politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pick Corbyn now and do it all again in three years time?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pick Corbyn now and do it all again in three years time?

Always look on the bright side of life. That’s me. So, here’s my reason for saying Jeremy Corbyn is the best choice for Labour leader now. Because he’s the most easily dumpable in two or three years time.

Read the full story here

JEO

Wasn't Simon Wren-Lewis one of those economists who supported joining the Eurozone?

wumper

There will not be another election in 3 years time as the majority of the membership will have left the party

Slackbladder

wumper said:

There will not be another election in 3 years time as the majority of the membership will have left the party

Indeed. 3 years is a long time, and the membership will dramatically change in that period as some drift/reisgn and new more left wing members join/re-join.

SimonStClare

"First I am alarmed by his flirtation with the idea of voting No in the EU referendum. Yes, what has happened to Greece has been pretty awful. The answer is more solidarity not less."

Does “Solidarity” = relinquishing even more national Sovereignty ?

Disraeli

JEO said:

Wasn't Simon Wren-Lewis one of those economists who supported joining the Eurozone?

I don't know about that but he wrote this in January:
"Let’s Hope For A Syriza Victory!"
http://www.socialeurope.eu/2015/01/lets-hope-syriza-victory/

Time to trade the old crystal ball in for a new one.

Casino_Royale

Double new thread?

JEO

This bit makes no sense:

'The risk that the Chancellor probably has in mind is not a mild economic downturn but another major crisis, like a new global financial crash. He wants the government to be able to run up large deficits in such a crisis and to have the resources to be able to bail out financial institutions once again. However, presumably the Chancellor also thinks that the banking measures he has implemented should prevent such a crisis happening in the next decade or two, so we are talking about something 30 or 40 years hence. In that case we do not need budget surpluses: modest deficits will be sufficient to cut the current debt-to-GDP ratio by half in 30 years’ time.'

Yes, 30 to 40 years with modest deficits. Except, of course, economists like Simon Wren-Lewis argue we need large deficits to fuel spending during a recession, which we will likely have several of over the next 40 years. Given debt doubled during just one recession post-2008, this course of action will mean an ever spiralling government debt over the next 40 years.

taffys

FPT
It would be too delicious if Corbyn won and then tacked rightwards quicker than a dinghy in gale.

TheWhiteRabbit

I think if Corbyn were merely an economic left-winger, then Labour could survive him - if they were prepared to as Don says, do it all again in three years. But Corbyn's support for Chavez, the IRA, Hamas, Argentina's claim to the Falklands (all to varying and disputed degrees) and many other such issues will be too much for much of the party to bear.

SandyRentool

I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.

If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.

Casino_Royale

I felt fantastic when I saw that exit poll at 10pm.

And then it got even better.

MarkHopkins

SimonStClare said:

"First I am alarmed by his flirtation with the idea of voting No in the EU referendum. Yes, what has happened to Greece has been pretty awful. The answer is more solidarity not less."

Does “Solidarity” = relinquishing even more national Sovereignty ?

Does “Solidarity” = relinquishing even more national Sovereignty ?

Yes.

DavidL

I agree with the majority on the thread on this. Labour are playing with fire. After 3 years of Corbyn there is not likely to be a party worth saving. On the plus side Corbyn is the only thing I can think of that might save the Lib Dems from oblivion. Either way the tories set a new record being the only government to increase their majority twice.

Casino_Royale

'(Foot) was the candidate thought best able to unite the party.'

Remind me how that turned out?

DavidL

Casino_Royale said:

I felt fantastic when I saw that exit poll at 10pm.

And then it got even better.

You should have tried it surrounded by Labour supporting friends. Surprised I have been allowed back.

TheWhiteRabbit

SandyRentool said:

I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.

If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.

I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.

Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.

I can imagine strong support here in Leyton but there is no underground hoard waiting to spring up in support of Labour across the marginals.

kle4

Second, I don’t think he wants the job

Then he must pull out now and not wait for the result. He can just about defend entering purely to broaden the debate, and a job well done from that perspective, but if he has no interest in actually doing the job, there is no point to him even waiting for the votes, which theoretically at least he could win.

I hope the poll will make party colleagues remember how you felt when you saw the exit poll at 10 o’clock on May 7th and look at the smirk on George Osborne’s face.

In partial defence of Mr Osborne, I really don't think he smirks as people think he does; that's just what his face looks like. He has resting smirkface.

madasafish

Let us consider Corbyn as a Leader

He says he wants his party's MPs to have a free vote on everything. So essentially he won't lead...

JEO

Disraeli said:

JEO said:

Wasn't Simon Wren-Lewis one of those economists who supported joining the Eurozone?

I don't know about that but he wrote this in January:
"Let’s Hope For A Syriza Victory!"
http://www.socialeurope.eu/2015/01/lets-hope-syriza-victory/

Time to trade the old crystal ball in for a new one.

It just shows that the "expert" title doesn't stop one from having strong ideological preferences.

I also find the argument that we need to be "borrowing to invest" right now interesting. What investment in wealth-generating assets should we be doing? A couple of cross-London rail schemes, perhaps? Maybe a high-speed line from north to south? Large roll-out of broadband? A trebling of road investment? Runway expansions at London and Birmingham airports? Linking the northern cities into a powerhouse hub?

