politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on “Miliband’s leadership landmine”

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on “Miliband’s leadership landmine”

There’s something in Ed Miliband of the apocryphal academic who when presented with a result he disapproved of, stated “it might well work in practice but it doesn’t work in theory”. More than once, proposals that Ed Miliband advanced had the look and feel of dealing with the world in abstract rather than the messy and contradictory one we live in.

Read the full story here

Casino_Royale

First

DavidL

Difficult to disagree with any of that David. Those such as Mr Brind who are deluding themselves into believing that a Corbyn mistake can be fixed before the inevitable disaster at the election are not paying enough attention to the rules or the history of their own party.

Casino_Royale

I agree with it, except for two things (1) Corbyn has a minuscule parliamentary base and (2) he has a record of mass disloyalty of the whip.

He could find it very hard to command the loyalty his party, and those day-to-day splits - unlike for Ed who easily made the nominations, and did have a MP parliamentary base on the leadership vote (a 1/3rd on first preference and 45% on the final split) - much more unstable.

I think sooner or later that'd come to a head. Possibly fairly early - inside 1-2 years - or maybe quite late, once Cameron's successor is known. A leader can be edged out by a strong alternative candidate, as Blair was in late 2006 - 2007.

But it will require a plausible candidate waiting in the wings first, who's willing to organise and build a support base, willing to take the risk to seize the moment and strike, and able to reach out and re-unite the party after for the GE2020 to make all the disruption worth it.

EPG

Yeah, David Herdson is usually correct and this is not an exception.

It is easy to see a future in which Corbyn ties with or exceeds Cameron on vote intention between 2017 and 30 April 2020. Right up to the point at which people bother choosing a government.

foxinsoxuk

Jeremy Corbyn may well do well in the first year with the Scottish and Welsh elections. Possibly in the English locals too. The purge (or walkout) of the old regime would also bring through some fresh faces.

I suspect that it would take a couple of years to go sour, but even then the euroref, a fresh recession or a new mid East war could keep Jezza popular.

Corbyn in the 2020 debate is a real prospect. He gets my £3 vote for second preference.

Speedy

No one knows what the future holds for the year 2020, it's not unreasonable that Corbyn stays for a few years and also not unreasonable that Corbyn is ousted in a few years.

On previous topic:
I can't understand why Hillary's odds to be the dem. nominee isn't over 90%, a candidate like her that polls all the time way above 50% with her closest rival regularly 30 or more points behind, she is a shoe in.
Of course there is Biden but he is not even as popular as Obama and carries all the Obama luggage and there is the real possibility of corruption accusations relating to his son's business dealings with Ukraine at the time Biden made multiple visits there. Biden oozes Spiro Agnew for years. Not least it's almost August and there is not enough time for a new candidate.

Tissue_Price

Excellent piece David. However I think the 2003 example would be repeated. The discipline didn't emerge simply because they were Tories; it was the knowledge that the winner would not be PM, and a candidate to match.

Now Labour today are not as far back as the Tories in 2001, but if (big if) the Tories negotiate boundary changes, the EU referendum and a leadership handover then the same situation may well present itself, though perhaps a touch later in the Parliament.

PClipp

Is Mr Herdson saying - at least implicitly - that the Lib Dems have the best process in place for electing a leader?

If so, that is very kind of him, and I am sure it will be much appreciated by them. As we have seen in recent weeks, 25% of the MPs were able to offer themselves as candidates. The policies they fought on were all Lib Dem policies (decided by the membership), just with different shades of emphasis. It was a fairly short and certainly civilised campaigning season. And all the electorate understood the voting system.

Labour MPs and members can only look on with amazement and wonder. Will they end up with the leader most of them want? Probably not. Especially if the £3 Tories have their wicked way.

Stark_Dawning

Corbyn will do it. He's enthused the Labour membership like no one since the early Tony Blair. As for the other three: Kendall is a pantomime-villain character only there for the laughs, Cooper and Burnham come across as painted automata - bland and stilted yet somehow bewildered, out of their depth and with nothing to say.

JEO

Posting without comment:

"Crack Scotland Yard detective says top brass sabotaged his bid to expose Blair minister in Establishment paedophile ring"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173883/Crack-Scotland-Yard-detective-says-brass-sabotaged-bid-expose-Blair-minister-Establishment-paedophile-ring.html

HYUFD

Speedy said:

No one knows what the future holds for the year 2020, it's not unreasonable that Corbyn stays for a few years and also not unreasonable that Corbyn is ousted in a few years.

On previous topic:
I can't understand why Hillary's odds to be the dem. nominee isn't over 90%, a candidate like her that polls all the time way above 50% with her closest rival regularly 30 or more points behind, she is a shoe in.
Of course there is Biden but he is not even as popular as Obama and carries all the Obama luggage and there is the real possibility of corruption accusations relating to his son's business dealings with Ukraine at the time Biden made multiple visits there. Biden oozes Spiro Agnew for years. Not least it's almost August and there is not enough time for a new candidate.

Indeed, Sanders is more a threat to Hillary than Biden

HYUFD

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

JEO

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

No one knows what the future holds for the year 2020, it's not unreasonable that Corbyn stays for a few years and also not unreasonable that Corbyn is ousted in a few years.

On previous topic:
I can't understand why Hillary's odds to be the dem. nominee isn't over 90%, a candidate like her that polls all the time way above 50% with her closest rival regularly 30 or more points behind, she is a shoe in.
Of course there is Biden but he is not even as popular as Obama and carries all the Obama luggage and there is the real possibility of corruption accusations relating to his son's business dealings with Ukraine at the time Biden made multiple visits there. Biden oozes Spiro Agnew for years. Not least it's almost August and there is not enough time for a new candidate.

Indeed, Sanders is more a threat to Hillary than Biden

Sanders doesn't come across as a serious presidential candidate, and the US has a far tougher vetting system than we do here. The more talented politician in the race seems to be O'Malley. I think the real danger to Clinton is that Biden and Sanders do well enough to make the race interesting, and then O'Malley benefits from the extra attention. Like Mitt Romney, he just looks like an American President from central casting.

Stark_Dawning

Cooper's campaign is clearly in free fall now that she's been forced to play the gender card.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/24/yvette-cooper-hits-out-startlingly-retro-labour-leadership-campaign

'Vote for me or you're all 1950s sexist b*st*rds'. This is both an insult to the Labour membership and condescending to women generally. Panic has set in.

HYUFD

JEO/Flightpath (Last thread) Castro is Housing Secretary in Obama's Cabinet and was Mayor of San Antonio

dr_spyn

Stark_Dawning said:

Cooper's campaign is clearly in free fall now that she's been forced to play the gender card.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/24/yvette-cooper-hits-out-startlingly-retro-labour-leadership-campaign

'Vote for me or you're all 1950s sexist b*st*rds'. This is both an insult to the Labour membership and condescending to women generally. Panic has set in.

Perhaps her husband should have a word.

HYUFD

JEO said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

No one knows what the future holds for the year 2020, it's not unreasonable that Corbyn stays for a few years and also not unreasonable that Corbyn is ousted in a few years.

On previous topic:
I can't understand why Hillary's odds to be the dem. nominee isn't over 90%, a candidate like her that polls all the time way above 50% with her closest rival regularly 30 or more points behind, she is a shoe in.
Of course there is Biden but he is not even as popular as Obama and carries all the Obama luggage and there is the real possibility of corruption accusations relating to his son's business dealings with Ukraine at the time Biden made multiple visits there. Biden oozes Spiro Agnew for years. Not least it's almost August and there is not enough time for a new candidate.

Indeed, Sanders is more a threat to Hillary than Biden

Sanders doesn't come across as a serious presidential candidate, and the US has a far tougher vetting system than we do here. The more talented politician in the race seems to be O'Malley. I think the real danger to Clinton is that Biden and Sanders do well enough to make the race interesting, and then O'Malley benefits from the extra attention. Like Mitt Romney, he just looks like an American President from central casting.

