least partly offset any effect of existing members deciding the abyss they are currently saying they'll jump into is too scary. That, the continued utter uselessness of the three other candidates, and the inability of either Andy or Yvette to establish a clear lead which might act as a unifying factor, makes me think that Corbyn is quite likely to make it.
It's unthinkable, of course. But then so was the SNP virtually wiping out Labour's Scottish MPs.
The only polling we know about thus far would have to be far more wrong than the English & Welsh GE polling (The Scottish polling was correct!) in order for Corbyn not to closer to an evens chance than his current price.
Perhaps Yvette and Jeremy are BOTH value at the moment in the betting, with Burnham and Kendall being too short ?
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.
It seems that two cohorts very much in love with the disproven nonsense about a "fear of SNP" determining the outcome of the election are Labour Activists and PB Tories.
Perhaps it is a common view of all groups of deluded zealots.
I think that's unfair. It seemed a plausible idea, and in any case it means the alternative is actually better for pb Tories as it means less people voted out of fear and may be retained.
Oh and Lds like that explanation too, don't forget them.
Perhaps Yvette and Jeremy are BOTH value at the moment in the betting, with Burnham and Kendall being too short ?
Yes, I think that is quite possible. Frankly Kendall is too short at any odds.
On the polling, I'd treat it with multiple pinches of salt, except that it accords very well with other circumstantial evidence (CLP nominations, reports from within the campaign teams, anecdotal data, etc). No one of those is particularly persuasive on its own, but it's striking that they all point in the same direction.
Mr. Monty, not sure she's shrewd, just less bad than Burnham. Her handling of HIPS was poor.
I dislike her use of of her own kids in arguments about child credits/in contrast to Kendall.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Or queen in this case. I think the leader is a caretaker anyway and Yvette is the best on offer. I think she could be effective at winding up Cameron, and there will be lots of strategic opportunities for Labour over Europe. Not all doom and gloom once we have elected someone.
So that's it. The great political movement of the working class has reduced its ambition to making Cameron go red in the face at PMQ's and the hope of making trouble over Europe.
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.
Until very recently it was my view that Corbyn's support would fade away as the actual choice came into focus, but in the last few days I've begun to have serious doubts about this. As was pointed out here a couple of days ago (apologies to whoever it was, I've forgotten who made the comment), new associates are still signing up, with union encouragement and help, and they are predominantly Corbyn supporters. That will at least partly offset any effect of existing members deciding the abyss they are currently saying they'll jump into is too scary. That, the continued utter uselessness of the three other candidates, and the inability of either Andy or Yvette to establish a clear lead which might act as a unifying factor, makes me think that Corbyn is quite likely to make it.
It's unthinkable, of course. But then so was the SNP virtually wiping out Labour's Scottish MPs.
I think that was me :-) I do have a solution for Labour, but hopefully TSE/OGH will run that as a header in the next day or two.
Meanwhile, I'm looking to back Corbyn at 4/1+ and lay him at 3/1. Precise.
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.
It is quite bizarre to see just how demented and delusional the discussion of the Labour leadership has become. It seems that several premise that have absolutely ZERO basis in reality are driving the perceived wisdom and the projections for what a Corbyn leadership would mean.
Such fallacious reasoning is : -
1. Somehow there is a belief that Ed Miliband was left wing. 2. Somehow there is a bizarre delusion that Labour proposed a leftist agenda in their 2015 manifesto. 3. The excuse diorama which lines up all sorts of implausible and unevidenced "reasons" for labours defeat the most prominant one being the "fear of SNP" canard. 4. That Labour can continue with a leadership which is utterly detatched and alienated from its actual grassroots membership (such as it still exists).
The last of these is the real problem Labour face. Labour were taken over from the late 80s to date by a detached elite of primarily London based intelligentsia whose primary goal is winning elections and for whom actually having a platform anyone believes in is utterly outside their ken.
It is hard to be certain how much belief anyone in the Labour leadership has in their ability to win or at least tie in 2020. It may be that some of them still cling to this utterly misguided hope. But whether the belief is real or not, it can only harm them. Until they realise that the party is completely broken and cannot win in 2020 under any circumstances (even the blackest of Black Swans will not see them return to power) they cannot make the wholesale, practical changes they need.
Primarily, they should be using 2020 to remove an entire generation of South East based politicians who have been parachuted into Northern and Urban constituencies to which they have no ties. Allow local parties to replace these people with completely local candidates and then start the next cycle from scratch with a platform that they actually believe in.
Until very recently it was my view that Corbyn's support would fade away as the actual choice came into focus, but in the last few days I've begun to have serious doubts about this.
"For anyone unsure of his intentions, he offered a clear tagline to his plans: “We need to judge our economy not on the number of billionaires we have, but on whether we can get rid of poverty”. This is a simple message that many Labour members are likely to agree with.
This is kind of politics that appeals to a membership base tired of hearing confused messages from party leadership."
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.