We're doing all of this already, while being fiscally prudent.

edmundintokyo

wumper said:

There will not be another election in 3 years time as the majority of the membership will have left the party

And the ones who are still there will leave after the MPs knife him without letting him fight an election...

Danny565

I don't get this whole mantra about "Labour members want purity rather than power". Most Labour members do want to be in government if possible, but irrespective of what they prefer, there's no election to be won or lost for another 5 years. So Labour's job until then is to be a proper bloody Opposition - i.e. not abstaining on welfare cuts, and not staying silent day after day while the Tories move the terms of debate ever more rightwards.

Richard_Nabavi

Hmmm:

So, here’s my reason for saying Jeremy Corbyn is the best choice for Labour leader now. Because he’s the most easily dumpable in two or three years time

That doesn't take account of the damage that will be done to Labour in the meantime. Firstly sane members and, especially, the saner senior figures in the party, will drift away, accelerating a process which began under Ed M. Secondly the public will, quite rightly, look on in amazement that Labour managed to find someone even less electable than Ed, which is going it a bit. You can't repair damage like that in just a few months before the election. Come to that, perhaps the Conservatives will find a way of side-stepping the Fixed Term Act and provoking an earlier election, catching Labour completely off guard at their moment of greatest weakness. It must be a temptation, and it's one which could be dressed up as a democratic good following Cameron's replacement. Even in the best scenario for Labour, do they really want to go through all this again, but this time not too long before the election?

kle4

I think the point about Creagh is a fair one. If Labour members don't like the current system for electing a leader, that's totally fine and they should change it, but at the moment they adopted a system not long ago which included provision to ensure any candidate had a certain level of parliamentary support, presumably as that was a factor they felt was important to have. If the party thinks that is not necessarily as important as a broad debate, again, that's fine, but there would have been nothing wrong with not nominating Corbyn if the MPs didn't like him, that was the point of the system, and the voters have still been denied several other choices they may have wanted (if not in huge numbers), like Creagh, because no one pity nominated them..

Casino_Royale

The trouble with those saying that austerity is economic bullshit is explaining away the facts of what's happened to countries that have treated large deficits like economic bullshit.

edmundintokyo

Dumping Corbyn would be messy and divisive.

If Labour voters want to dump their leader partway through and get a new one, they need someone as similar as possible to Ed Miliband. That someone is Andy Burnham.

Flightpathl

TheWhiteRabbit said:

SandyRentool said:

I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.

If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.

I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.
Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.
I can imagine strong support here in Leyton but there is no underground hoard waiting to spring up in support of Labour across the marginals.

Corbyn is revelling in the publicity he is being given. Labour's genie is well out of the bottle. It does not matter who wins.

Casino_Royale

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

I felt fantastic when I saw that exit poll at 10pm.

And then it got even better.

You should have tried it surrounded by Labour supporting friends. Surprised I have been allowed back.

I had a very sad Lib Dem friend with me. I felt very guilty as the night wore on.

Slackbladder

Danny565 said:

I don't get this whole mantra about "Labour members want purity rather than power". Most Labour members do want to be in government if possible, but irrespective of what they prefer, there's no election to be won or lost for another 5 years. So Labour's job until then is to be a proper bloody Opposition - i.e. not abstaining on welfare cuts, and not staying silent day after day while the Tories move the terms of debate ever more rightwards.

Thats the difference between Labour and the Tories in a nutshell though. Not always in history, but generally this is the case

Labour define themselves by what they aren't they are the anti-tory party.

The only thing the Tories think what is 'how do we get into/stay in power'.

That wasn't the case in the late 90s, through the to mid 00s.

Slackbladder

edmundintokyo said:

Dumping Corbyn would be messy and divisive.

If Labour voters want to dump their leader partway through and get a new one, they need someone as similar as possible to Ed Miliband. That someone is Andy Burnham.

Ed Milliband worked so well for them last time.

edmundintokyo

Slackbladder said:

edmundintokyo said:

Dumping Corbyn would be messy and divisive.

If Labour voters want to dump their leader partway through and get a new one, they need someone as similar as possible to Ed Miliband. That someone is Andy Burnham.

Ed Milliband worked so well for them last time.

That's why someone similar will be easy to dump this time.

JEO

Danny565 said:

I don't get this whole mantra about "Labour members want purity rather than power". Most Labour members do want to be in government if possible, but irrespective of what they prefer, there's no election to be won or lost for another 5 years. So Labour's job until then is to be a proper bloody Opposition - i.e. not abstaining on welfare cuts, and not staying silent day after day while the Tories move the terms of debate ever more rightwards.

I'm hoping that 2020, we will have shifted debate rightwards as much as we did under Thatcher. Hopefully by the next general election, the mentality that we need to always keep a low public debt will be as enshrined as the belief that a capitalist market economy is. We also need to return to an understanding that a normal level of immigration is tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands.

oxfordsimon

Danny565 said:

I don't get this whole mantra about "Labour members want purity rather than power". Most Labour members do want to be in government if possible, but irrespective of what they prefer, there's no election to be won or lost for another 5 years. So Labour's job until then is to be a proper bloody Opposition - i.e. not abstaining on welfare cuts, and not staying silent day after day while the Tories move the terms of debate ever more rightwards.

