What's happening with Labour is a sobering study in self-delusion. Hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters honestly believe that shifting leftwards will give them an enhanced opportunity of winning a general election. Everyone else knows they're wrong, but they're not interested in listening to them.
Who could have imagined a couple of months ago that Jeremy Corbyn of all people would be the runaway frontrunner for the post of Leader of the Opposition? Seriously, apart from maybe Dennis Skinner it's hard to think of a less likely Labour leader. Corbyn used to be my Mp many moons ago and for him to suddenly emerge from relative obscurity like this is surely one of the biggest upsets in British political history - whether he wins or not.
This reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
The Emperor (Osborne) is wearing new clothes that he has recently spun (austerity, long term economic plan, new settlement).
Everyone in the crowd, including the Labour Party, say how nice the clothes are, and that they would like to wear something similar (but slightly improved).
It takes a small boy (Corbyn) in the crowd so say loudly -but he's not wearing any clothes! .At that point, many people say - actually the boy is right. He's not wearing any clothes.
It just needed someone to say it loudly enough for people to hear.
The bubble is pricked. This could be a game changer. The other three would not have changed the game.
I don't think there is a majority for a Left-Wing Labour Party among the British electorate.
There isn't a majority of voters for a Right-Wing Tory Party either - only 37% for, 63% against but they still got a majority of seats.
The question is what is the support for Corbyn's views from Labour, Green, , SNP, LibDems and some UKIP supporters, and can this support be focused to turn it into a winning coalition?
What's happening with Labour is a sobering study in self-delusion. Hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters honestly believe that shifting leftwards will give them an enhanced opportunity of winning a general election. Everyone else knows they're wrong, but they're not interested in listening to them.
In Scotland they may not be wrong
Plus let's not forget that the "dangerously left-wing" SNP didn't just do well in the working-class heartlands - they swept through most of the leafy and affluent (and Tory once-upon-a-time) parts of Scotland too.
I just posted a compassionate piece that we should help the Calais migrants rather than demonise them.
I really would not want to be near any of your heads- your vitriol for human beings, your lack of compassion. I don't know if you are narrow minded, or bigoted, or just plain nasty and downright hateful. Whatever, you just make me feel just sad and disillusioned and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
In the future there has to be more hope than there is now.
Just sounds like virtue signalling. Costs you nothing, you make yourself feel good while being able to demonise someone else. I can see why you want Corbyn as leader.
The decision of those Labour MPs to nominate Corbyn just to spice up the contest must go down as one of the biggest mistakes in British political history. Margaret Beckett was one I think.
N
And not everyone got the candidates in the race they wanted, Creagh didn't get loaned nominations, her supporters don't get to vote for their first preference (however few of them there are).
Creagh offered nothing different from Kendall as far as I can see
Me either, but some few MPs evidently thought so as they nominated her, not Kendall - who is to say what constitutes a wing of the party or fringe group or collection of a few individuals? Either you use MP nominations to screen out those without enough support - the system they have but got around by lending nominations - or you should lower the bar for candidates like Creagh and see what will happen.
I feel like I'm missing out by not buying a vote in the Labour Party leadership election.
Anyone feel like this?
Yes indeed. It's the happening thing. I'd like to see a strong opposition which will have at worst a credible chance of winning in 2020 (helps prevent laziness on the other side even if I decide even more of the same is needed for some reason), and at best one the country would be ecstatic to see take over, so I wouldn't have to be that untruthful either.
I just posted a compassionate piece that we should help the Calais migrants rather than demonise them.
I really would not want to be near any of your heads- your vitriol for human beings, your lack of compassion. I don't know if you are narrow minded, or bigoted, or just plain nasty and downright hateful. Whatever, you just make me feel just sad and disillusioned and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
In the future there has to be more hope than there is now.
I can broadly agree or at least consider very carefully your take on the situation re just letting them in, frustrated though I am that France blames us for the situation and although it's an imposition on us something has to change and perhaps it should be our position, but your insistence on, seemingly unintentionally given you do not want the Calais migrants to be treated so, demonising those who disagree with you leaves me with a bad taste at the thought I might agree with you on it. I shall try to divorce the message from the messenger.
I find it sad but amusing that those who see irrationally unreasonable and cartoonishly motivated people everywhere often fail to see that the shadow they chase is also the one they cast, to borrow a phrase.