Until very recently it was my view that Corbyn's support would fade away as the actual choice came into focus, but in the last few days I've begun to have serious doubts about this. As was pointed out here a couple of days ago (apologies to whoever it was, I've forgotten who made the comment), new associates are still signing up, with union encouragement and help, and they are predominantly Corbyn supporters. That will at least partly offset any effect of existing members deciding the abyss they are currently saying they'll jump into is too scary. That, the continued utter uselessness of the three other candidates, and the inability of either Andy or Yvette to establish a clear lead which might act as a unifying factor, makes me think that Corbyn is quite likely to make it.
It's unthinkable, of course. But then so was the SNP virtually wiping out Labour's Scottish MPs.
The only polling we know about thus far would have to be far more wrong than the English & Welsh GE polling (The Scottish polling was correct!) in order for Corbyn not to closer to an evens chance than his current price.
Perhaps Yvette and Jeremy are BOTH value at the moment in the betting, with Burnham and Kendall being too short ?
Let us also bear in mind some of the polling was done before the welfare vote on Monday. It'd be interesting to see how opinions have shifted. The poll could either understate of overstate in my opinion. So very hard to call.
The Labour-SNP line was taken by the party that won a surprise majority. You can argue how much the SNP aspect played a role in that, but it's not insignificant.
We have one piece of evidence which demonstrated that the positive effect for the Tories of "SNP Fear" was matched almost entirely by the negative effect of those who were attracted by the SNP offer.
There is no other evidence for the claim. It is unsubstantiated claptrap.
Mr. Monty, not sure she's shrewd, just less bad than Burnham. Her handling of HIPS was poor.
I dislike her use of of her own kids in arguments about child credits/in contrast to Kendall.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Or queen in this case. I think the leader is a caretaker anyway and Yvette is the best on offer. I think she could be effective at winding up Cameron, and there will be lots of strategic opportunities for Labour over Europe. Not all doom and gloom once we have elected someone.
So that's it. The great political movement of the working class has reduced its ambition to making Cameron go red in the face at PMQ's and the hope of making trouble over Europe.
Yeah, obviously that's it. We may come up with some other stuff around closing the gap between rich and poor and increasing social mobility, but most of us join the party in order to make Cameron go red in face on a Wednesday.
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.
It is quite bizarre to see just how demented and delusional the discussion of the Labour leadership has become. It seems that several premise that have absolutely ZERO basis in reality are driving the perceived wisdom and the projections for what a Corbyn leadership would mean.
Such fallacious reasoning is : -
1. Somehow there is a belief that Ed Miliband was left wing. 2. Somehow there is a bizarre delusion that Labour proposed a leftist agenda in their 2015 manifesto. 3. The excuse diorama which lines up all sorts of implausible and unevidenced "reasons" for labours defeat the most prominant one being the "fear of SNP" canard. 4. That Labour can continue with a leadership which is utterly detatched and alienated from its actual grassroots membership (such as it still exists).
The last of these is the real problem Labour face. Labour were taken over from the late 80s to date by a detached elite of primarily London based intelligentsia whose primary goal is winning elections and for whom actually having a platform anyone believes in is utterly outside their ken.
It is hard to be certain how much belief anyone in the Labour leadership has in their ability to win or at least tie in 2020. It may be that some of them still cling to this utterly misguided hope. But whether the belief is real or not, it can only harm them. Until they realise that the party is completely broken and cannot win in 2020 under any circumstances (even the blackest of Black Swans will not see them return to power) they cannot make the wholesale, practical changes they need.
Primarily, they should be using 2020 to remove an entire generation of South East based politicians who have been parachuted into Northern and Urban constituencies to which they have no ties. Allow local parties to replace these people with completely local candidates and then start the next cycle from scratch with a platform that they actually believe in.
Sounds good, but what would the big unions think of such a strategy? Any plan for how the Labour Party could should re-invent itself that doesn't take into account the wishes of Unite etc. is never going to work.
I'm now hoping for a Corbyn win. I would be very unlikely to ever vote for the party he creates but at least we would then have a left wing party which we can all understand. Those like myself who are interested in a more integrated Europe and giving support to immigrants and refugees and rather less in the little Englader values of both Corbyn and Cameron could join a centrist grouping probably under the umbrella of the Libs and hopefully breathe some life into them after their disastrous sojourn with the Tories
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.
It seems that two cohorts very much in love with the disproven nonsense about a "fear of SNP" determining the outcome of the election are Labour Activists and PB Tories.
Perhaps it is a common view of all groups of deluded zealots.
I think that's unfair. It seemed a plausible idea, and in any case it means the alternative is actually better for pb Tories as it means less people voted out of fear and may be retained.
Oh and Lds like that explanation too, don't forget them.
Yes I agree that it SEEMS plausible. The problem is that it is being accepted as a fact even after evidence that it is not true. When a hypothesis is disproven by evidence it becomes a delusion.
"Fear of SNP" is currently a delusion. As such I don't see how my comment can be seen as unfair.
Also, it is part of a consistent Tory narrative in the current environment where myths and legends are being promoted as facts.