The next election is determined by the mood music set in the years running up to it. You can't just blindly oppose for 4 years 10 months and then try to win the arguments in 2 months.

Between now and 2020, there are plenty of elections to fight - locals and Europeans. Political parties have to be constantly campaigning - not just opposing. You have to propose an alternative - otherwise you end up being defined by what you won't do rather than what you would.

kle4

Danny565 said:

irrespective of what they prefer, there's no election to be won or lost for another 5 years.

Yes, but it helps if they can start laying out their narratives now. That said, if that is to be gung-ho opposition, that;s fine as long as they commit to it. At the moment they are still having an internal debate about what narrative to adopt, and that's amusing for their opponents, but I would think not a fatal problem for Labour unless that debate never stops in the next 5 years. That doesn't mean they need to be united from start to finish, but I think if the gung-ho approach is adopted and not working after a few years, time to switch strategies while there's still time (when the Tories seemed to be panicking a little a few years ago I think they showed how switching tack too late is not as effective, when they tried to go from Ed is Crap to Ed is Dangerous (in the sense of what he would do, not merely that his crapness would be dangerous, but dangerously competent in the wrong way))

Sunil_Prasannan

Slackbladder said:

edmundintokyo said:

Dumping Corbyn would be messy and divisive.

If Labour voters want to dump their leader partway through and get a new one, they need someone as similar as possible to Ed Miliband. That someone is Andy Burnham.

Ed Milliband worked so well for them last time.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband

TheWhiteRabbit

Slackbladder said:

Danny565 said:

I don't get this whole mantra about "Labour members want purity rather than power". Most Labour members do want to be in government if possible, but irrespective of what they prefer, there's no election to be won or lost for another 5 years. So Labour's job until then is to be a proper bloody Opposition - i.e. not abstaining on welfare cuts, and not staying silent day after day while the Tories move the terms of debate ever more rightwards.

Thats the difference between Labour and the Tories in a nutshell though. Not always in history, but generally this is the case

Labour define themselves by what they aren't they are the anti-tory party.

The only thing the Tories think what is 'how do we get into/stay in power'.

That wasn't the case in the late 90s, through the to mid 00s.

I have not once ever heard a Conservative be called "secretly a Labourite". But being accused of being a secret Tory is an ever-present attack line within Labour.

William_H

taffys said:

FPT
It would be too delicious if Corbyn won and then tacked rightwards quicker than a dinghy in gale.

He almost certainly will, to an extent. He's not going to be a dictatorial leader, and his party isn't as left as he is.

But a Corbyn who has tacked to the right would still be pretty left.

kle4

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Slackbladder said:

Danny565 said:

I don't get this whole mantra about "Labour members want purity rather than power". Most Labour members do want to be in government if possible, but irrespective of what they prefer, there's no election to be won or lost for another 5 years. So Labour's job until then is to be a proper bloody Opposition - i.e. not abstaining on welfare cuts, and not staying silent day after day while the Tories move the terms of debate ever more rightwards.

Thats the difference between Labour and the Tories in a nutshell though. Not always in history, but generally this is the case

Labour define themselves by what they aren't they are the anti-tory party.

The only thing the Tories think what is 'how do we get into/stay in power'.

That wasn't the case in the late 90s, through the to mid 00s.

I have not once ever heard a Conservative be called "secretly a Labourite". But being accused of being a secret Tory is an ever-present attack line within Labour.

I have seen Cameron accused of being secretly Labour, but granted that was an internet comments section.

SimonStClare

Flightpathl said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

SandyRentool said:

I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.

If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.

I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.
Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.
I can imagine strong support here in Leyton but there is no underground hoard waiting to spring up in support of Labour across the marginals.

Corbyn is revelling in the publicity he is being given. Labour's genie is well out of the bottle. It does not matter who wins.

Indeed – With Corbyn as leader, even for a few years, the public will have seen Labour’s underbelly for the first time since 1997. – I don’t think they will find it as appealing as some imagine.

Slackbladder

Lets keep it simple

Is Burnham sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
Is Cooper sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?

If the answer to both of those questions is NO then Labour have a big f-ing problem.

Flightpathl

JEO said:

This bit makes no sense:

'The risk that the Chancellor probably has in mind is not a mild economic downturn but another major crisis, like a new global financial crash. He wants the government to be able to run up large deficits in such a crisis and to have the resources to be able to bail out financial institutions once again. However, presumably the Chancellor also thinks that the banking measures he has implemented should prevent such a crisis happening in the next decade or two, so we are talking about something 30 or 40 years hence. In that case we do not need budget surpluses: modest deficits will be sufficient to cut the current debt-to-GDP ratio by half in 30 years’ time.'

Yes, 30 to 40 years with modest deficits. Except, of course, economists like Simon Wren-Lewis argue we need large deficits to fuel spending during a recession, which we will likely have several of over the next 40 years. Given debt doubled during just one recession post-2008, this course of action will mean an ever spiralling government debt over the next 40 years.