Sanders is already on about 20% in most polls, ahead of Biden with O'Malley a mere asterisk (indeed Webb does slightly better, O'Malley is at the bottom with Chafee).
Indeed one PPP poll actually had Sanders beating Trump. Sanders is tapping into the mood of liberal activists on inequality, higher taxes on the rich, a more pacifist foreign policy which Corbyn is tapping into in the UK and which has boosted Syriza and Podemos
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

MyBurningEars

On Corbyn and the voting system, Corbyn's site states that members of affiliated unions including Unite can register to vote for free - http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/vote

FPT a couple of people said that Unite and similar are trying to get their members to stump up three pounds to register - a significantly higher barrier to entry.

What am I missing here? Or can Unite members vote for free?

JEO

HYUFD said:

JEO said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

No one knows what the future holds for the year 2020, it's not unreasonable that Corbyn stays for a few years and also not unreasonable that Corbyn is ousted in a few years.

On previous topic:
I can't understand why Hillary's odds to be the dem. nominee isn't over 90%, a candidate like her that polls all the time way above 50% with her closest rival regularly 30 or more points behind, she is a shoe in.
Of course there is Biden but he is not even as popular as Obama and carries all the Obama luggage and there is the real possibility of corruption accusations relating to his son's business dealings with Ukraine at the time Biden made multiple visits there. Biden oozes Spiro Agnew for years. Not least it's almost August and there is not enough time for a new candidate.

Indeed, Sanders is more a threat to Hillary than Biden

Sanders doesn't come across as a serious presidential candidate, and the US has a far tougher vetting system than we do here. The more talented politician in the race seems to be O'Malley. I think the real danger to Clinton is that Biden and Sanders do well enough to make the race interesting, and then O'Malley benefits from the extra attention. Like Mitt Romney, he just looks like an American President from central casting.

Sanders is already on about 20% in most polls, ahead of Biden with O'Malley a mere asterisk (indeed Webb does slightly better, O'Malley is at the bottom with Chafee).
Indeed one PPP poll actually had Sanders beating Trump. Sanders is tapping into the mood of liberal activists on inequality, higher taxes on the rich, a more pacifist foreign policy which Corbyn is tapping into in the UK and which has boosted Syriza and Podemos
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

I'm not sure how much faith we should put in polls this far out. The question is which of the challengers to Clinton comes across as most credible as an alternative presidential candidate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mTpDrbsKw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbtnheO61x0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBl7jrD1GzU

ReggieCide

The truth is this is a circus but with wild animals still included. Who knows what will happen but I guess it will be amusing and frightening by turns.

TCPoliticalBetting

MyBurningEars said:

On Corbyn and the voting system, Corbyn's site states that members of affiliated unions including Unite can register to vote for free - http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/vote

FPT a couple of people said that Unite and similar are trying to get their members to stump up three pounds to register - a significantly higher barrier to entry.

What am I missing here? Or can Unite members vote for free?

Thanks, very interesting. It looks like this is even more rigged than some of us thought.

Presumably the unions have a setup whereby the political levy they already take is going to be used to fund the £3?

For Unite £3 @ 70,000 is just £210,000 which is a fraction of what they donate annually to Labour.

TCPoliticalBetting

Has MyBurningEars provided a major scoop?
"On Corbyn and the voting system, Corbyn's site states that members of affiliated unions including Unite can register to vote for free - http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/vote
"

calum

MyBurningEars said:

On Corbyn and the voting system, Corbyn's site states that members of affiliated unions including Unite can register to vote for free - http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/vote

FPT a couple of people said that Unite and similar are trying to get their members to stump up three pounds to register - a significantly higher barrier to entry.

What am I missing here? Or can Unite members vote for free?

I think members of affiliated organisations can indeed sign up for free. The interesting thing about both these folks and the £3 " supporters " is that they all have to agree to the following statement when signing up on the Labour website:

" I support the aims and values of the Labour Party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it. "

http://support.labour.org.uk/

If the vote ends up being very close with Corbyn winning by a narrow majority, I wonder if the loser could challenge the result on the basis that a number of non-Labour supporters had slipped through the net and influenced the final result ?

DecrepitJohnL

MyBurningEars said:

On Corbyn and the voting system, Corbyn's site states that members of affiliated unions including Unite can register to vote for free - http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/vote

FPT a couple of people said that Unite and similar are trying to get their members to stump up three pounds to register - a significantly higher barrier to entry.

What am I missing here? Or can Unite members vote for free?

No idea, but £3 is not a "significantly higher barrier to entry" -- it's less than a pint, a packet of fags or what the Prime Minister earns (the financial comparator de nos jours). The barriers are surely, first wanting to get involved in the first place, and second, filling in the forms.

TCPoliticalBetting

HYUFD said:

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

But, whereas IDS had approx 32.5% of the MPs, Corbyn will have only 10%. Having 90% wanting someone else is a massive disadvantage at the HoC.

Barnesian

Another excellent piece from David.

I think the only one who might not be there for the duration is Corbyn. But I agree he wouldn't be removed. I think he might stand down voluntarily having shown the way in effectively opposing the Tory story with a different story and been rewarded for it in the polls. It might encourage others to do the same. To be a signpost, not a weathercock. (Super speech).

He will be 71 in May 2020. He isn't a team leader. He wants to change the Labour Party, not lead it into an election. Of course, when pressed recently, he had to admit he wanted to be PM. His campaign would have collapsed if he said he didn't. But he was very reluctant.

On LBC - when asked directly by rival Yvette Cooper if he was in the race because he wanted to lead the country, the Islington North MP at first responded: "I am doing this because I want our party to change. I'm doing this because I'm putting myself forward to do the job in order to bring about that change."

Asked the same question another three times, Corbyn eventually replied: "Of course, because that's why we're all here."

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-22/jeremy-corbyn-asked-do-you-want-to-be-prime-minister/

Plato

Dear me

A teenager was put into isolation by his school for shaving his head - to raise money for a cancer charity after he lost his grandfather to the disease.

Connor Chenery, 14, was approached by a teacher who told him his shaved hair was too extreme for school and was told he would be excluded. The Year nine pupil was then pulled out of lessons on Wednesday - his last day of the academic year and put into isolation for the rest of the day.

Connor and his best friend of three years Danielle Parnell, 14, shaved their heads to raise money for Macmillan Cancer Support. The fundraising teenager's grandfather Graham Stanford died from chronic lymphatic leukaemia in April 2012, nine years after being originally diagnosed. Mr Stanford was looked after by Macmillan Nurses while he was treated.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174359/Boy-14-isolation-school-shaving-head-raise-money-cancer-charities-losing-grandfather-disease.html#ixzz3gugOjJae
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

SimonStClare

An excellent thread Mr Herdson – hard to find anything to critique or disagree with.

No matter the inherent faults with Ed’s ‘leadership landmine’ however, all this could have been avoided if he’d had the guts to remain as de facto leader while the process continued apace. - Hard to put into words the farcical mess Labour now find themselves in, and all wholly self-inflicted.

Plato

SimonStClare said:

An excellent thread Mr Herdson – hard to find anything to critique or disagree with.

No matter the inherent faults with Ed’s ‘leadership landmine’ however, all this could have been avoided if he’d had the guts to remain as de facto leader while the process continued apace. - Hard to put into words the farcical mess Labour now find themselves in, and all wholly self-inflicted.

foxinsoxuk

Barnesian said:

Another excellent piece from David.

I think the only one who might not be there for the duration is Corbyn. But I agree he wouldn't be removed. I think he might stand down voluntarily having shown the way in effectively opposing the Tory story with a different story and been rewarded for it in the polls. It might encourage others to do the same. To be a signpost, not a weathercock. (Super speech).