"The Tories won the election" should always be countered with "The Tories got 37%" "Labour were too left wing" should always be countered with "their manifesto was not remotely left wing" "Fear of SNP won the election" should always be countered with "the only evidence says that this is not true/delusional"
Mr. Monty, not sure she's shrewd, just less bad than Burnham. Her handling of HIPS was poor.
I dislike her use of of her own kids in arguments about child credits/in contrast to Kendall.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Or queen in this case. I think the leader is a caretaker anyway and Yvette is the best on offer. I think she could be effective at winding up Cameron, and there will be lots of strategic opportunities for Labour over Europe. Not all doom and gloom once we have elected someone.
So that's it. The great political movement of the working class has reduced its ambition to making Cameron go red in the face at PMQ's and the hope of making trouble over Europe.
Yeah, obviously that's it. We may come up with some other stuff around closing the gap between rich and poor and increasing social mobility, but most of us join the party in order to make Cameron go red in face on a Wednesday.
Should your choice of a leader concentrate on winding up Cameron and the possible opportunities over Europe? I don't know, but if those are the things you put first in your list of reasons for a particular candidate then I can only draw the conclusion that actually they are the things you think most important.
Mr. Monty, not sure she's shrewd, just less bad than Burnham. Her handling of HIPS was poor.
I dislike her use of of her own kids in arguments about child credits/in contrast to Kendall.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Or queen in this case. I think the leader is a caretaker anyway and Yvette is the best on offer. I think she could be effective at winding up Cameron, and there will be lots of strategic opportunities for Labour over Europe. Not all doom and gloom once we have elected someone.
So that's it. The great political movement of the working class has reduced its ambition to making Cameron go red in the face at PMQ's and the hope of making trouble over Europe.
Yeah, obviously that's it. We may come up with some other stuff around closing the gap between rich and poor and increasing social mobility, but most of us join the party in order to make Cameron go red in face on a Wednesday.
Should your choice of a leader concentrate on winding up Cameron and the possible opportunities over Europe? I don't know, but if those are the things you put first in your list of reasons for a particular candidate then I can only draw the conclusion that actually they are the things you think most important.
We need someone who can wrong-foot the Tories and doesn't have obvious points of weakness. Apart from Corbyn there isn't too much between them ideologically so it's not worth going into.
Those whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad. Then they make them join the Labour Party. Then, if they’re feeling especially vindictive, they make them leader of the Labour Party.
Even for those well schooled in Labour’s unique ability to shoot itself in the foot, miss, and then shoot itself in the head, this has been a red letter week.
Yes but the problem is the majority of votes in the first round could be cast for either Burnham or Cooper but due to the transfer system it doesn't guarantee that either of those two end up winning the leadership.
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.
It is quite bizarre to see just how demented and delusional the discussion of the Labour leadership has become. It seems that several premise that have absolutely ZERO basis in reality are driving the perceived wisdom and the projections for what a Corbyn leadership would mean.
Such fallacious reasoning is : -
1. Somehow there is a belief that Ed Miliband was left wing. 2. Somehow there is a bizarre delusion that Labour proposed a leftist agenda in their 2015 manifesto. 3. The excuse diorama which lines up all sorts of implausible and unevidenced "reasons" for labours defeat the most prominant one being the "fear of SNP" canard. 4. That Labour can continue with a leadership which is utterly detatched and alienated from its actual grassroots membership (such as it still exists).
The last of these is the real problem Labour face. Labour were taken over from the late 80s to date by a detached elite of primarily London based intelligentsia whose primary goal is winning elections and for whom actually having a platform anyone believes in is utterly outside their ken.
It is hard to be certain how much belief anyone in the Labour leadership has in their ability to win or at least tie in 2020. It may be that some of them still cling to this utterly misguided hope. But whether the belief is real or not, it can only harm them. Until they realise that the party is completely broken and cannot win in 2020 under any circumstances (even the blackest of Black Swans will not see them return to power) they cannot make the wholesale, practical changes they need.
Primarily, they should be using 2020 to remove an entire generation of South East based politicians who have been parachuted into Northern and Urban constituencies to which they have no ties. Allow local parties to replace these people with completely local candidates and then start the next cycle from scratch with a platform that they actually believe in.
Sounds good, but what would the big unions think of such a strategy? Any plan for how the Labour Party could should re-invent itself that doesn't take into account the wishes of Unite etc. is never going to work.
Well the big unions have to realise that hte system which allowed them to parachute their preferred candidates into safe Labour seats no longer benefits them at all (vis a vis Karie Murphy) and only works for the Islington Set now.
They also need to realise that big unions are no longer a strong enough rock to base a broad church leftist movement on in 2015 and that the system in the UK has to change to a PR based system which allows a multi-party Left to gain or share power when the Left is likely to be unelectable in any single party format without crossing the line into being right of centre.
@BBCNormanS: Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper shd rule out serving in a Corbyn cabinet - @leicesterliz
So that voting Corbyn gives the Average Labour Activist the bonus of being able to get rid of any cabinet hopes for the Butcher of Mid Staffs/First Privatiser of the NHS and Mrs Balls as well? Just by voting for Jezza.