Who could have imagined a couple of months ago that Jeremy Corbyn of all people would be the runaway frontrunner for the post of Leader of the Opposition? Seriously, apart from maybe Dennis Skinner it's hard to think of a less likely Labour leader. Corbyn used to be my Mp many moons ago and for him to suddenly emerge from relative obscurity like this is surely one of the biggest upsets in British political history - whether he wins or not.
This reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
The Emperor (Osborne) is wearing new clothes that he has recently spun (austerity, long term economic plan, new settlement).
Everyone in the crowd, including the Labour Party, say how nice the clothes are, and that they would like to wear something similar (but slightly improved).
It takes a small boy (Corbyn) in the crowd so say loudly -but he's not wearing any clothes! .At that point, many people say - actually the boy is right. He's not wearing any clothes.
It just needed someone to say it loudly enough for people to hear.
The bubble is pricked. This could be a game changer. The other three would not have changed the game.
I don't think there is a majority for a Left-Wing Labour Party among the British electorate.
There isn't a majority of voters for a Right-Wing Tory Party either - only 37% for, 63% against but they still got a majority of seats.
The question is what is the support for Corbyn's views from Labour, Green, , SNP, LibDems and some UKIP supporters, and can this support be focused to turn it into a winning coalition?
You cannot count all of UKIP as "right wing". Many may actually like Corbyn.
I still think he's a reasonably likeable and charismatic politician. The problem is that even the most charismatic person in the world still needs to actually be saying/standing for something to create any interest.
I still think he's a reasonably likeable and charismatic politician. The problem is that even the most charismatic person in the world still needs to actually be saying/standing for something to create any interest.
Burnham is easily the most telegenic and charismatic of the 4, though Corbyn also has a certain sort of radical flair. As to what he stands for, well he is right of Corbyn, left of Kendall on most issues (with the possible exception of IHT, though he wants a social care fund instead) and split the difference with Cooper (though he has said Labour spent too much unlike Yvette)
'Just sounds like virtue signalling. Costs you nothing, you make yourself feel good while being able to demonise someone else. I can see why you want Corbyn as leader.'
Yes but Labour supporters can't keep quoting the 37% figure as if everyone else would have preferred a Labour government given a simple choice between Tory and Labour.
Who could have imagined a couple of months ago that Jeremy Corbyn of all people would be the runaway frontrunner for the post of Leader of the Opposition? Seriously, apart from maybe Dennis Skinner it's hard to think of a less likely Labour leader. Corbyn used to be my Mp many moons ago and for him to suddenly emerge from relative obscurity like this is surely one of the biggest upsets in British political history - whether he wins or not.
This reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
The Emperor (Osborne) is wearing new clothes that he has recently spun (austerity, long term economic plan, new settlement).
Everyone in the crowd, including the Labour Party, say how nice the clothes are, and that they would like to wear something similar (but slightly improved).
It takes a small boy (Corbyn) in the crowd so say loudly -but he's not wearing any clothes! .At that point, many people say - actually the boy is right. He's not wearing any clothes.
It just needed someone to say it loudly enough for people to hear.
The bubble is pricked. This could be a game changer. The other three would not have changed the game.
I don't think there is a majority for a Left-Wing Labour Party among the British electorate.
There isn't a majority of voters for a Right-Wing Tory Party either - only 37% for, 63% against but they still got a majority of seats.
The question is what is the support for Corbyn's views from Labour, Green, , SNP, LibDems and some UKIP supporters, and can this support be focused to turn it into a winning coalition?
You cannot count all of UKIP as "right wing". Many may actually like Corbyn.
I just posted a compassionate piece that we should help the Calais migrants rather than demonise them.
I really would not want to be near any of your heads- your vitriol for human beings, your lack of compassion. I don't know if you are narrow minded, or bigoted, or just plain nasty and downright hateful. Whatever, you just make me feel just sad and disillusioned and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
In the future there has to be more hope than there is now.
No you did not. Stop pretending. You fool nobody. These illegal immigrants are illegally trying to leave one safe country to go to another. They are under no threat in France, a civilised country. All you were pretending was that it would be a goog idea to give in to criminal activity. Srop your slurs.
Yes but Labour supporters can't keep quoting the 37% figure as if everyone else would have preferred a Labour government given a simple choice between Tory and Labour.