He will be 71 in May 2020. He isn't a team leader. He wants to change the Labour Party, not lead it into an election. Of course, when pressed recently, he had to admit he wanted to be PM. His campaign would have collapsed if he said he didn't. But he was very reluctant.

On LBC - when asked directly by rival Yvette Cooper if he was in the race because he wanted to lead the country, the Islington North MP at first responded: "I am doing this because I want our party to change. I'm doing this because I'm putting myself forward to do the job in order to bring about that change."

Asked the same question another three times, Corbyn eventually replied: "Of course, because that's why we're all here."

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-22/jeremy-corbyn-asked-do-you-want-to-be-prime-minister/

I think there is some truth to this. Corbyn will want to purge both the Shadow cabinet and the back office, and I can see him bringing in a system of candidate selection that puts SPADs at the back of the queue. Indeed a lot of the ructions in the early eighties was about constituency activists wanting to be able to deselect complacent sitting MPs who were out of line with their tastes.

HYUFD

JEO said:

HYUFD said:

JEO said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

No one knows what the future holds for the year 2020, it's not unreasonable that Corbyn stays for a few years and also not unreasonable that Corbyn is ousted in a few years.

On previous topic:
I can't understand why Hillary's odds to be the dem. nominee isn't over 90%, a candidate like her that polls all the time way above 50% with her closest rival regularly 30 or more points behind, she is a shoe in.
Of course there is Biden but he is not even as popular as Obama and carries all the Obama luggage and there is the real possibility of corruption accusations relating to his son's business dealings with Ukraine at the time Biden made multiple visits there. Biden oozes Spiro Agnew for years. Not least it's almost August and there is not enough time for a new candidate.

Indeed, Sanders is more a threat to Hillary than Biden

Sanders doesn't come across as a serious presidential candidate, and the US has a far tougher vetting system than we do here. The more talented politician in the race seems to be O'Malley. I think the real danger to Clinton is that Biden and Sanders do well enough to make the race interesting, and then O'Malley benefits from the extra attention. Like Mitt Romney, he just looks like an American President from central casting.

Sanders is already on about 20% in most polls, ahead of Biden with O'Malley a mere asterisk (indeed Webb does slightly better, O'Malley is at the bottom with Chafee).
Indeed one PPP poll actually had Sanders beating Trump. Sanders is tapping into the mood of liberal activists on inequality, higher taxes on the rich, a more pacifist foreign policy which Corbyn is tapping into in the UK and which has boosted Syriza and Podemos
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

I'm not sure how much faith we should put in polls this far out. The question is which of the challengers to Clinton comes across as most credible as an alternative presidential candidate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mTpDrbsKw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbtnheO61x0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBl7jrD1GzU

Hillary will almost certainly get it but the mood of Democratic activists seems to be towards Sanders, O'Malley has nothing particularly distinctive to say and is going nowhere as far as I can see. He may have a chance if Hillary falls under the proverbial bus, but Webb would probably be the more electable choice to fill her shoes then. At the moment it is hard to see anyone other than Sanders posing the main challenge to Hillary

Sandpit

Very good article Mr Herdson. Cant believe we have another seven weeks of this still to go, I'm still flitting between the idea that Labour need to get the 1970s out of their system and the need for the government to have a coherent and plausible opposition.

Sandpit

Completely O/T, the Daily Mail can do some really good journalism when they try....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167945/A-crazy-car-chase-peloton-pee-break-stars-stay-90-Novotel-MailOnline-spends-day-Team-Sky-reveal-surreal-sights-never-shown-Tour-France-coverage-secrets-Chris-Froome-s-success.html

Good luck to Chris Froome tomorrow!

HYUFD

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

But, whereas IDS had approx 32.5% of the MPs, Corbyn will have only 10%. Having 90% wanting someone else is a massive disadvantage at the HoC.

IDS originally started with even fewer remember but benefited from transfers from Davis and Ancram. Corbyn actually had to get 15% to be nominated. In both cases it will be the membership who elect them.

dugarbandier

Chapeau for Quintana, took a minute out of froome and Sky, bit of help from Valverde, but mostly by himself. He's the man

TCPoliticalBetting

foxinsoxuk said:

Barnesian said:

Another excellent piece from David.

I think the only one who might not be there for the duration is Corbyn. But I agree he wouldn't be removed. I think he might stand down voluntarily having shown the way in effectively opposing the Tory story with a different story and been rewarded for it in the polls. It might encourage others to do the same. To be a signpost, not a weathercock. (Super speech).

He will be 71 in May 2020. He isn't a team leader. He wants to change the Labour Party, not lead it into an election. Of course, when pressed recently, he had to admit he wanted to be PM. His campaign would have collapsed if he said he didn't. But he was very reluctant.

On LBC - when asked directly by rival Yvette Cooper if he was in the race because he wanted to lead the country, the Islington North MP at first responded: "I am doing this because I want our party to change. I'm doing this because I'm putting myself forward to do the job in order to bring about that change."

Asked the same question another three times, Corbyn eventually replied: "Of course, because that's why we're all here."

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-22/jeremy-corbyn-asked-do-you-want-to-be-prime-minister/

I think there is some truth to this. Corbyn will want to purge both the Shadow cabinet and the back office, and I can see him bringing in a system of candidate selection that puts SPADs at the back of the queue. Indeed a lot of the ructions in the early eighties was about constituency activists wanting to be able to deselect complacent sitting MPs who were out of line with their tastes.

It will probably be even more open to union domination. Maybe the only thing that will save the Labour party from a further major decline is the reform of union funding? Now if the union political levy gave a choice of parties that it went to..... Then the future shqape of the parties of the left would undergo radical change and a Farron led Lib Dems and Greens could gain substantial funding. it would also facilitate the forming of new left leaning parties. UKIP could also gain from it.

TCPoliticalBetting

calum, any signs of large numbers of SNP supporters signing up to the Labour vote through the route of their union membership?

dugarbandier

Sandpit said:

Completely O/T, the Daily Mail can do some really good journalism when they try....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167945/A-crazy-car-chase-peloton-pee-break-stars-stay-90-Novotel-MailOnline-spends-day-Team-Sky-reveal-surreal-sights-never-shown-Tour-France-coverage-secrets-Chris-Froome-s-success.html

Good luck to Chris Froome tomorrow!

PR rather than journalism? still interesting tho

TCPoliticalBetting

In the light of Myburningears showing below that Labour affiliated union members can vote for no charge, I have updated my model with a forecast of over 130,000 union "supporters" being eligible to vote. On a 70% turnout that could deliver 50,000 first preference votes for Corbyn on the assumption that the push call centres that Unite are using focus on the Corbyn friendly members.

This election system from Miliband looks to be as big a disaster for the Progress wing as the system that it replaced. No wonder the Unions felt comfortable with the change.

ReggieCide

This all would have fitted very nicely into Rowan & Martin's Laugh in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM

HYUFD

MyBurningEars said:

On Corbyn and the voting system, Corbyn's site states that members of affiliated unions including Unite can register to vote for free - http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/vote

FPT a couple of people said that Unite and similar are trying to get their members to stump up three pounds to register - a significantly higher barrier to entry.

What am I missing here? Or can Unite members vote for free?

Probably Unite will pay their fee

HYUFD

TCPoliticalBetting said:

In the light of Myburningears showing below that Labour affiliated union members can vote for no charge, I have updated my model with a forecast of over 130,000 union "supporters" being eligible to vote. On a 70% turnout that could deliver 50,000 first preference votes for Corbyn on the assumption that the push call centres that Unite are using focus on the Corbyn friendly members.

This election system from Miliband looks to be as big a disaster for the Progress wing as the system that it replaced. No wonder the Unions felt comfortable with the change.