Labour criticisms of Corbyn need to get more specific. Attacking someone generically for being too left wing isn't a winning strategy in a Labour leadership election. But Corbyn's specific policies and views can make people think again.
Foreign policy being the most obvious target, I think. The Tory press are going at him on that, but labour voices seem shy
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
1) Corbyn 2) Cooper 3) Burnham
Very tempted, but as i do not have a death wish for my party he will not get my vote. Genuinely undecided about others as i was not overly impressed by Burnham at the one hustings i was able to attend. A great pity, from my point of view that the best candidates did not stand.
I'll be voting for Cooper. I think she would give Cameron most problems.
Cameron will not be PM in 2020. You are delusional in thinking Cameron and Osborne have a 'problem' with women. How would she cope with Boris?
Labour criticisms of Corbyn need to get more specific. Attacking someone generically for being too left wing isn't a winning strategy in a Labour leadership election. But Corbyn's specific policies and views can make people think again.
Foreign policy being the most obvious target, I think. The Tory press are going at him on that, but labour voices seem shy
Thats because all Labour people want the real world to go away.
Judging by what's NOT happening - I can only presume they're scared of Corbyn - and worst of all unwilling to challenge him in case their own paltry performances are damaged by it.
It's the Politics Of Nothing. Burnham has made a complete berk of himself with folksy nonsense and changing his mind from one day to the next. Yvette hasn't said anything about anything and hoping by not saying anything she'll get the NOTA votes.
Kendall isn't doing much either - but at least she's trying to say the unsayable.
Labour criticisms of Corbyn need to get more specific. Attacking someone generically for being too left wing isn't a winning strategy in a Labour leadership election. But Corbyn's specific policies and views can make people think again.
Foreign policy being the most obvious target, I think. The Tory press are going at him on that, but labour voices seem shy
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
"For anyone unsure of his intentions, he offered a clear tagline to his plans: “We need to judge our economy not on the number of billionaires we have, but on whether we can get rid of poverty”. This is a simple message that many Labour members are likely to agree with.
This is kind of politics that appeals to a membership base tired of hearing confused messages from party leadership."
"Moon on a stick" approach - has served the Nats well.
Great while it lasts when you are in opposition - or when you don't actually govern like Nicola.
Labour just don't want to win enough - that's the truth of it.
One fewer exogenous issue to blame for Lab's failure.
Perhaps it is a common view of all groups of deluded zealots.
Oh and Lds like that explanation too, don't forget them.
Yes I agree that it SEEMS plausible. The problem is that it is being accepted as a fact even after evidence that it is not true. When a hypothesis is disproven by evidence it becomes a delusion.
"Fear of SNP" is currently a delusion. As such I don't see how my comment can be seen as unfair.
Also, it is part of a consistent Tory narrative in the current environment where myths and legends are being promoted as facts.
"The Tories won the election" should always be countered with "The Tories got 37%" "Labour were too left wing" should always be countered with "their manifesto was not remotely left wing" "Fear of SNP won the election" should always be countered with "the only evidence says that this is not true/delusional"
I would add the caveat, as we have argued about before, that only people who have in the past been criticial of parties winning majorities on 37%ish of the vote, can use the first of your 'myths to be countered'. If someone has never liked that, even when labour won, then it's consistent even if someone disagrees. If they had no problem with Labour doing the same and calling it 'winning the election', then they cannot use it honestly as that would mean they don't actually have a problem with it, only the result this time (again, I stress that you have stated you had a problem with people 'winning' on such amounts before, and so are consistent on that point).
Again though I add that while the Tories have thought the fear of SNP was the winning factor, I don't think it can be called a Tory narrative - as it is used by Labour and LDs people as a comfort blanket about their own troubles (that is, it wasn't their fault, people were too scared of the SNP), not to advance a Tory narrative but to justify their own. The Tory narrative is in fact aided by dispelling this 'myth', as it means they are liked more than they thought, something I think they'd be keen on. It's the difference between pushing something that is not true to advance an agenda and just happening to believe something that is not true.
Well the big unions have to realise that hte system which allowed them to parachute their preferred candidates into safe Labour seats no longer benefits them at all (vis a vis Karie Murphy) and only works for the Islington Set now.
They also need to realise that big unions are no longer a strong enough rock to base a broad church leftist movement on in 2015 and that the system in the UK has to change to a PR based system which allows a multi-party Left to gain or share power when the Left is likely to be unelectable in any single party format without crossing the line into being right of centre.
I am not sure that Unite would agree with your conclusion in your first paragraph, they seem to have had some success in getting quite a large number of their preferred candidates into safe seats. However, let that pass your second paragraph contains some very interesting and very large ideas.