Who could have imagined a couple of months ago that Jeremy Corbyn of all people would be the runaway frontrunner for the post of Leader of the Opposition? Seriously, apart from maybe Dennis Skinner it's hard to think of a less likely Labour leader. Corbyn used to be my Mp many moons ago and for him to suddenly emerge from relative obscurity like this is surely one of the biggest upsets in British political history - whether he wins or not.
This reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
The Emperor (Osborne) is wearing new clothes that he has recently spun (austerity, long term economic plan, new settlement).
Everyone in the crowd, including the Labour Party, say how nice the clothes are, and that they would like to wear something similar (but slightly improved).
It takes a small boy (Corbyn) in the crowd so say loudly -but he's not wearing any clothes! .At that point, many people say - actually the boy is right. He's not wearing any clothes.
It just needed someone to say it loudly enough for people to hear.
The bubble is pricked. This could be a game changer. The other three would not have changed the game.
I don't think there is a majority for a Left-Wing Labour Party among the British electorate.
There isn't a majority of voters for a Right-Wing Tory Party either - only 37% for, 63% against but they still got a majority of seats.
The question is what is the support for Corbyn's views from Labour, Green, , SNP, LibDems and some UKIP supporters, and can this support be focused to turn it into a winning coalition?
You cannot count all of UKIP as "right wing". Many may actually like Corbyn.
Yes, it applies both ways indeed. I recall in 2010 being annoyed at the assumption of various pundits that all LD voters would be horrified at a coalition being done with the Tories, rather than Labour. Now, a lot were, and more were dissatisfied as time went on, and I think it fair to say that more of its MPs would have felt more comfortable working with Labour than the Tories, but not everyone who voted LD was an 'anyone but Tory' voter, and even with very few obvious actual allies for the Tories, not everyone who voted for the other parties can be assumed to have wanted Labour instead, push come to shove.
I just posted a compassionate piece that we should help the Calais migrants rather than demonise them.
I really would not want to be near any of your heads- your vitriol for human beings, your lack of compassion. I don't know if you are narrow minded, or bigoted, or just plain nasty and downright hateful. Whatever, you just make me feel just sad and disillusioned and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
In the future there has to be more hope than there is now.
No you did not. Stop pretending. You fool nobody. These illegal immigrants are illegally trying to leave one safe country to go to another. They are under no threat in France, a civilised country. All you were pretending was that it would be a goog idea to give in to criminal activity. Srop your slurs.
Hear hear. These are economic migrants who have travelled across at least two wealthy Western European countries to reach Calais. The vast majority are young men who are just after money. I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. And calling me "narrow minded, or bigoted, or just plain nasty and downright hateful" just hardens my stance. I have my eyes open, brain switched on and thinking in a pragmatic, reasoned way (as opposed to emotional, ideological, Sixth-Form debating club dribble). I'm also thinking about those in this country who are adversely affected by endless immigration of low-skilled migrants.
I've been out so I missed this poll news until about 30 mins ago. But I'm betting this might be the turning point. I've been hoping for some polling encouragement to support my instinct that Cooper will eventually be elected.
This poll confirms Corbyn's strong lead but it also confirms that he is beatable on second preferences. And this time by the other "change" candidate. "Change" because she is a woman.
Labour has a chance of wresting triumph from the jaws of disaster if they choose Cooper. Labour electing their first female leader wouldn't erase the Corbyn story but would ameliorate it greatly, in my view. The caravan could move on and Labour could become electable again.
Who could have imagined a couple of months ago that Jeremy Corbyn of all people would be the runaway frontrunner for the post of Leader of the Opposition? Seriously, apart from maybe Dennis Skinner it's hard to think of a less likely Labour leader. Corbyn used to be my Mp many moons ago and for him to suddenly emerge from relative obscurity like this is surely one of the biggest upsets in British political history - whether he wins or not.
This reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
The Emperor (Osborne) is wearing new clothes that he has recently spun (austerity, long term economic plan, new settlement).
Everyone in the crowd, including the Labour Party, say how nice the clothes are, and that they would like to wear something similar (but slightly improved).
It takes a small boy (Corbyn) in the crowd so say loudly -but he's not wearing any clothes! .At that point, many people say - actually the boy is right. He's not wearing any clothes.
It just needed someone to say it loudly enough for people to hear.
The bubble is pricked. This could be a game changer. The other three would not have changed the game.