Debt went up because of the increase in spending over the previous 10 years. Up 50% in real terms. The crash (a crash not simply a downturn in the economic cycle) also destroyed a big chunk of the economy that was structural not cyclical and would not come back in any upturn. We are cutting spending now because it is unaffordable in any circumstances. The economy has been supported kin this time by a relatively slow rate of cuts - in effect the Keynesian type of deficit spending associated with a normal recession. But all this time the govt has been making and planning cuts to its spending.

So there is not necessarily any expectation of 'ever spiralling debt', we must keep our spending under control and at the same time sustain the economy for the future. Spending restraint is the key to eventually controlling debt. Within that then the normal economic cycles will continue. Its not easy. Which is why the govt - the only govt with the intent - should be supported.

TheScreamingEagles

This was me when the exit poll came out

http://youtu.be/TwLp4GJeVl0

Richard_Nabavi

Slackbladder said:

Lets keep it simple

Is Burnham sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
Is Cooper sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?

If the answer to both of those questions is NO then Labour have a big f-ing problem.

IMO Burnham will prove to be about the same as Ed, Yvette is a bit better.

Disraeli

DavidL said:

I agree with the majority on the thread on this. Labour are playing with fire. After 3 years of Corbyn there is not likely to be a party worth saving. On the plus side Corbyn is the only thing I can think of that might save the Lib Dems from oblivion. Either way the tories set a new record being the only government to increase their majority twice.

The Tories have done it before. Won in 1951, increased majority in 55 and 59.

Danny565

Richard_Nabavi said:

Slackbladder said:

Lets keep it simple

Is Burnham sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
Is Cooper sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?

If the answer to both of those questions is NO then Labour have a big f-ing problem.

IMO Burnham will prove to be about the same as Ed, Yvette is a bit better.

How come your immune to the Tory infatuation of Liz?

Scott_P

How many more weeks of this Labour Pantomime do we have left?

felix

JEO said:

Disraeli said:

JEO said:

Wasn't Simon Wren-Lewis one of those economists who supported joining the Eurozone?

I don't know about that but he wrote this in January:
"Let’s Hope For A Syriza Victory!"
http://www.socialeurope.eu/2015/01/lets-hope-syriza-victory/

Time to trade the old crystal ball in for a new one.

It just shows that the "expert" title doesn't stop one from having strong ideological preferences.

I also find the argument that we need to be "borrowing to invest" right now interesting. What investment in wealth-generating assets should we be doing? A couple of cross-London rail schemes, perhaps? Maybe a high-speed line from north to south? Large roll-out of broadband? A trebling of road investment? Runway expansions at London and Birmingham airports? Linking the northern cities into a powerhouse hub?

We're doing all of this already, while being fiscally prudent.

When Labour - and some thick economists trot out the 'borrow to invest' line, they mean borrow for benefits. They have no sense of fiscal prudence and minimal understanding of economics. All they really wish to do is tax, borrow and spend in an endless cycle of boom, boom, boom....

Plato

Corals have a reality TV show about themselves on BBC right now - haven't seen it but saw a review in The Times [3/5]. http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/bbc-one-explores-the-bookies

Maybe worth looking up on iPlayer.

JEO

Richard_Nabavi said:

Slackbladder said:

Lets keep it simple

Is Burnham sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
Is Cooper sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?

If the answer to both of those questions is NO then Labour have a big f-ing problem.

IMO Burnham will prove to be about the same as Ed, Yvette is a bit better.

Yvette is the better policy-maker, Burnham is the better communicator. But these are relative things. Both are 5/10 politicians. Although that's better than Ed, who was perhaps a 3 or 4 out of 10.

Danny565

Scott_P said:

How many more weeks of this Labour Pantomime do we have left?

6 weeks.

I hope you're all grateful for Labour putting on such a good show over those slow summer months.

oxfordsimon

Slackbladder said:

Lets keep it simple

Is Burnham sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
Is Cooper sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?

If the answer to both of those questions is NO then Labour have a big f-ing problem.

There is nothing in Burnham or Cooper to show that they are a significant improvement on Miliband other than being less of a geek. However they have other failings (Burnham's flipflopping and Cooper's shrill tone) that will set them back.

Miliband should have stayed on until September and then started the leadership campaign. It would have allowed time for reflection. But by jetting off to the sun immediately, he set in motion a process that is ripping the party apart.

dr_spyn

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I think if Corbyn were merely an economic left-winger, then Labour could survive him - if they were prepared to as Don says, do it all again in three years. But Corbyn's support for Chavez, the IRA, Hamas, Argentina's claim to the Falklands (all to varying and disputed degrees) and many other such issues will be too much for much of the party to bear.

Quite a roll call of lost causes which will do little to swing voters back to Labour. Corbyn is like Benn wrong on too many big issues.

Richard_Nabavi

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Slackbladder said:

Lets keep it simple

Is Burnham sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
Is Cooper sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?

If the answer to both of those questions is NO then Labour have a big f-ing problem.

IMO Burnham will prove to be about the same as Ed, Yvette is a bit better.

How come your adoration of Liz has worn off?

What adoration for Liz? She's said some sensible things which the party doesn't want to hear, but as far as her actual leadership qualities are concerned, she's completely useless: she lacks charisma, can't answer a simple question, talks too much, and gets herself tied in knots on even the simplest subjects. She looks and sounds like a rather naive primary school teacher.