Not all unions are backing Corbyn, Usdaw is backing Burnham. I also doubt anything like 70% of union members will register support for Labour to vote in the contest even with Unite calling. In the 80s of course unions were actually a relative force of moderation compared to Militant

TCPoliticalBetting

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

In the light of Myburningears showing below that Labour affiliated union members can vote for no charge, I have updated my model with a forecast of over 130,000 union "supporters" being eligible to vote. On a 70% turnout that could deliver 50,000 first preference votes for Corbyn on the assumption that the push call centres that Unite are using focus on the Corbyn friendly members.

This election system from Miliband looks to be as big a disaster for the Progress wing as the system that it replaced. No wonder the Unions felt comfortable with the change.

Not all unions are backing Corbyn, Usdaw is backing Burnham. I also doubt anything like 70% of union members will register support for Labour to vote in the contest even with Unite calling. In the 80s of course unions were actually a relative force of moderation compared to Militant

70% voting turnout from 130,000 newly registered which come from the 2 million union people paying the political levy inside Labour affiliated unions.

JEO

HYUFD said:

JEO said:

HYUFD said:

JEO said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

No one knows what the future holds for the year 2020, it's not unreasonable that Corbyn stays for a few years and also not unreasonable that Corbyn is ousted in a few years.

On previous topic:
I can't understand why Hillary's odds to be the dem. nominee isn't over 90%, a candidate like her that polls all the time way above 50% with her closest rival regularly 30 or more points behind, she is a shoe in.
Of course there is Biden but he is not even as popular as Obama and carries all the Obama luggage and there is the real possibility of corruption accusations relating to his son's business dealings with Ukraine at the time Biden made multiple visits there. Biden oozes Spiro Agnew for years. Not least it's almost August and there is not enough time for a new candidate.

Indeed, Sanders is more a threat to Hillary than Biden

Sanders doesn't come across as a serious presidential candidate, and the US has a far tougher vetting system than we do here. The more talented politician in the race seems to be O'Malley. I think the real danger to Clinton is that Biden and Sanders do well enough to make the race interesting, and then O'Malley benefits from the extra attention. Like Mitt Romney, he just looks like an American President from central casting.

Sanders is already on about 20% in most polls, ahead of Biden with O'Malley a mere asterisk (indeed Webb does slightly better, O'Malley is at the bottom with Chafee).
Indeed one PPP poll actually had Sanders beating Trump. Sanders is tapping into the mood of liberal activists on inequality, higher taxes on the rich, a more pacifist foreign policy which Corbyn is tapping into in the UK and which has boosted Syriza and Podemos
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

I'm not sure how much faith we should put in polls this far out. The question is which of the challengers to Clinton comes across as most credible as an alternative presidential candidate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mTpDrbsKw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbtnheO61x0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBl7jrD1GzU

Hillary will almost certainly get it but the mood of Democratic activists seems to be towards Sanders, O'Malley has nothing particularly distinctive to say and is going nowhere as far as I can see. He may have a chance if Hillary falls under the proverbial bus, but Webb would probably be the more electable choice to fill her shoes then. At the moment it is hard to see anyone other than Sanders posing the main challenge to Hillary

What odds would you be prepared to bet on that Webb will get it? What odds would you offer me on O'Malley?

TCPoliticalBetting

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

But, whereas IDS had approx 32.5% of the MPs, Corbyn will have only 10%. Having 90% wanting someone else is a massive disadvantage at the HoC.

IDS originally started with even fewer remember but benefited from transfers from Davis and Ancram. Corbyn actually had to get 15% to be nominated. In both cases it will be the membership who elect them.

But it will be the MPs that keep or kick them out.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Cocked up the Hulkenberg bet. Completely underestimated the Red Bulls/Toro Rossos [almost fluked a green result, but it wasn't to be].

Edited extra bit: very good piece, Mr. Herdson.

TheWhiteRabbit

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Cocked up the Hulkenberg bet. Completely underestimated the Red Bulls/Toro Rossos [almost fluked a green result, but it wasn't to be].

Edited extra bit: very good piece, Mr. Herdson.

WIthin the last ten seconds of Q2 (a) someone covered my bet and (b) Hulkenberg went out!

Mad finish.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Rabbit, Force India might've slightly buggered up the timing. Hulkenberg was one of the last across the line.

Seriously underestimated the downforce impact (also on Williams, who were relatively poor).

malcolmg

TCPoliticalBetting said:

calum, any signs of large numbers of SNP supporters signing up to the Labour vote through the route of their union membership?

They have little interest in Labour , who in Scotland cares when they have 1 MP and a bunch of donkeys in Holyrood.

HYUFD

'On previous topic:
I can't understand why Hillary's odds to be the dem. nominee isn't over 90%, a candidate like her that polls all the time way above 50% with her closest rival regularly 30 or more points behind, she is a shoe in.
Of course there is Biden but he is not even as popular as Obama and carries all the Obama luggage and there is the real possibility of corruption accusations relating to his son's business dealings with Ukraine at the time Biden made multiple visits there. Biden oozes Spiro Agnew for years. Not least it's almost August and there is not enough time for a new candidate.

Indeed, Sanders is more a threat to Hillary than Biden

Sanders doesn't come across as a serious presidential candidate, and the US has a far tougher vetting system than we do here. The more talented politician in the race seems to be O'Malley. I think the real danger to Clinton is that Biden and Sanders do well enough to make the race interesting, and then O'Malley benefits from the extra attention. Like Mitt Romney, he just looks like an American President from central casting.

Sanders is already on about 20% in most polls, ahead of Biden with O'Malley a mere asterisk (indeed Webb does slightly better, O'Malley is at the bottom with Chafee).
Indeed one PPP poll actually had Sanders beating Trump. Sanders is tapping into the mood of liberal activists on inequality, higher taxes on the rich, a more pacifist foreign policy which Corbyn is tapping into in the UK and which has boosted Syriza and Podemos
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

I'm not sure how much faith we should put in polls this far out. The question is which of the challengers to Clinton comes across as most credible as an alternative presidential candidate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mTpDrbsKw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbtnheO61x0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBl7jrD1GzU

Hillary will almost certainly get it but the mood of Democratic activists seems to be towards Sanders, O'Malley has nothing particularly distinctive to say and is going nowhere as far as I can see. He may have a chance if Hillary falls under the proverbial bus, but Webb would probably be the more electable choice to fill her shoes then. At the moment it is hard to see anyone other than Sanders posing the main challenge to Hillary

What odds would you be prepared to bet on that Webb will get it? What odds would you offer me on O'Malley?'

I am not going to bet on either, but about 25-1 Webb, 50-1 O'Malley

HYUFD

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

In the light of Myburningears showing below that Labour affiliated union members can vote for no charge, I have updated my model with a forecast of over 130,000 union "supporters" being eligible to vote. On a 70% turnout that could deliver 50,000 first preference votes for Corbyn on the assumption that the push call centres that Unite are using focus on the Corbyn friendly members.

This election system from Miliband looks to be as big a disaster for the Progress wing as the system that it replaced. No wonder the Unions felt comfortable with the change.

Not all unions are backing Corbyn, Usdaw is backing Burnham. I also doubt anything like 70% of union members will register support for Labour to vote in the contest even with Unite calling. In the 80s of course unions were actually a relative force of moderation compared to Militant

70% voting turnout from 130,000 newly registered which come from the 2 million union people paying the political levy inside Labour affiliated unions.

That may be a bit more plausible yes, but would still see union members having less of an influence than in 2010, many of the new 'supporters' will be students, leftwingers, society members etc (and of course Tories)

HYUFD

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

But, whereas IDS had approx 32.5% of the MPs, Corbyn will have only 10%. Having 90% wanting someone else is a massive disadvantage at the HoC.