I don't think there is a majority for a Left-Wing Labour Party among the British electorate.
There isn't a majority of voters for a Right-Wing Tory Party either - only 37% for, 63% against but they still got a majority of seats.
The question is what is the support for Corbyn's views from Labour, Green, , SNP, LibDems and some UKIP supporters, and can this support be focused to turn it into a winning coalition?
Blimey - I think Mrs. Scrap and I are going to have to give Labour £3.... hard to believe but what the hell, for sheer entertainment it's great value to thank them this way.
I just posted a compassionate piece that we should help the Calais migrants rather than demonise them.
I really would not want to be near any of your heads- your vitriol for human beings, your lack of compassion. I don't know if you are narrow minded, or bigoted, or just plain nasty and downright hateful. Whatever, you just make me feel just sad and disillusioned and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
In the future there has to be more hope than there is now.
No you did not. Stop pretending. You fool nobody. These illegal immigrants are illegally trying to leave one safe country to go to another. They are under no threat in France, a civilised country. All you were pretending was that it would be a goog idea to give in to criminal activity. Srop your slurs.
Hear hear. These are economic migrants who have travelled across at least two wealthy Western European countries to reach Calais. The vast majority are young men who are just after money. I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. And calling me "narrow minded, or bigoted, or just plain nasty and downright hateful" just hardens my stance. I have my eyes open, brain switched on and thinking in a pragmatic, reasoned way (as opposed to emotional, ideological, Sixth-Form debating club dribble). I'm also thinking about those in this country who are adversely affected by endless immigration of low-skilled migrants.
Agreed, and l'm further amazed you made sense of my mobile phone typing.
I just posted a compassionate piece that we should help the Calais migrants rather than demonise them.
I really would not want to be near any of your heads- your vitriol for human beings, your lack of compassion. I don't know if you are narrow minded, or bigoted, or just plain nasty and downright hateful. Whatever, you just make me feel just sad and disillusioned and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
In the future there has to be more hope than there is now.
Just sounds like virtue signalling. Costs you nothing, you make yourself feel good while being able to demonise someone else.
Pretty much the way of things at the moment, wrt Facebook and Twitter etc, and something historians will look back on with great interest. Also the downfall (when it comes to actual elections) for the Left at the moment.
'Just sounds like virtue signalling. Costs you nothing, you make yourself feel good while being able to demonise someone else. I can see why you want Corbyn as leader.'
Do lefties who support the Calais migrants not realise they are inadvertently damning socialist governments in both France and Italy? Life is so bad in left-wing France and Italy that the migrants have to risk their lives to get to Tory Britain.
I've been out so I missed this poll news until about 30 mins ago. But I'm betting this might be the turning point. I've been hoping for some polling encouragement to support my instinct that Cooper will eventually be elected.
This poll confirms Corbyn's strong lead but it also confirms that he is beatable on second preferences. And this time by the other "change" candidate. "Change" because she is a woman.
Labour has a chance of wresting triumph from the jaws of disaster if they choose Cooper. Labour electing their first female leader wouldn't erase the Corbyn story but would ameliorate it greatly, in my view. The caravan could move on and Labour could become electable again.
I buy that.On paper Corbyn, transfer repellent as he may be outside of those 1st preferences may be just too close to the 50.1 percent on the first go to be stopped IF the polls are accurate.
Here is the thing that leads to doubt. Whilst lots of people have a vote, how many people will vote? How many will vote down the card? If Corbyn's 1st preferences slipped a bit under 40% in reality this becomes a bit more interesting.
I've been out so I missed this poll news until about 30 mins ago. But I'm betting this might be the turning point. I've been hoping for some polling encouragement to support my instinct that Cooper will eventually be elected.
This poll confirms Corbyn's strong lead but it also confirms that he is beatable on second preferences. And this time by the other "change" candidate. "Change" because she is a woman.
Labour has a chance of wresting triumph from the jaws of disaster if they choose Cooper. Labour electing their first female leader wouldn't erase the Corbyn story but would ameliorate it greatly, in my view. The caravan could move on and Labour could become electable again.
Cooper will be about as effective as that woman leader of Labour in The Thick Of It.
None of the four potential leaders pose much trouble for the Conservatives.
You are assuming that all UKIP voters are right wing. But Labour suffered more from UKIP than the Tories did.