I'm sure she's very nice, though.

Scott_P

Danny565 said:

6 weeks.

I hope you're all grateful for Labour putting on such a good show over those slow summer months.

I am slightly concerned about overdose...

Flightpathl

SimonStClare said:

"First I am alarmed by his flirtation with the idea of voting No in the EU referendum. Yes, what has happened to Greece has been pretty awful. The answer is more solidarity not less."

Does “Solidarity” = relinquishing even more national Sovereignty ?

I do not see that it does - unless you want to be in a common currency zone. Neither Cameron nor most people in the conservative party want that.
Corbyn's flirtation is because he sees (he is afraid?) that the EU/ Eurozone are pressing for spending restraint and economic discipline.
I do not have a problem with helping Greece, whether it be bilaterally or via the IMF - a happy economically sound Greece is to our benefit. But there is the rub - any help must be matched by Greece recognising its responsibility to sound money.

Plato

Bwah Ha Ha!

*turns off evil voice*

Disraeli said:

JEO said:

Wasn't Simon Wren-Lewis one of those economists who supported joining the Eurozone?

I don't know about that but he wrote this in January:
"Let’s Hope For A Syriza Victory!"
http://www.socialeurope.eu/2015/01/lets-hope-syriza-victory/

Time to trade the old crystal ball in for a new one.

Slackbladder

SeanT said:

Off topic. But resonant.

Remember the Glasgow bin lorry driver and how we were all told to stop investigating his identity, the poor guy was ill, why do you need to know his name and history, are you a racist, leave him alone, let him be anonymous for life...

Turns out he'd had a blackout before, driving a bus. Didn't report it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33650771

Should be done for manslaughter.

Plato

Casino_Royale said:

I felt fantastic when I saw that exit poll at 10pm.

And then it got even better.

Plato

*stop before I have a coronary*

Casino_Royale said:

'(Foot) was the candidate thought best able to unite the party.'

Remind me how that turned out?

Danny565

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Slackbladder said:

Lets keep it simple

Is Burnham sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
Is Cooper sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?

If the answer to both of those questions is NO then Labour have a big f-ing problem.

IMO Burnham will prove to be about the same as Ed, Yvette is a bit better.

How come your adoration of Liz has worn off?

What adoration for Liz? She's said some sensible things which the party doesn't want to hear, but as far as her actual leadership qualities are concerned, she's completely useless: she lacks charisma, can't answer a simple question, talks too much, and gets herself tied in knots on even the simplest subjects. She looks and sounds like a rather naive primary school teacher.

I'm sure she's very nice, though.

Prepare to be bowled over by her competence and intellectual heft on her answers about the economy (from 3:14):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogeOqw4dTAA

Sunil_Prasannan

Scott_P said:

How many more weeks of this Labour Pantomime do we have left?

The Hunt for Red September (the 12th!)

Scott_P

@rosschawkins: EXC - Director of Corbyn campaign organisation published pix mocking Liz Kendall as a Tory 1/4

Plato

IIRC Given the fact that he's rebelled against his own Party over 500 since 1997, he's seeking to be part of the gang here.

madasafish said:

Let us consider Corbyn as a Leader

He says he wants his party's MPs to have a free vote on everything. So essentially he won't lead...

Richard_Nabavi

Scott_P said:

@rosschawkins: EXC - Director of Corbyn campaign organisation published pix mocking Liz Kendall as a Tory 1/4

This is unfair! I need to do some work, but the Labour soap opera is just too distracting.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/rosschawkins/status/624571615410569217

Andrew

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I have not once ever heard a Conservative be called "secretly a Labourite"

A certain J Bercow would probably beg to disagree :-)

Plato

Well quite.

I totally fail to see the logic of the Labour Party pressing the Self-Destruct Button for 2 or 3 yrs = whilst everyone else moves onwards to the ballot box.

How can such a strategy possibly help them? Purge the moderates, have a complete meltdown, alarm every electoral horse and then decide on rehab with two yrs to go?

And that's without the Tories playing a massive Fooled You! sucker punch re the 5yr Parly thingy you mentioned.

It's insane.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Hmmm:

So, here’s my reason for saying Jeremy Corbyn is the best choice for Labour leader now. Because he’s the most easily dumpable in two or three years time

That doesn't take account of the damage that will be done to Labour in the meantime. Firstly sane members and, especially, the saner senior figures in the party, will drift away, accelerating a process which began under Ed M. Secondly the public will, quite rightly, look on in amazement that Labour managed to find someone even less electable than Ed, which is going it a bit. You can't repair damage like that in just a few months before the election. Come to that, perhaps the Conservatives will find a way of side-stepping the Fixed Term Act and provoking an earlier election, catching Labour completely off guard at their moment of greatest weakness. It must be a temptation, and it's one which could be dressed up as a democratic good following Cameron's replacement. Even in the best scenario for Labour, do they really want to go through all this again, but this time not too long before the election?

Barnesian

TheWhiteRabbit said:

SandyRentool said:

I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.

If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.

I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.

Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.

I can imagine strong support here in Leyton but there is no underground hoard waiting to spring up in support of Labour across the marginals.