IDS originally started with even fewer remember but benefited from transfers from Davis and Ancram. Corbyn actually had to get 15% to be nominated. In both cases it will be the membership who elect them.

But it will be the MPs that keep or kick them out.

Indeed, Burnham actually won the MPs ballot followed by Cooper, so if Corbyn wins he will be vulnerable if he fails to gain a sufficient showing in the polls

HYUFD

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

calum, any signs of large numbers of SNP supporters signing up to the Labour vote through the route of their union membership?

They have little interest in Labour , who in Scotland cares when they have 1 MP and a bunch of donkeys in Holyrood.

Indeed, but while Corbyn is the Tories favourite candidate, he is the SNP's least favoured candidate

HYUFD

Tory shortlist for Mayor of London is Andrew Boff, Stephen Greenhalgh, Syed Kamall and Zac Goldsmith. https://twitter.com/montie?lang=en-gb

TCPoliticalBetting

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

calum, any signs of large numbers of SNP supporters signing up to the Labour vote through the route of their union membership?

They have little interest in Labour , who in Scotland cares when they have 1 MP and a bunch of donkeys in Holyrood.

Indeed, but while Corbyn is the Tories favourite candidate, he is the SNP's least favoured candidate

Not if the decision in Scotland is based more on the perception of their ability to govern competently. One key reason SLAB lost to the SNP was because of that. Corbyn makes that perception worse.

TCPoliticalBetting

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

But, whereas IDS had approx 32.5% of the MPs, Corbyn will have only 10%. Having 90% wanting someone else is a massive disadvantage at the HoC.

IDS originally started with even fewer remember but benefited from transfers from Davis and Ancram. Corbyn actually had to get 15% to be nominated. In both cases it will be the membership who elect them.

But it will be the MPs that keep or kick them out.

Indeed, Burnham actually won the MPs ballot followed by Cooper, so if Corbyn wins he will be vulnerable if he fails to gain a sufficient showing in the polls

He also cannot ask MPs to vote from lotyalty as his record was one of the worst. IDS also suffered a bit from this, but Corbyn's voting record is off the scale.

AnneJGP

Excellent piece, David. I'm not one of the electorate for this vote and I'm very glad not to be. It must be a terribly difficult choice for those who don't automatically go for Jeremy Corbyn.

To me, the other three contenders all come across as completely inadequate as a party leader.

So do they go for the only contender who looks like an adequate leader, accepting being led in the wrong direction as necessary to keep the party united? Or do you opt for one of the unlikely-to-be-adequate leaders for the sake of not slipping back to the 1970s?

Horrible choice.

TCPoliticalBetting

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

In the light of Myburningears showing below that Labour affiliated union members can vote for no charge, I have updated my model with a forecast of over 130,000 union "supporters" being eligible to vote. On a 70% turnout that could deliver 50,000 first preference votes for Corbyn on the assumption that the push call centres that Unite are using focus on the Corbyn friendly members.

This election system from Miliband looks to be as big a disaster for the Progress wing as the system that it replaced. No wonder the Unions felt comfortable with the change.

Not all unions are backing Corbyn, Usdaw is backing Burnham. I also doubt anything like 70% of union members will register support for Labour to vote in the contest even with Unite calling. In the 80s of course unions were actually a relative force of moderation compared to Militant

70% voting turnout from 130,000 newly registered which come from the 2 million union people paying the political levy inside Labour affiliated unions.

That may be a bit more plausible yes, but would still see union members having less of an influence than in 2010, many of the new 'supporters' will be students, leftwingers, society members etc (and of course Tories)

Yes I have it at about half their influence that they had in 2010. But if they sign up 200,000+ then they may have a similar weighting as the members. Ouch.

Plato

Someone mentioned that Corbyn isn't going to whip any votes - which sounds like nonsense to me, but if that's true - it's the same mess with a different cause.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

But, whereas IDS had approx 32.5% of the MPs, Corbyn will have only 10%. Having 90% wanting someone else is a massive disadvantage at the HoC.

IDS originally started with even fewer remember but benefited from transfers from Davis and Ancram. Corbyn actually had to get 15% to be nominated. In both cases it will be the membership who elect them.

But it will be the MPs that keep or kick them out.

Indeed, Burnham actually won the MPs ballot followed by Cooper, so if Corbyn wins he will be vulnerable if he fails to gain a sufficient showing in the polls

He also cannot ask MPs to vote from lotyalty as his record was one of the worst. IDS also suffered a bit from this, but Corbyn's voting record is off the scale.

AnneJGP

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

But, whereas IDS had approx 32.5% of the MPs, Corbyn will have only 10%. Having 90% wanting someone else is a massive disadvantage at the HoC.

IDS originally started with even fewer remember but benefited from transfers from Davis and Ancram. Corbyn actually had to get 15% to be nominated. In both cases it will be the membership who elect them.

But it will be the MPs that keep or kick them out.

Indeed, Burnham actually won the MPs ballot followed by Cooper, so if Corbyn wins he will be vulnerable if he fails to gain a sufficient showing in the polls

He also cannot ask MPs to vote from lotyalty as his record was one of the worst. IDS also suffered a bit from this, but Corbyn's voting record is off the scale.

I thought I read somewhere that Mr Corbyn favours allowing MPs a free vote every vote? If that's really so, then there'll be no loyalty (or disloyalty) issue.

foxinsoxuk

AnneJGP said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

But, whereas IDS had approx 32.5% of the MPs, Corbyn will have only 10%. Having 90% wanting someone else is a massive disadvantage at the HoC.

IDS originally started with even fewer remember but benefited from transfers from Davis and Ancram. Corbyn actually had to get 15% to be nominated. In both cases it will be the membership who elect them.

But it will be the MPs that keep or kick them out.

Indeed, Burnham actually won the MPs ballot followed by Cooper, so if Corbyn wins he will be vulnerable if he fails to gain a sufficient showing in the polls

He also cannot ask MPs to vote from lotyalty as his record was one of the worst. IDS also suffered a bit from this, but Corbyn's voting record is off the scale.

I thought I read somewhere that Mr Corbyn favours allowing MPs a free vote every vote? If that's really so, then there'll be no loyalty (or disloyalty) issue.

Its parliamentary year zero.

TCPoliticalBetting

Plato said:

Someone mentioned that Corbyn isn't going to whip any votes - which sounds like nonsense to me, but if that's true - it's the same mess with a different cause.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

But, whereas IDS had approx 32.5% of the MPs, Corbyn will have only 10%. Having 90% wanting someone else is a massive disadvantage at the HoC.

IDS originally started with even fewer remember but benefited from transfers from Davis and Ancram. Corbyn actually had to get 15% to be nominated. In both cases it will be the membership who elect them.

But it will be the MPs that keep or kick them out.

Indeed, Burnham actually won the MPs ballot followed by Cooper, so if Corbyn wins he will be vulnerable if he fails to gain a sufficient showing in the polls

He also cannot ask MPs to vote from lotyalty as his record was one of the worst. IDS also suffered a bit from this, but Corbyn's voting record is off the scale.

That will be "interesting". Probably have a New Labour group and an Old Labour group for each vote. The separation will then be underway.

HYUFD

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

calum, any signs of large numbers of SNP supporters signing up to the Labour vote through the route of their union membership?

They have little interest in Labour , who in Scotland cares when they have 1 MP and a bunch of donkeys in Holyrood.

Indeed, but while Corbyn is the Tories favourite candidate, he is the SNP's least favoured candidate

Not if the decision in Scotland is based more on the perception of their ability to govern competently. One key reason SLAB lost to the SNP was because of that. Corbyn makes that perception worse.