You can be economically right wing (reduce taxes, favour the rich) and/or socially right wing (anti-foreigner, anti-political correctness)
It seems to me that UKIP is socially right-wing but economically more left wing.
Corbyn is ambivalent about the EU and might be on the NO side which would appeal to Kippers.
He is against foreign wars (preferring negotiation) which should also appeal to Kippers. There is also quite a lot of policy overlap on economics.
He doesn't seem to me to be of the nanny state politically correct Harman school of thought - except for fair treatment for women - which should appeal to 50% of the population at least.
The Lib Dems also campaigned on the need for continuing austerity, though to a different measure than Tories. So that makes 60% voting for austerity while 40% voted for sticking their heads in the sand with deficit denial.
60% means that for every two deficit deniers there were three voting for austerity - 50% more voters voted for pro-austerity parties than anti-austerity.Quite impressed by the British electorate.
The Labour Party was also campaigning for austerity-lite. An extra year to balance the books - that's all. Only the SNP and Green were anti-austerity. So over 90% voted for austerity parties.
In England voters didn't have much choice as they knew the Greens didn't have a chance. But in Scotland it was a different story.
I think it is fantastic that Osborne has so successfully manipulated the debate and language. It is now seen as 'austerity' to generally run a balanced budget. So when people campaign against 'austerity, they are campaigning against sensible budgeting.
Gordon Brown built up his credibility (and subsequently lost it) with his golden rule
"Gordon Brown introduced the "golden rule" to try to assure money markets that governments would not spend more than they could afford.
The rule requires that current spending does not exceed tax revenue over the course of a complete economic cycle."
Labour are handing over all notions of fiscal prudence to the Conservatives.
If JC wants to bring about a socialist republic, he still needs to show how he can balance the books.
Wild thought - if we think some Labour MPs might do an SDP and leave Labour if JC did fanstatically win, is there a way of betting on the number of Liberal MPs being more than today by say the end of 2015? surely there's a chance a few might see Libs under Farron as not too big a leap?
I know Lab defectors aren't that common but we must be due some!
I'm surprised that Jeremy Corbyn's views on Ukraine and Russia haven't been highlighted yet. I expect the Tories are saving them to swiftboat him, but what's the excuse of the other Labour leadership candidates?
Looks as if Jezza's grasp on history is not one his strong points.
Looks like a bloody apologist for Russian expansion of its Western borders.
You mean Russia protecting Russians ! Remind me what Falklands was all about .
What fraction in the Crimea were Russians?
A majority easily. I think Ukranians form about 20% of the population. Don't forget the Crimea was part of Russia until 1954 when Khruschev "gave" it to the Ukraine.
Wild thought - if we think some Labour MPs might do an SDP and leave Labour if JC did fanstatically win, is there a way of betting on the number of Liberal MPs being more than today by say the end of 2015? surely there's a chance a few might see Libs under Farron as not too big a leap?
I know Lab defectors aren't that common but we must be due some!
I think in the end most will shut up and stay. After all, the prospect of finishing below the Monster Raving Loony Party is not an attractive proposition.
What's happening with Labour is a sobering study in self-delusion. Hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters honestly believe that shifting leftwards will give them an enhanced opportunity of winning a general election. Everyone else knows they're wrong, but they're not interested in listening to them.
In Scotland they may not be wrong
Plus let's not forget that the "dangerously left-wing" SNP didn't just do well in the working-class heartlands - they swept through most of the leafy and affluent (and Tory once-upon-a-time) parts of Scotland too.
I just posted a compassionate piece that we should help the Calais migrants rather than demonise them.
I really would not want to be near any of your heads- your vitriol for human beings, your lack of compassion. I don't know if you are narrow minded, or bigoted, or just plain nasty and downright hateful. Whatever, you just make me feel just sad and disillusioned and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
In the future there has to be more hope than there is now.
I pointed out two genuine problems and offered a solution. It's not like I suggested setting up machine guns at our end of the tunnel.
Seriously, compassion has to be practical otherwise it's just virtue signalling hand wringing. Encourage people to risk all falsely and innocents die, That's not what anyone wants.
I sometimes get the impression that there is a particular type of left winger who isn't that interested in genuinely doing good. What they like doing is making of show of being 'compassionate' and more morally superior to others. This seems a classic case: these are not people who are in danger for their lives, nor are they vulnerable children but male young adults. If you're worried about the truly vulnerable, then you would be focused on those still in Syria.