Labour unelectable to power as a single party. Multiple left leaning parties. Some form of PR. That is really big stuff, a complete redrawing of the political landscape would be needed. I am not arguing with you on this or the need for massive change but you drop into the conversation in, if you'll forgive the term, a casual manner some real biggies.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
Mr Cyclefree - please keep this powder dry until Labour are stupid enough to elect him. Certainly fleet street is not going for JC at all - in fact they are showing great restraint.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
I couldn't agree more. I've been a member since 1996 but would find it difficult to remain in the party if he was leader, certainly for any length of time anyway.
After seeing that LBC debate, especially the questions on Ed and the EU, I think Corbyn is probably the best choice for Labour. Sure, he's too far left, but most people don't actually pay too much attention to ideology. What they do pay attention to is whether a party leader comes across as an identikit dull politician or whether they seem like a normal bloke with principles. Would it be better to have a Blair or a Cameron? Sure, but that's not on offer.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
Hearty applause for your first paragraph (not that I agree with absolutely all of it, but the general sentiment I endorse). As many failings as this nation has, errors it has made and certain amounts of 'responsibility' for things going on elsewhere, I can never abide the tendency to exagerrate this and extend it as a seeming blank check for self recrimination to the end of time, even decades, centuries after the things we may or may not have done. You cannot keep extending moral culpability outward and onward in such a complex world so long afterwards.
I think it was because I had a particularly strident teacher on British imperial history at school, and she would criticise Britain for not doing something in one place, then criticise them for doing it in another place, with no explanation of whether the context made the 'good' option different, it was just always 'look how horrible we are, no one has ever been so horrible'. I'm amazed I turned out such a wishy washy social liberal in most instances.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
Mr Cyclefree - please keep this powder dry until Labour are stupid enough to elect him. Certainly fleet street is not going for JC at all - in fact they are showing great restraint.
Go on Labour - go for JC.
I understand the tactics. But I really don't want to have as opposition leader someone who thnks there is a positive side to Hamas or who has no problem sharing a platform with a rabid anti-Semite whose ravings sound like something out of Der Sturmer. I really don't. The Labour party should be better than that. British democracy deserves better than that. Decent Labour voters deserve better than that.
@JohnRentoul: While that's going on, Labour prepares to elect the assassin of its most successful leader as deputy.
I did wonder when people would start to pick up on the likelihood of Mr. Watson becoming deputy leader and the implications of that. Corbyn may have not had a new thought since 1976 (as per Mrs. Free below), but Watson has established himself with a reputation of a political thug whose word may not always be held to be true. What effect might he have on public perception of the Party once he emerges from the shadows?
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
Mr Cyclefree - please keep this powder dry until Labour are stupid enough to elect him. Certainly fleet street is not going for JC at all - in fact they are showing great restraint.
Go on Labour - go for JC.
I understand the tactics. But I really don't want to have as opposition leader someone who thnks there is a positive side to Hamas or who has no problem sharing a platform with a rabid anti-Semite whose ravings sound like something out of Der Sturmer. I really don't. The Labour party should be better than that. British democracy deserves better than that. Decent Labour voters deserve better than that.
I'm semi joking - but Labour are rudderless - being buffeted by the winds of social media and post election lefty rage - I'm not sure anyone can predict how this will turn out or indeed influence it.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
A few have described him as 'nice'.
I'm not sure. Full of conviction, yes. Nice?
This is someone who met with Sinn Fein days after they tried to assassinate the British PM, let his marriage collapse over an ideological difference of schooling and openly supports Hammas. He also seems to be overly earnest and totally devoid of any sense of humour.
Politicians that take themselves too seriously and have no sense of humour worry me.
He seems to be a political incarnation of CiF to me. Harmless as a writer or campaigner, but with a world view so warped and convictions so strong that he'd be very dangerous in power.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
A few have described him as 'nice'.
I'm not sure. Full of conviction, yes. Nice?
This is someone who met with Sinn Fein days after they tried to assassinate the British PM, let his marriage collapse over an ideological difference of schooling and openly supports Hammas. He also seems to be overly earnest and totally devoid of any sense of humour.
Politicians that take themselves too seriously and have no sense of humour worry me.
He seems to be a political incarnation of CiF to me. Harmless as a writer or campaigner, but with a world view so warped and convictions so strong that he'd be very dangerous in power.
I think it will be Corbyn's views on Northern Ireland, the Middle East, socialist dictatorships, etc, that rub the shine off the man. If it hadn't been for that I might agree that Labour could survive him.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
snip
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
A few have described him as 'nice'.
I'm not sure. Full of conviction, yes. Nice?
This is someone who met with Sinn Fein days after they tried to assassinate the British PM, let his marriage collapse over an ideological difference of schooling and openly supports Hammas. He also seems to be overly earnest and totally devoid of any sense of humour.
Politicians that take themselves too seriously and have no sense of humour worry me.
He seems to be a political incarnation of CiF to me. Harmless as a writer or campaigner, but with a world view so warped and convictions so strong that he'd be very dangerous in power.
I think it will be Corbyn's views on Northern Ireland, the Middle East, socialist dictatorships, etc, that rub the shine off the man. If it hadn't been for that I might agree that Labour could survive him.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
A few have described him as 'nice'.