Most of the voters who switched from Labour to SNP did so because of their alliance with the Tories in indyref and because they saw the SNP as a left of Labour party. If Labour becomes a left of SNP party many of them could return. The SNP will keep its voters who like Sturgeon's 'competence' they will lose those backing them for ideological reasons

HYUFD

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

IDS still managed to get into the final two by 1 vote, so the Tories system is not infallible either. If Corbyn wins and does OK he will probably survive, if he is well behind still by 2018 a Dan Jarvis coronation is likely. However, EU ref also makes things interesting, as Corbyn has said he might back NO that could mean the leader of the Labour Party campaigning alongside Hannan and Redwood and Farage while Cameron and Osborne have to campaign with Sturgeon and Farron and the more moderate Labourites for Yes

But, whereas IDS had approx 32.5% of the MPs, Corbyn will have only 10%. Having 90% wanting someone else is a massive disadvantage at the HoC.

IDS originally started with even fewer remember but benefited from transfers from Davis and Ancram. Corbyn actually had to get 15% to be nominated. In both cases it will be the membership who elect them.

But it will be the MPs that keep or kick them out.

Indeed, Burnham actually won the MPs ballot followed by Cooper, so if Corbyn wins he will be vulnerable if he fails to gain a sufficient showing in the polls

He also cannot ask MPs to vote from lotyalty as his record was one of the worst. IDS also suffered a bit from this, but Corbyn's voting record is off the scale.

Yes, Corbyn has been a serial rebel, especially under Blair, just as IDS rebelled against Major over Maastricht

Scott_P

@paulwaugh: Story alert. Jeremy Corbyn confirms for 1st time he won't rule out campaigning for Britain to quit the EU.
http://t.co/8sgAwKKaT9

HYUFD

AnneJGP said:

Excellent piece, David. I'm not one of the electorate for this vote and I'm very glad not to be. It must be a terribly difficult choice for those who don't automatically go for Jeremy Corbyn.

To me, the other three contenders all come across as completely inadequate as a party leader.

So do they go for the only contender who looks like an adequate leader, accepting being led in the wrong direction as necessary to keep the party united? Or do you opt for one of the unlikely-to-be-adequate leaders for the sake of not slipping back to the 1970s?

Horrible choice.

What is an 'adequate' leader? Remember Labour likely have to beat Osborne, not Cameron, so the bar will be a bit lower

HYUFD

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

In the light of Myburningears showing below that Labour affiliated union members can vote for no charge, I have updated my model with a forecast of over 130,000 union "supporters" being eligible to vote. On a 70% turnout that could deliver 50,000 first preference votes for Corbyn on the assumption that the push call centres that Unite are using focus on the Corbyn friendly members.

This election system from Miliband looks to be as big a disaster for the Progress wing as the system that it replaced. No wonder the Unions felt comfortable with the change.

Not all unions are backing Corbyn, Usdaw is backing Burnham. I also doubt anything like 70% of union members will register support for Labour to vote in the contest even with Unite calling. In the 80s of course unions were actually a relative force of moderation compared to Militant

70% voting turnout from 130,000 newly registered which come from the 2 million union people paying the political levy inside Labour affiliated unions.

That may be a bit more plausible yes, but would still see union members having less of an influence than in 2010, many of the new 'supporters' will be students, leftwingers, society members etc (and of course Tories)

Yes I have it at about half their influence that they had in 2010. But if they sign up 200,000+ then they may have a similar weighting as the members. Ouch.

That is another 70,000 to be signed up in about 17 days, will be a challenge

Morris_Dancer

Just cruising the markets for bets. May not offer another, after the No Safety Car bet (1.75) offered earlier.

RobD

Scott_P said:

@paulwaugh: Story alert. Jeremy Corbyn confirms for 1st time he won't rule out campaigning for Britain to quit the EU.
http://t.co/8sgAwKKaT9

Surely opting out of something at the EU level doesn't prevent you from implementing a similar policy at national level? Not sure I understand why Dave negotiating away those protections would be reason to leave.

Charles

PClipp said:

Is Mr Herdson saying - at least implicitly - that the Lib Dems have the best process in place for electing a leader?

If so, that is very kind of him, and I am sure it will be much appreciated by them. As we have seen in recent weeks, 25% of the MPs were able to offer themselves as candidates. The policies they fought on were all Lib Dem policies (decided by the membership), just with different shades of emphasis. It was a fairly short and certainly civilised campaigning season. And all the electorate understood the voting system.

Labour MPs and members can only look on with amazement and wonder. Will they end up with the leader most of them want? Probably not. Especially if the £3 Tories have their wicked way.

Just think, though. If 10,000 wicked Tories join then at least they will have paid for the Edstone

RobD

Charles said:

PClipp said:

Is Mr Herdson saying - at least implicitly - that the Lib Dems have the best process in place for electing a leader?

If so, that is very kind of him, and I am sure it will be much appreciated by them. As we have seen in recent weeks, 25% of the MPs were able to offer themselves as candidates. The policies they fought on were all Lib Dem policies (decided by the membership), just with different shades of emphasis. It was a fairly short and certainly civilised campaigning season. And all the electorate understood the voting system.

Labour MPs and members can only look on with amazement and wonder. Will they end up with the leader most of them want? Probably not. Especially if the £3 Tories have their wicked way.

Just think, though. If 10,000 wicked Tories join then at least they will have paid for the Edstone

Not sure you can put a price on something of such historical import.

AnneJGP

HYUFD said:

AnneJGP said:

Excellent piece, David. I'm not one of the electorate for this vote and I'm very glad not to be. It must be a terribly difficult choice for those who don't automatically go for Jeremy Corbyn.

To me, the other three contenders all come across as completely inadequate as a party leader.

So do they go for the only contender who looks like an adequate leader, accepting being led in the wrong direction as necessary to keep the party united? Or do you opt for one of the unlikely-to-be-adequate leaders for the sake of not slipping back to the 1970s?

Horrible choice.

What is an 'adequate' leader? Remember Labour likely have to beat Osborne, not Cameron, so the bar will be a bit lower

Good question. Quickest definition: for me, it's either someone whose judgement I'd trust to be better than my own, or a quality of I'd-know-it-when-I-saw-it.

HYUFD

AnneJGP said:

HYUFD said:

AnneJGP said:

Excellent piece, David. I'm not one of the electorate for this vote and I'm very glad not to be. It must be a terribly difficult choice for those who don't automatically go for Jeremy Corbyn.

To me, the other three contenders all come across as completely inadequate as a party leader.

So do they go for the only contender who looks like an adequate leader, accepting being led in the wrong direction as necessary to keep the party united? Or do you opt for one of the unlikely-to-be-adequate leaders for the sake of not slipping back to the 1970s?

Horrible choice.

What is an 'adequate' leader? Remember Labour likely have to beat Osborne, not Cameron, so the bar will be a bit lower

Good question. Quickest definition: for me, it's either someone whose judgement I'd trust to be better than my own, or a quality of I'd-know-it-when-I-saw-it.

Well, we shall see, but I think as long as they do not pick Corbyn the other 3 have a chance at least, most governments are vulnerable after 10 years in power

HYUFD

Scott_P said:

@paulwaugh: Story alert. Jeremy Corbyn confirms for 1st time he won't rule out campaigning for Britain to quit the EU.
http://t.co/8sgAwKKaT9

Yes, it looks like Corbyn were he to be Labour leader could find himself the most prominent figure in the No campaign alongside Farage and Dan Hannan, while Cameron as the PM and Tory leader would be the most prominent figure in the Yes campaign, alongside Sturgeon, Farron and Blairites. Which would make for a very interesting referendum campaign to say the least

Danny565

It's amusing to see the Blairites whingeing about the Labour electoral system, when they are the very ones who demanded the change, because they couldn't accept they had lost the last leadership election fair and square. The thought that there is something wrong with their arguments, rather than something wrong with the electoral system, apparently doesn't cross their mind.