To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals. It isn't a battle for the centre or middle England. It is a battle to focus the anti-Tory vote to vote Labour in Tory/LAB marginals which Corbyn and Farron will be well placed to do. Quid pro quo in Tory/LD marginals.

In Scotland, he need to persuade Labour voters who voted SNP to come back to Labour.

I have run this scenario on Electoral Calculus:

In Scotland, I have assumed Labour gets back half the Labour defectors to SNP.
This gives LAB 28 extra seats in Scotland.

In England and Wales, I have assumed that there is effective tactical voting between Lab, LD and Grn in respective marginals. I have also assumed that Corbyn appeals to 30% of the UKIP vote that is disillusioned WWC. I haven't made any assumption about getting Labour DNVs to actually vote. That would be a bonus.

This gives LAB 37.0% to CON 37.8%.

In terms of seats CON are 12 short of a majority.
CON 314
LAB 282
LD 14
SNP 18
PC 3

Running the model on the 600 seats proposed, the Tories are 19 short of a majority (CON 282 seats, LAB 275 seats) which is strange as I thought the new 600 seats werer supposed to give the Tories an advantage.

felix

On topic - the article has a sensible ending, but the rest is as confused as the whole campaign so far. The party seems even more rudderless, divided and disjointed than ever. Maybe it can be summed up as the 'we hate Tories' party and then they can enjoy the rest of the summer hols b4 heading back to uni and getting pissed on their student loans.

SimonStClare

A spoof Liz Kendal site proving more popular than the real thing.

Seems an awful lot of work considering she’ll probably be first out of the race.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11726695/Spoof-Liz-Kendall-for-Conservative-leader-campaign-opens-up-fresh-Labour-divisions.html

frpenkridge

The vicious split in the Labour Party since the election shows what a towering, unifying figure Ed Miliband must have been. Perhaps he will retire to a private life and, like Charles De Gaul, await the call in three years.

Plato

Another 3ish weeks before voting and then another month - it's the best free entertainment.

Scott_P said:

How many more weeks of this Labour Pantomime do we have left?

Scott_P

@JoeWatts_: MP son of former Labour leader NEIL KINNOCK says he'd consider CUTTING top rate of income tax to...35 PER CENT http://t.co/W2zMMen8Sa

Slackbladder

Scott_P said:

@JoeWatts_: MP son of former Labour leader NEIL KINNOCK says he'd consider CUTTING top rate of income tax to...35 PER CENT http://t.co/W2zMMen8Sa

Tory Tory Tory!!!

Plato

HIPS?????

JEO said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Slackbladder said:

Lets keep it simple

Is Burnham sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
Is Cooper sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?

If the answer to both of those questions is NO then Labour have a big f-ing problem.

IMO Burnham will prove to be about the same as Ed, Yvette is a bit better.

Yvette is the better policy-maker, Burnham is the better communicator. But these are relative things. Both are 5/10 politicians. Although that's better than Ed, who was perhaps a 3 or 4 out of 10.

Plato

Is he thinking of his family first?

*innocent face*

Slackbladder said:

Scott_P said:

@JoeWatts_: MP son of former Labour leader NEIL KINNOCK says he'd consider CUTTING top rate of income tax to...35 PER CENT http://t.co/W2zMMen8Sa

Tory Tory Tory!!!

Speedy

"First I am alarmed by his flirtation with the idea of voting No in the EU referendum. Yes, what has happened to Greece has been pretty awful. The answer is more solidarity not less."

That was a party political broadcast on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn.

Scott_P said:

@JoeWatts_: MP son of former Labour leader NEIL KINNOCK says he'd consider CUTTING top rate of income tax to...35 PER CENT http://t.co/W2zMMen8Sa

That was another party political broadcast on behalf of Jeremy Corbyn.

Is everyone today in the Labour party working to ensure a Corbyn landslide?

madasafish

Scott_P said:

@JoeWatts_: MP son of former Labour leader NEIL KINNOCK says he'd consider CUTTING top rate of income tax to...35 PER CENT http://t.co/W2zMMen8Sa

Mrs madasafish saw him on TV being interviewed.

She was so impressed she said "a future PM".. Seriously.. One to watch . I trust her judgement...(occasionally:-)

And no she's not a Labour voter..

Slackbladder

Scott_P said:

@JoeWatts_: MP son of former Labour leader NEIL KINNOCK says he'd consider CUTTING top rate of income tax to...35 PER CENT http://t.co/W2zMMen8Sa

A Kinnock with some sensible ideas is too much for my mind to handle on a Friday afternoon

TGOHF

Corbyn is now nailed on to win.

john_zims

@SimonStClare

'Does “Solidarity” = relinquishing even more national Sovereignty ?'

Solidarity = when someone has lost the argument.

felix

Scott_P said:

@JoeWatts_: MP son of former Labour leader NEIL KINNOCK says he'd consider CUTTING top rate of income tax to...35 PER CENT http://t.co/W2zMMen8Sa

It's more sensible than his accusations about the child benefit changes being akin to eugenics - and his parents would certainly be pleased....to be paying a lot less tax

Speedy

TGOHF said:

Corbyn is now nailed on to win.