I'm not sure. Full of conviction, yes. Nice?
This is someone who met with Sinn Fein days after they tried to assassinate the British PM, let his marriage collapse over an ideological difference of schooling and openly supports Hammas. He also seems to be overly earnest and totally devoid of any sense of humour.
Politicians that take themselves too seriously and have no sense of humour worry me.
He seems to be a political incarnation of CiF to me. Harmless as a writer or campaigner, but with a world view so warped and convictions so strong that he'd be very dangerous in power.
I think it will be Corbyn's views on Northern Ireland, the Middle East, socialist dictatorships, etc, that rub the shine off the man. If it hadn't been for that I might agree that Labour could survive him.
He strikes me as someone who'd privately admit to wanting to string up most Tories.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
A few have described him as 'nice'.
He seems to be a political incarnation of CiF to me. Harmless as a writer or campaigner, but with a world view so warped and convictions so strong that he'd be very dangerous in power.
Writers and campaigners are not harmless if the views they propagate and the campaigns they support are dangerous. We are seeing now around us the harm that poisonous words and ideas can do if they are not countered and challenged and shown up for what they are. Those who give succour and respectability to the likes of Hamas are not, IMO anyway, harmless even if they don't have power.
Ideas matter. Bad ideas matter, if they are allowed to take hold. Bad ideas cause harm if they are allowed to spread without challenge.
After seeing that LBC debate, especially the questions on Ed and the EU, I think Corbyn is probably the best choice for Labour. Sure, he's too far left, but most people don't actually pay too much attention to ideology. What they do pay attention to is whether a party leader comes across as an identikit dull politician or whether they seem like a normal bloke with principles. Would it be better to have a Blair or a Cameron? Sure, but that's not on offer.
People like MPs who don't come across as identikit dull politicians, but we sure seem to prefer those types as leaders. They're safer I guess. Ideology certainly isn't super important, but firing up one section of support but putting off more sections seems more common with ideologues however. Not automatic, but more common.
It can be very difficult to gain some academic posts unless you are one of the 'brothers' or 'sisters', especially in any form of PPE and social sciences. Most of these people do not like students who embrace or even think about new ideas and often will mark down a paper that includes research from the 'not-approved' list of references.
Off topic and if @SeanT or any of our other Italian PB'ers is around:
I need a break - as suffering from bronchitis for the last 2 months which even 2 courses of antibiotics have not managed to remove. I was thinking of the Friuli/N Eastern bit of Italy which SeanT raved about. Does anyone have the link to the article? Or remember the places he talked about? Heat and mountain air might do me good. I will bring my own Thomas Mann novels.
Right boys and girls. My constituency nomination meeting is tomorrow. Who should I vote for?
Jez, obv
I'm with Dan Hannan. I like Corbyn, in the sense that he stands for something, and isn't afraid to have the courage of his convictions. I don't agree with him, but at least he doesn't get his opinions from the focus group de jour. I have no idea what the other three think about almost anything pithy.
Oh for God's sake: Corbyn's opinions are from any SWP meeting ca. 1976 and entirely predictable: US bad, Israel bad, the West are colonial oppressors and if people in former colonies or places where any British, American or Western person has ever set foot sets off a bomb or commits some other "atrocity" it is our fault, we need to understand "terrorists", terrorism is the only option for oppressed people who have no jobs or hope in democracies, the West isn't a real democracy, very high taxes and a very large public sector are a good thing, the state knows best, only unions can protect working people, poverty can be abolished by abolishing rich people etc etc.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
A few have described him as 'nice'.
He seems to be a political incarnation of CiF to me. Harmless as a writer or campaigner, but with a world view so warped and convictions so strong that he'd be very dangerous in power.
Writers and campaigners are not harmless if the views they propagate and the campaigns they support are dangerous. We are seeing now around us the harm that poisonous words and ideas can do if they are not countered and challenged and shown up for what they are. Those who give succour and respectability to the likes of Hamas are not, IMO anyway, harmless even if they don't have power.
Ideas matter. Bad ideas matter, if they are allowed to take hold. Bad ideas cause harm if they are allowed to spread without challenge.
In Jeremy's case, he was harmless, because he was ignored. That's why it was felt it was safe to nominate him as a leadership candidate in the first place.
Comments
You should be incredibly shallow and Vote for the least ugly one.
A great pity, from my point of view that the best candidates did not stand.
Atul Hatwal agrees: http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/22/sorry-that-labour-leadership-poll-is-nonsense-jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-finish-fourth/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11757288/Race-to-stop-Jeremy-Corbyn-Liz-Kendall-refuses-to-quit-Labour-contest-live.html
Significant because Nasr had been mentioned as a potential replacement at Williams should Bottas, as expected, go to Ferrari.
Edited extra bit: ahem, forgot the link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33637801
When I first looked at the advert yesterday my initial thought was "why is Tristram Hunt running for London Mayor as a Tory candidate?"
Corbyn is out of the question. I'm not a psychopath and he would be a disaster.
Kendall would split the party equally but from the opposite side.