Morris_Dancer

F1: no extra tip, but my pre-race piece is here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/hungary-pre-race.html

Was tempted by Ricciardo for a podium at 4.1 and Force India to double score at 3.75 (more the former than the latter). However, I could see either Ferrari ending up on the podium, and Red Bull also has reliability woe.

AndyJS

O/T:

"Concerns about a girl repeatedly abused by a gang of men in Buckinghamshire were raised by a charity several years before the perpetrators were arrested, it has emerged.
Barnardo's told the BBC it had worked with the ring's two victims in 2008 and referred the case of one to the local authority and other relevant agencies.
The charity's Michelle Lee-Izu said "insufficient action" was taken."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33662503

geoffw

The winner has to get over half the votes cast after 2nd and 3rd preferences are taken into account, no? Even with the £3 spoiler campaign I find it hard to believe that Corbyn would manage that. But if he did then Labour would have the leader they deserve.

calum

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

calum, any signs of large numbers of SNP supporters signing up to the Labour vote through the route of their union membership?

They have little interest in Labour , who in Scotland cares when they have 1 MP and a bunch of donkeys in Holyrood.

Indeed, but while Corbyn is the Tories favourite candidate, he is the SNP's least favoured candidate

Not if the decision in Scotland is based more on the perception of their ability to govern competently. One key reason SLAB lost to the SNP was because of that. Corbyn makes that perception worse.

Most of the voters who switched from Labour to SNP did so because of their alliance with the Tories in indyref and because they saw the SNP as a left of Labour party. If Labour becomes a left of SNP party many of them could return. The SNP will keep its voters who like Sturgeon's 'competence' they will lose those backing them for ideological reasons

From the people I know who switched from SLAB to the SNP, most of these folks changed allegiance in Holyrood 2011 and neither SLAB or the "political commentators" noticed. More support did leak from SLAB to the SNP in the run up to Indyref, more due to SLAB's unionist stance than being seen to work with the Tories.

In terms of the run up to GE2015 the SNP message was quite simple - vote SNP to ensure Scotland's interests are best protected. This shored up the 2011, Indyref switchers and attracted a few more supporters from SLAB. I don't think many were attracted to the SNP because they are deemed to be more left wing than SLAB, who to be honest as is becoming increasingly clear don't know where they stand in the political spectrum.

I think SLAB's left wing core is pretty much intact, the working men and social clubs - older always voted Labour crew. If you want something more left wing the Greens, SSP and Solidarity are options. I don't think it will make a difference to SLAB's fortunes in 2016 which ever of the 4 musketeers is lucky enough to win the already poisoned chalice of Labour leader.

EPG

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

@paulwaugh: Story alert. Jeremy Corbyn confirms for 1st time he won't rule out campaigning for Britain to quit the EU.
http://t.co/8sgAwKKaT9

Surely opting out of something at the EU level doesn't prevent you from implementing a similar policy at national level? Not sure I understand why Dave negotiating away those protections would be reason to leave.

Yes. He is a silly man. Britain outside the EU is almost trivially more likely to deviate in a right-ward direction on working hours, labour and environmental law, than in a left-ward direction on state aid and nationalised industry.

FrancisUrquhart

Group F: ENGLAND, Slovakia, SCOTLAND, Malta, Lithuania, Slovenia

SimonStClare

Janet Daley: - “I’ve lived under Jeremy Corbyn’s rule – it turned me into a Tory

When put into practice in the Seventies, the views of this loony Left-winger resulted in class hatred and Soviet-style stagnation”

Janet bloody Daley? – You’ve a lot to answer for Mr Corbyn…!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11762773/Ive-lived-under-Jeremy-Corbyns-rule-it-turned-me-into-a-Tory.html

MarqueeMark

ReggieCide said:

The truth is this is a circus but with wild animals still included. Who knows what will happen but I guess it will be amusing and frightening by turns.

Won't somebody think of the poor clowns?

AlastairMeeks

FrancisUrquhart said:

Group F: ENGLAND, Slovakia, SCOTLAND, Malta, Lithuania, Slovenia

Slovenia are a handy enough side but otherwise England don't look like they've got too much to worry about.

HYUFD

calum said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

calum, any signs of large numbers of SNP supporters signing up to the Labour vote through the route of their union membership?

They have little interest in Labour , who in Scotland cares when they have 1 MP and a bunch of donkeys in Holyrood.

Indeed, but while Corbyn is the Tories favourite candidate, he is the SNP's least favoured candidate

Not if the decision in Scotland is based more on the perception of their ability to govern competently. One key reason SLAB lost to the SNP was because of that. Corbyn makes that perception worse.

Most of the voters who switched from Labour to SNP did so because of their alliance with the Tories in indyref and because they saw the SNP as a left of Labour party. If Labour becomes a left of SNP party many of them could return. The SNP will keep its voters who like Sturgeon's 'competence' they will lose those backing them for ideological reasons

From the people I know who switched from SLAB to the SNP, most of these folks changed allegiance in Holyrood 2011 and neither SLAB or the "political commentators" noticed. More support did leak from SLAB to the SNP in the run up to Indyref, more due to SLAB's unionist stance than being seen to work with the Tories.

In terms of the run up to GE2015 the SNP message was quite simple - vote SNP to ensure Scotland's interests are best protected. This shored up the 2011, Indyref switchers and attracted a few more supporters from SLAB. I don't think many were attracted to the SNP because they are deemed to be more left wing than SLAB, who to be honest as is becoming increasingly clear don't know where they stand in the political spectrum.

I think SLAB's left wing core is pretty much intact, the working men and social clubs - older always voted Labour crew. If you want something more left wing the Greens, SSP and Solidarity are options. I don't think it will make a difference to SLAB's fortunes in 2016 which ever of the 4 musketeers is lucky enough to win the already poisoned chalice of Labour leader.

Corbyn has double the support in Scotland he did in the rest of the UK with yougov. The Greens, SSP and Solidarity have little support anyway, in both 2011 and 2015 the SNP positioned themselves to the left of Labour, which was why they won Glasgow and so much of the Central belt, SLAB could certainly win back much of the lost support in that region under Corbyn

FrancisUrquhart

antifrank said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Group F: ENGLAND, Slovakia, SCOTLAND, Malta, Lithuania, Slovenia

Slovenia are a handy enough side but otherwise England don't look like they've got too much to worry about.

Slovenia or Slovakia? Slovakia are ranked 15th in the world, compared to Slovenia at 49...for what little those stupid FIFA rankings are worth.

dr_spyn

antifrank said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Group F: ENGLAND, Slovakia, SCOTLAND, Malta, Lithuania, Slovenia

Slovenia are a handy enough side but otherwise England don't look like they've got too much to worry about.

Radio Malta at some point in the next 2 years..

Presenter: We have Jim on the line who wants to discuss the Malta England game.
Jim: Thanks...er yeah. Just want to say it's an absolute disgrace. I mean, we're playing probably the weakest side in world football and we can't do better than a draw.
Presenter: It was a poor result.
Jim: Poor result! Poor result! It's absolutely scandalous. The manager has lost the plot completely, he's got to go. I know we've never set the world alight over the years on the international stage but I can't remember things being this bad. It's the end for us. The absolute end. I can't see us recovering from a setback like this. We're a complete laughing stock.
Presenter: Look Jim. I know it seems bad now but there is still a long way to go. I can't see you qualifying for Russia 2018 but hopefully things will improve.
Jim: I never expected for a moment we would qualify. I don't mind that so much. We're not good enough. But listen, to not qualify is one thing, but to fail to beat a team like England is a different matter. It's a bitter blow for everyone here on the Island.

FrancisUrquhart

dr_spyn said:

antifrank said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Group F: ENGLAND, Slovakia, SCOTLAND, Malta, Lithuania, Slovenia

Slovenia are a handy enough side but otherwise England don't look like they've got too much to worry about.