I'm surprised that Jeremy Corbyn's views on Ukraine and Russia haven't been highlighted yet. I expect the Tories are saving them to swiftboat him, but what's the excuse of the other Labour leadership candidates?
Looks as if Jezza's grasp on history is not one his strong points.
Looks like a bloody apologist for Russian expansion of its Western borders.
You mean Russia protecting Russians ! Remind me what Falklands was all about .
What fraction in the Crimea were Russians?
A majority easily. I think Ukranians form about 20% of the population. Don't forget the Crimea was part of Russia until 1954 when Khruschev "gave" it to the Ukraine.
What's happening with Labour is a sobering study in self-delusion. Hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters honestly believe that shifting leftwards will give them an enhanced opportunity of winning a general election. Everyone else knows they're wrong, but they're not interested in listening to them.
I don't actually think they do, in fact I think the last thing many Corbyn supporters are thinking of is Labour's GE chances.
Not exactly the last thing, but the purpose of winning an election is to do what we believe to be good things. If we have nothing in particular in mind, why bother? Corbyn supporters feel that the first priority is to be clear what we want; trying to win an election on it is important, but not the only issue. If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?
I'm supporting Cooper at present, but it wouldn't take much to push me to Corbyn. And party activists don't come much more centrist, loyalist and pragmatic than me. Don't underestimate the appeal of fighting for something positive.
I've been out so I missed this poll news until about 30 mins ago. But I'm betting this might be the turning point. I've been hoping for some polling encouragement to support my instinct that Cooper will eventually be elected.
This poll confirms Corbyn's strong lead but it also confirms that he is beatable on second preferences. And this time by the other "change" candidate. "Change" because she is a woman.
Labour has a chance of wresting triumph from the jaws of disaster if they choose Cooper. Labour electing their first female leader wouldn't erase the Corbyn story but would ameliorate it greatly, in my view. The caravan could move on and Labour could become electable again.
Cooper actually does worse than Corbyn in some polls
Tory + UKIP got over 50% in Britain and 55% in England.
There isn't a majority of voters for a Right-Wing Tory Party either - only 37% for, 63% against but they still got a majority of seats.
The question is what is the support for Corbyn's views from Labour, Green, , SNP, LibDems and some UKIP supporters, and can this support be focused to turn it into a winning coalition?
36.9% + 12.6% IS GREATER THAN 50%?
Don't forget that we are the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
In Great Britain , Cons (37.7) + UKIP (12.9) = 50.6%
Not exactly the last thing, but the purpose of winning an election is to do what we believe to be good things. If we have nothing in particular in mind, why bother? Corbyn supporters feel that the first priority is to be clear what we want; trying to win an election on it is important, but not the only issue. If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?
"If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?" Yes. EMPHATICALLY. Consider this. What is better for a Labour supporter who lives in the real world? a) Electing a Labour Government with a trimmed manifesto to gain public support for example, only having 3-4 things in it out of a wishlist of 20), or b) losing the election and watching the Conservatives do lots of unpleasant things to you over the next five years.
There's a reason I wrote Britain not UK. Northern Ireland isn't usually included in the statistics. For example Tony Blair and Labour is most often quoted as having won 44.4% in 1997, not 43.2%.
Who could have imagined a couple of months ago that Jeremy Corbyn of all people would be the runaway frontrunner for the post of Leader of the Opposition? Seriously, apart from maybe Dennis Skinner it's hard to think of a less likely Labour leader. Corbyn used to be my Mp many moons ago and for him to suddenly emerge from relative obscurity like this is surely one of the biggest upsets in British political history - whether he wins or not.
This reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
The Emperor (Osborne) is wearing new clothes that he has recently spun (austerity, long term economic plan, new settlement).
Everyone in the crowd, including the Labour Party, say how nice the clothes are, and that they would like to wear something similar (but slightly improved).
It takes a small boy (Corbyn) in the crowd so say loudly -but he's not wearing any clothes! .At that point, many people say - actually the boy is right. He's not wearing any clothes.
It just needed someone to say it loudly enough for people to hear.
The bubble is pricked. This could be a game changer. The other three would not have changed the game.
I don't think there is a majority for a Left-Wing Labour Party among the British electorate.
There isn't a majority of voters for a Right-Wing Tory Party either - only 37% for, 63% against but they still got a majority of seats.