It seems the Labour party establishment is busy peddling the most unpopular ideas within the Labour party at the worst possible time and with the worst possible presentation.

Another week of this and I will have to call it for Corbyn too.
If it's between 3 useless and incompetent people vs Corbyn, I would choose Corbyn too.

Flightpathl

Barnsian says .... ''To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals.''

Ho hum. Meantime every single person of a centrist and right wing tendency is sitting on their hands are they? Your notion of Corbyn 'winning' is for the Tories to be just short of an overall majority - thereby leaving Labour to form a loopy loop left wing alliance with the SNP. Yeah - brilliant how that worked last time.
You also suggest that Corbyn's views on immigration will go down well with the euphemistically named 'WWC'
This is Corbyn's view as expressed in a question - ''Will the Minister for once acknowledge the massive contribution made to our economy and our society by those who have migrated to live here and who have sought and gained asylum in this country, which we are bound to offer under the Geneva convention? Given his rhetoric about EU and other migration, what would he say if EU countries as a whole decided to stop British people from going there to study and to work? What would he say if they all decided that British people were a drain on their economy and put their shutters up against us? What would the rhetoric be from him and, perhaps more importantly, from his colleagues in the Daily Mail?''
All this without his friendship with middle east terrorist organisations.

Plato

Britain will go no faster than other countries in cutting greenhouse gas emissions http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4507363.ece

dugarbandier

Flightpathl said:

Barnsian says .... ''To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals.''

Ho hum. Meantime every single person of a centrist and right wing tendency is sitting on their hands are they? Your notion of Corbyn 'winning' is for the Tories to be just short of an overall majority - thereby leaving Labour to form a loopy loop left wing alliance with the SNP. Yeah - brilliant how that worked last time.
You also suggest that Corbyn's views on immigration will go down well with the euphemistically named 'WWC'
This is Corbyn's view as expressed in a question - ''Will the Minister for once acknowledge the massive contribution made to our economy and our society by those who have migrated to live here and who have sought and gained asylum in this country, which we are bound to offer under the Geneva convention? Given his rhetoric about EU and other migration, what would he say if EU countries as a whole decided to stop British people from going there to study and to work? What would he say if they all decided that British people were a drain on their economy and put their shutters up against us? What would the rhetoric be from him and, perhaps more importantly, from his colleagues in the Daily Mail?''
All this without his friendship with middle east terrorist organisations.

definitely rattled, I'd say, you neo-liberal fellows

Plato

I'm generally pretty relaxed about immigration/benefits - but TBH, I found the docu on C5 about the siphoning off of benefits for Romanian house improvements really too much.

The chappy is charming and so grateful to British taxpayers... He's recommending it to his friends. http://www.channel5.com/shows/benefits-britain-life-on-the-dole/episodes/episode-3-621

Flightpathl said:

Barnsian says .... ''To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals.''

Ho hum. Meantime every single person of a centrist and right wing tendency is sitting on their hands are they? Your notion of Corbyn 'winning' is for the Tories to be just short of an overall majority - thereby leaving Labour to form a loopy loop left wing alliance with the SNP. Yeah - brilliant how that worked last time.
You also suggest that Corbyn's views on immigration will go down well with the euphemistically named 'WWC'
This is Corbyn's view as expressed in a question - ''Will the Minister for once acknowledge the massive contribution made to our economy and our society by those who have migrated to live here and who have sought and gained asylum in this country, which we are bound to offer under the Geneva convention? Given his rhetoric about EU and other migration, what would he say if EU countries as a whole decided to stop British people from going there to study and to work? What would he say if they all decided that British people were a drain on their economy and put their shutters up against us? What would the rhetoric be from him and, perhaps more importantly, from his colleagues in the Daily Mail?''
All this without his friendship with middle east terrorist organisations.

Plato

I've no idea what a *neo-liberal* is - can you help me out here?

dugarbandier said:

Flightpathl said:

Barnsian says .... ''To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals.''

Ho hum. Meantime every single person of a centrist and right wing tendency is sitting on their hands are they? Your notion of Corbyn 'winning' is for the Tories to be just short of an overall majority - thereby leaving Labour to form a loopy loop left wing alliance with the SNP. Yeah - brilliant how that worked last time.
You also suggest that Corbyn's views on immigration will go down well with the euphemistically named 'WWC'
This is Corbyn's view as expressed in a question - ''Will the Minister for once acknowledge the massive contribution made to our economy and our society by those who have migrated to live here and who have sought and gained asylum in this country, which we are bound to offer under the Geneva convention? Given his rhetoric about EU and other migration, what would he say if EU countries as a whole decided to stop British people from going there to study and to work? What would he say if they all decided that British people were a drain on their economy and put their shutters up against us? What would the rhetoric be from him and, perhaps more importantly, from his colleagues in the Daily Mail?''
All this without his friendship with middle east terrorist organisations.

definitely rattled, I'd say, you neo-liberal fellows

Slackbladder

dugarbandier said:

Flightpathl said:

Barnsian says .... ''To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals.''