Radio Malta at some point in the next 2 years..

Presenter: We have Jim on the line who wants to discuss the Malta England game.
Jim: Thanks...er yeah. Just want to say it's an absolute disgrace. I mean, we're playing probably the weakest side in world football and we can't do better than a draw.
Presenter: It was a poor result.
Jim: Poor result! Poor result! It's absolutely scandalous. The manager has lost the plot completely, he's got to go. I know we've never set the world alight over the years on the international stage but I can't remember things being this bad. It's the end for us. The absolute end. I can't see us recovering from a setback like this. We're a complete laughing stock.
Presenter: Look Jim. I know it seems bad now but there is still a long way to go. I can't see you qualifying for Russia 2018 but hopefully things will improve.
Jim: I never expected for a moment we would qualify. I don't mind that so much. We're not good enough. But listen, to not qualify is one thing, but to fail to beat a team like England is a different matter. It's a bitter blow for everyone here on the Island.

LOL

TheScreamingEagles

Fnarr

@craigawoodhouse: England v Scotland in the football. Theresa May might want to re-think her policy on @BorisJohnson's water cannon.

JEO

dr_spyn said:

antifrank said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Group F: ENGLAND, Slovakia, SCOTLAND, Malta, Lithuania, Slovenia

Slovenia are a handy enough side but otherwise England don't look like they've got too much to worry about.

Radio Malta at some point in the next 2 years..

Presenter: We have Jim on the line who wants to discuss the Malta England game.
Jim: Thanks...er yeah. Just want to say it's an absolute disgrace. I mean, we're playing probably the weakest side in world football and we can't do better than a draw.
Presenter: It was a poor result.
Jim: Poor result! Poor result! It's absolutely scandalous. The manager has lost the plot completely, he's got to go. I know we've never set the world alight over the years on the international stage but I can't remember things being this bad. It's the end for us. The absolute end. I can't see us recovering from a setback like this. We're a complete laughing stock.
Presenter: Look Jim. I know it seems bad now but there is still a long way to go. I can't see you qualifying for Russia 2018 but hopefully things will improve.
Jim: I never expected for a moment we would qualify. I don't mind that so much. We're not good enough. But listen, to not qualify is one thing, but to fail to beat a team like England is a different matter. It's a bitter blow for everyone here on the Island.

That's a few years old: was told after Scotland drew with Faeroes.

Isn't it a bit masochistic to have a go at the England team right now? Sure, they're not world beaters, but we're currently six for six in the European qualifying. We need a bit more positivity.

calum

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fnarr

@craigawoodhouse: England v Scotland in the football. Theresa May might want to re-think her policy on @BorisJohnson's water cannon.

Wembley better get some spare goalposts on order - and some extra turf while they're at it !!

TCPoliticalBetting

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

In the light of Myburningears showing below that Labour affiliated union members can vote for no charge, I have updated my model with a forecast of over 130,000 union "supporters" being eligible to vote. On a 70% turnout that could deliver 50,000 first preference votes for Corbyn on the assumption that the push call centres that Unite are using focus on the Corbyn friendly members.

This election system from Miliband looks to be as big a disaster for the Progress wing as the system that it replaced. No wonder the Unions felt comfortable with the change.

Not all unions are backing Corbyn, Usdaw is backing Burnham. I also doubt anything like 70% of union members will register support for Labour to vote in the contest even with Unite calling. In the 80s of course unions were actually a relative force of moderation compared to Militant

70% voting turnout from 130,000 newly registered which come from the 2 million union people paying the political levy inside Labour affiliated unions.

That may be a bit more plausible yes, but would still see union members having less of an influence than in 2010, many of the new 'supporters' will be students, leftwingers, society members etc (and of course Tories)

Yes I have it at about half their influence that they had in 2010. But if they sign up 200,000+ then they may have a similar weighting as the members. Ouch.

That is another 70,000 to be signed up in about 17 days, will be a challenge

unite's GE canvassing probably capable of making 50,000 calls within a week or less.
add in Unison etc etc.

HYUFD

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

HYUFD said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

In the light of Myburningears showing below that Labour affiliated union members can vote for no charge, I have updated my model with a forecast of over 130,000 union "supporters" being eligible to vote. On a 70% turnout that could deliver 50,000 first preference votes for Corbyn on the assumption that the push call centres that Unite are using focus on the Corbyn friendly members.

This election system from Miliband looks to be as big a disaster for the Progress wing as the system that it replaced. No wonder the Unions felt comfortable with the change.

Not all unions are backing Corbyn, Usdaw is backing Burnham. I also doubt anything like 70% of union members will register support for Labour to vote in the contest even with Unite calling. In the 80s of course unions were actually a relative force of moderation compared to Militant

70% voting turnout from 130,000 newly registered which come from the 2 million union people paying the political levy inside Labour affiliated unions.

That may be a bit more plausible yes, but would still see union members having less of an influence than in 2010, many of the new 'supporters' will be students, leftwingers, society members etc (and of course Tories)

Yes I have it at about half their influence that they had in 2010. But if they sign up 200,000+ then they may have a similar weighting as the members. Ouch.

That is another 70,000 to be signed up in about 17 days, will be a challenge

unite's GE canvassing probably capable of making 50,000 calls within a week or less.
add in Unison etc etc.

Maybe, but not all of them will sign up

JEO

AndyJS said:

O/T:

"Concerns about a girl repeatedly abused by a gang of men in Buckinghamshire were raised by a charity several years before the perpetrators were arrested, it has emerged.
Barnardo's told the BBC it had worked with the ring's two victims in 2008 and referred the case of one to the local authority and other relevant agencies.
The charity's Michelle Lee-Izu said "insufficient action" was taken."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33662503

What most alarms me about this is how the perpetrators could find 60 men in the local area to get involved. If I told two or three people that I had a 12 year old I was having sex with and asked if they wanted to get involved, then the police would be at my door within hours. It's not like they're using the deep web to find people who share their sick desires. They're just getting all the local taxi drivers or takeaway workers involved.

EPG

SimonStClare said:

Janet Daley: - “I’ve lived under Jeremy Corbyn’s rule – it turned me into a Tory

When put into practice in the Seventies, the views of this loony Left-winger resulted in class hatred and Soviet-style stagnation”

Janet bloody Daley? – You’ve a lot to answer for Mr Corbyn…!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11762773/Ive-lived-under-Jeremy-Corbyns-rule-it-turned-me-into-a-Tory.html

The beginning of a grassroots Tories against Corbyn movement?

AndyJS

Donald Trump is currently the 7th most likely person to be running the world's most powerful country following the 216 election according to Betfair exchange:

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.107373419

felix

MarqueeMark said:

ReggieCide said:

The truth is this is a circus but with wild animals still included. Who knows what will happen but I guess it will be amusing and frightening by turns.

Won't somebody think of the poor clowns?

You mean Cooper/Burnham/Kendall ..or all 3?

HYUFD

Re Democratic nomination discussion earlier Gallup has some new numbers giving Sanders the highest net favourability of the contendors, though Hillary still has the highest favourables total

Favourables (Net favourable v unfavourable)

Clinton 43% (-3%)
Sanders 24% (+4%)
Webb 11% (-1%)
O'Malley 9% (-4%)
Chafee 6% (-5%)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx

frpenkridge

calum said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fnarr

@craigawoodhouse: England v Scotland in the football. Theresa May might want to re-think her policy on @BorisJohnson's water cannon.

Wembley better get some spare goalposts on order - and some extra turf while they're at it !!

How will Wembley get them to sit in the right seats?

sarissa

TheScreamingEagles said:

Fnarr

@craigawoodhouse: England v Scotland in the football. Theresa May might want to re-think her policy on @BorisJohnson's water cannon.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm sure Police Scotland can manage a few unruly visitors.