Burnham is too easy to attack over his record in govt.
Cooper is shrewd and Cameron and Osborne seem to have an issue with women.
They are probablyright that Corbyn won't win, it is true after all that the loudest voices at present are not necessarily representative. That said, it's interesting that though they agree on that, Hatwal thinks that means Kendall will do better than expected (though he does not say will win), whereas Hodges still thinks she will be reduced to a humiliating also ran type of position.
I dislike her use of of her own kids in arguments about child credits/in contrast to Kendall.
I think the leader is a caretaker anyway and Yvette is the best on offer. I think she could be effective at winding up Cameron, and there will be lots of strategic opportunities for Labour over Europe.
Not all doom and gloom once we have elected someone.
"The establishment is going crazy at the thought of a “left winger” being in charge of the opposition, someone who will dare bring up issues such as poverty and inequality on the national TV networks. The panic has started and the attack dogs are unleashed, including the war criminal. Lets not forget its only 24% of the population running this country right now, Corbyn has a chance. Only 24% Tory voters, just a quarter."
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/07/22/sorry-that-labour-leadership-poll-is-nonsense-jeremy-corbyn-is-going-to-finish-fourth/
"And as at the election, it’s a silent majority that appears to have been largely missed in the polling."
Yes but this silent majority the Tories aren't going to be bothering to vote in the Labour leadership election.
The odd one or two might chuck a vote in for Corbyn, mind
Perhaps it is a common view of all groups of deluded zealots.
Until very recently it was my view that Corbyn's support would fade away as the actual choice came into focus, but in the last few days I've begun to have serious doubts about this. As was pointed out here a couple of days ago (apologies to whoever it was, I've forgotten who made the comment), new associates are still signing up, with union encouragement and help, and they are predominantly Corbyn supporters. That will at least partly offset any effect of existing members deciding the abyss they are currently saying they'll jump into is too scary. That, the continued utter uselessness of the three other candidates, and the inability of either Andy or Yvette to establish a clear lead which might act as a unifying factor, makes me think that Corbyn is quite likely to make it.
It's unthinkable, of course. But then so was the SNP virtually wiping out Labour's Scottish MPs.
It's unthinkable, of course. But then so was the SNP virtually wiping out Labour's Scottish MPs.
I seem to recall that there is data to show that Labour's membership is very London-centric - which may well be playing into Corbyn's hands - as he is very much a London MP.
The Labour-SNP line was taken by the party that won a surprise majority. You can argue how much the SNP aspect played a role in that, but it's not insignificant.
It's unthinkable, of course. But then so was the SNP virtually wiping out Labour's Scottish MPs.
The only polling we know about thus far would have to be far more wrong than the English & Welsh GE polling (The Scottish polling was correct!) in order for Corbyn not to closer to an evens chance than his current price.
Perhaps Yvette and Jeremy are BOTH value at the moment in the betting, with Burnham and Kendall being too short ?
Oh and Lds like that explanation too, don't forget them.
On the polling, I'd treat it with multiple pinches of salt, except that it accords very well with other circumstantial evidence (CLP nominations, reports from within the campaign teams, anecdotal data, etc). No one of those is particularly persuasive on its own, but it's striking that they all point in the same direction.
It's unthinkable, of course. But then so was the SNP virtually wiping out Labour's Scottish MPs.
I think that was me :-) I do have a solution for Labour, but hopefully TSE/OGH will run that as a header in the next day or two.
Meanwhile, I'm looking to back Corbyn at 4/1+ and lay him at 3/1. Precise.
Such fallacious reasoning is : -
1. Somehow there is a belief that Ed Miliband was left wing.
2. Somehow there is a bizarre delusion that Labour proposed a leftist agenda in their 2015 manifesto.
3. The excuse diorama which lines up all sorts of implausible and unevidenced "reasons" for labours defeat the most prominant one being the "fear of SNP" canard.
4. That Labour can continue with a leadership which is utterly detatched and alienated from its actual grassroots membership (such as it still exists).
The last of these is the real problem Labour face. Labour were taken over from the late 80s to date by a detached elite of primarily London based intelligentsia whose primary goal is winning elections and for whom actually having a platform anyone believes in is utterly outside their ken.
It is hard to be certain how much belief anyone in the Labour leadership has in their ability to win or at least tie in 2020. It may be that some of them still cling to this utterly misguided hope. But whether the belief is real or not, it can only harm them. Until they realise that the party is completely broken and cannot win in 2020 under any circumstances (even the blackest of Black Swans will not see them return to power) they cannot make the wholesale, practical changes they need.
Primarily, they should be using 2020 to remove an entire generation of South East based politicians who have been parachuted into Northern and Urban constituencies to which they have no ties. Allow local parties to replace these people with completely local candidates and then start the next cycle from scratch with a platform that they actually believe in.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/23/labour-leadership-contest-jeremy-corbyn
Oh sh**
"For anyone unsure of his intentions, he offered a clear tagline to his plans: “We need to judge our economy not on the number of billionaires we have, but on whether we can get rid of poverty”. This is a simple message that many Labour members are likely to agree with.