Ho hum. Meantime every single person of a centrist and right wing tendency is sitting on their hands are they? Your notion of Corbyn 'winning' is for the Tories to be just short of an overall majority - thereby leaving Labour to form a loopy loop left wing alliance with the SNP. Yeah - brilliant how that worked last time.
You also suggest that Corbyn's views on immigration will go down well with the euphemistically named 'WWC'
This is Corbyn's view as expressed in a question - ''Will the Minister for once acknowledge the massive contribution made to our economy and our society by those who have migrated to live here and who have sought and gained asylum in this country, which we are bound to offer under the Geneva convention? Given his rhetoric about EU and other migration, what would he say if EU countries as a whole decided to stop British people from going there to study and to work? What would he say if they all decided that British people were a drain on their economy and put their shutters up against us? What would the rhetoric be from him and, perhaps more importantly, from his colleagues in the Daily Mail?''
All this without his friendship with middle east terrorist organisations.

definitely rattled, I'd say, you neo-liberal fellows

Indeed..the same 'rattled' as people when they said 'Ed is crap'.

dugarbandier

Plato said:

I've no idea what a *neo-liberal* is - can you help me out here?

dugarbandier said:

Flightpathl said:

Barnsian says .... ''To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals.''

Ho hum. Meantime every single person of a centrist and right wing tendency is sitting on their hands are they? Your notion of Corbyn 'winning' is for the Tories to be just short of an overall majority - thereby leaving Labour to form a loopy loop left wing alliance with the SNP. Yeah - brilliant how that worked last time.
You also suggest that Corbyn's views on immigration will go down well with the euphemistically named 'WWC'
This is Corbyn's view as expressed in a question - ''Will the Minister for once acknowledge the massive contribution made to our economy and our society by those who have migrated to live here and who have sought and gained asylum in this country, which we are bound to offer under the Geneva convention? Given his rhetoric about EU and other migration, what would he say if EU countries as a whole decided to stop British people from going there to study and to work? What would he say if they all decided that British people were a drain on their economy and put their shutters up against us? What would the rhetoric be from him and, perhaps more importantly, from his colleagues in the Daily Mail?''
All this without his friendship with middle east terrorist organisations.

definitely rattled, I'd say, you neo-liberal fellows

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

you should get a google on your internet, you can find out all sorts of things

AlastairMeeks

I cannot see any benefit to the Labour party of having three years of china-smashing rows between the hard left and the rest of the party. Since two of the four leadership candidates have already said that they would not serve under Jeremy Corbyn, that is what a Jeremy Corbyn victory would mean.

It may be too late for any other outcome, but Labour need a candidate who can provide a semblance of unity to the party while giving it the space to air policy differences and while offering a firm hand of leadership. Of the four candidates, the only one who looks to me to be remotely likely to be able to do that is Yvette Cooper. Even she does not stand very good chances, but right now Labour have to take what they can find.

SandyRentool

Remember folks, the ballot papers have not yet been issued (under plain packaging!) and not a single vote has been cast yet. This is anything but a done deal.

Unlike the next Tory leadership contest, where Priti is a shoo-in!

taffys

Indeed..the same 'rattled' as people when they said 'Ed is crap'.

If I had a quid for every time I read on this site that PB tories were always wrong, never learned.

TGOHF

Ed was Reagan to Jezzas Carter.

Labour are committing suicide.

dugarbandier

taffys said:

Indeed..the same 'rattled' as people when they said 'Ed is crap'.

If I had a quid for every time I read on this site that PB tories were always wrong, never learned.

no, it's a different mood altogether.

RobD

Scott_P said:

@JoeWatts_: MP son of former Labour leader NEIL KINNOCK says he'd consider CUTTING top rate of income tax to...35 PER CENT http://t.co/W2zMMen8Sa

paraphrasing a bit here....

"...and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Labour member - a Labour member! - suggesting the top rate be cut to 35 per cent..."

RobD

taffys said:

Indeed..the same 'rattled' as people when they said 'Ed is crap'.

If I had a quid for every time I read on this site that PB tories were always wrong, never learned.

Another PB Tory being wrong.. the correct quotation is "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories always learn"...

Scott_P

RobD said:

paraphrasing a bit here....

"...and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Labour member - a Labour member! - suggesting the top rate be cut to 35 per cent..."

Like

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

taffys said:

Indeed..the same 'rattled' as people when they said 'Ed is crap'.

If I had a quid for every time I read on this site that PB tories were always wrong, never learned.

Another PB Tory being wrong.. the correct quotation is "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories always learn"...

No, it is PB Tories always right because we have nothing more to learn.

Plato

Plus ca change

Mob of 200 furious French farmers hijack a convoy of seven British lorries and throw their cargo of £200,000 worth of fish in the road as dispute over foreign food imports takes a vicious turn

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173410/Mob-200-furious-French-farmers-hijack-convoy-seven-British-lorries-throw-cargo-200-000-worth-fish-road-dispute-foreign-food-imports-takes-vicious-turn.html#ixzz3gomQaIZr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

taffys said:

Indeed..the same 'rattled' as people when they said 'Ed is crap'.

If I had a quid for every time I read on this site that PB tories were always wrong, never learned.

Another PB Tory being wrong.. the correct quotation is "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories always learn"...

No, it is PB Tories always right because we have nothing more to learn.

Or was it "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories never forget"...... titter