This is kind of politics that appeals to a membership base tired of hearing confused messages from party leadership."
Perhaps Yvette and Jeremy are BOTH value at the moment in the betting, with Burnham and Kendall being too short ?
Let us also bear in mind some of the polling was done before the welfare vote on Monday. It'd be interesting to see how opinions have shifted. The poll could either understate of overstate in my opinion. So very hard to call.
There is no other evidence for the claim. It is unsubstantiated claptrap.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
"Fear of SNP" is currently a delusion. As such I don't see how my comment can be seen as unfair.
Also, it is part of a consistent Tory narrative in the current environment where myths and legends are being promoted as facts.
"The Tories won the election" should always be countered with "The Tories got 37%"
"Labour were too left wing" should always be countered with "their manifesto was not remotely left wing"
"Fear of SNP won the election" should always be countered with "the only evidence says that this is not true/delusional"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/09/us-britain-election-voting-idUSKBN0NR2LU20150509
They also need to realise that big unions are no longer a strong enough rock to base a broad church leftist movement on in 2015 and that the system in the UK has to change to a PR based system which allows a multi-party Left to gain or share power when the Left is likely to be unelectable in any single party format without crossing the line into being right of centre.
Bargain.
Foreign policy being the most obvious target, I think. The Tory press are going at him on that, but labour voices seem shy
It's the Politics Of Nothing. Burnham has made a complete berk of himself with folksy nonsense and changing his mind from one day to the next. Yvette hasn't said anything about anything and hoping by not saying anything she'll get the NOTA votes.
Kendall isn't doing much either - but at least she's trying to say the unsayable.
He's articulate because he's been repeating the same rubbish for 30 years and has given no evidence that he has thought about anything that has happened in the world since he first formed his views. He has conviction in the way that those who believe the earth was created in 7 days have conviction. He's like Tony Benn but with a beard and without the "sh" pronunciation of "s", that's all.
Talking rubbish, dangerous rubbish, articulately is not a virtue. A shame that some in Labour seem to be falling for it.
Great while it lasts when you are in opposition - or when you don't actually govern like Nicola.
Labour just don't want to win enough - that's the truth of it.
Again though I add that while the Tories have thought the fear of SNP was the winning factor, I don't think it can be called a Tory narrative - as it is used by Labour and LDs people as a comfort blanket about their own troubles (that is, it wasn't their fault, people were too scared of the SNP), not to advance a Tory narrative but to justify their own. The Tory narrative is in fact aided by dispelling this 'myth', as it means they are liked more than they thought, something I think they'd be keen on. It's the difference between pushing something that is not true to advance an agenda and just happening to believe something that is not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fp_GoKhRT0&feature=youtu.be
Labour unelectable to power as a single party. Multiple left leaning parties. Some form of PR. That is really big stuff, a complete redrawing of the political landscape would be needed. I am not arguing with you on this or the need for massive change but you drop into the conversation in, if you'll forgive the term, a casual manner some real biggies.
Go on Labour - go for JC.
I think it was because I had a particularly strident teacher on British imperial history at school, and she would criticise Britain for not doing something in one place, then criticise them for doing it in another place, with no explanation of whether the context made the 'good' option different, it was just always 'look how horrible we are, no one has ever been so horrible'. I'm amazed I turned out such a wishy washy social liberal in most instances.
The Nick Griffin of PC socialism.
Is Kay Burley a moron? Extraordinary interview.
I never watch her is this typical?
I'm not sure. Full of conviction, yes. Nice?
This is someone who met with Sinn Fein days after they tried to assassinate the British PM, let his marriage collapse over an ideological difference of schooling and openly supports Hammas. He also seems to be overly earnest and totally devoid of any sense of humour.
Politicians that take themselves too seriously and have no sense of humour worry me.
He seems to be a political incarnation of CiF to me. Harmless as a writer or campaigner, but with a world view so warped and convictions so strong that he'd be very dangerous in power.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9589072/how-british-universities-spread-misery-around-the-world/
When I mentioned the IRA and handing over the Falklands to the Argies - he just rolled his eyes.
Whatever else one thinks of Mr Corbyn's politics - he's so far off the mark just looking at his friends.
And he wouldn't be joking.
Really, Miss Plato, I am surprised at you. Lowering the tone of the discussion like that and you a lady too.
Ideas matter. Bad ideas matter, if they are allowed to take hold. Bad ideas cause harm if they are allowed to spread without challenge.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-kay-burley-interview-corbyn-6122177
Hope the world finds you in good fettle. Really, Miss Plato, I am surprised at you. Lowering the tone of the discussion like that and you a lady too.
I need a break - as suffering from bronchitis for the last 2 months which even 2 courses of antibiotics have not managed to remove. I was thinking of the Friuli/N Eastern bit of Italy which SeanT raved about. Does anyone have the link to the article? Or remember the places he talked about? Heat and mountain air might do me good. I will bring my own Thomas Mann novels.
But now people are listening to him.
*hic*