The question is what is the support for Corbyn's views from Labour, Green, , SNP, LibDems and some UKIP supporters, and can this support be focused to turn it into a winning coalition?
I just posted a compassionate piece that we should help the Calais migrants rather than demonise them.
I really would not want to be near any of your heads- your vitriol for human beings, your lack of compassion. I don't know if you are narrow minded, or bigoted, or just plain nasty and downright hateful. Whatever, you just make me feel just sad and disillusioned and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
In the future there has to be more hope than there is now.
I pointed out two genuine problems and offered a solution. It's not like I suggested setting up machine guns at our end of the tunnel.
Seriously, compassion has to be practical otherwise it's just virtue signalling hand wringing. Encourage people to risk all falsely and innocents die, That's not what anyone wants.
I sometimes get the impression that there is a particular type of left winger who isn't that interested in genuinely doing good. What they like doing is making of show of being 'compassionate' and more morally superior to others. This seems a classic case: these are not people who are in danger for their lives, nor are they vulnerable children but male young adults. If you're worried about the truly vulnerable, then you would be focused on those still in Syria.
Last Friday I had tea with an asylum seeker at a mutual friends house. He was from an ethnic minority shia background in Pakistan and a former policeman. He fled when two of his colleagues were gunned down by sunni militants. I didn't ask how he got to the UK, but he was clearly in genuine fear of his life if he were deported. His tales of dealing with the Home Office were pretty grim, the presumption being that he was some sort of fraudster. I do not know how it will work out for him, but he was pleasant company over tea, and pleased to get to know English customs a little better.
Our problem is that because of the despotism and barbarity of a substantial part of the world, that there are not hundreds or thousands of people like him but tens of millions. We cannot take thrm all.
The BBC Storyville that I mentioned earlier was in large part about refugees fleeing Vietnam in 75. I can see Afghanistan and Iraq collapsing in the same way. Possibly also Saudi, Yemen, Egypt Jordan etc.
Talk of tens of thousands is a statistic, and one that ignores the human predicament of events. No easy answers.
Not exactly the last thing, but the purpose of winning an election is to do what we believe to be good things. If we have nothing in particular in mind, why bother? Corbyn supporters feel that the first priority is to be clear what we want; trying to win an election on it is important, but not the only issue. If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?
"If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?" Yes. EMPHATICALLY. Consider this. What is better for a Labour supporter who lives in the real world? a) Electing a Labour Government with a trimmed manifesto to gain public support for example, only having 3-4 things in it out of a wishlist of 20), or b) losing the election and watching the Conservatives do lots of unpleasant things to you over the next five years.
I know what I would choose.
The Republican Party went right and wanted to be doctrinally pure, like Grover Norquist with his tax raising pledge. But the epiphany occurred and they now realize that unless they broaden their appeal to minorities there was not a bright future. Being doctrinally pure is fine, but winning is what matters.
The Democratic Party is way left of where it was a decade or so. It seems Labour might go the same way. At some point it will have an effect on electability.
Labour's problem* is that it has, for the best of intentions, lowered the bar to participation in this election to almost, but not quite, floor level. Despite what we mat say about them, the party is dominated by serious people who want the party to win elections, and it is unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn could win on a ballot of members alone. But allow anyone to join in and it becomes a whole different ball game. Jeremy Corbyn is not an election winner, but he inspires enthusiasm amongst many people - a tiny minority of the electorate, but a majority of people who can be bothered to pay £3 to join in a Labour Party leadership election. And who amongst the general public is going to pay £3 to vote for Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper?
I'm pretty much convinced now that the only way Jeremy Corbyn doesn't win is if he pulls out of the race or if the party change the rules by which people can join in.
*problem only if you think having your party led by Jeremy Corbyn is a problem.
I've been out so I missed this poll news until about 30 mins ago. But I'm betting this might be the turning point. I've been hoping for some polling encouragement to support my instinct that Cooper will eventually be elected.
This poll confirms Corbyn's strong lead but it also confirms that he is beatable on second preferences. And this time by the other "change" candidate. "Change" because she is a woman.
Labour has a chance of wresting triumph from the jaws of disaster if they choose Cooper. Labour electing their first female leader wouldn't erase the Corbyn story but would ameliorate it greatly, in my view. The caravan could move on and Labour could become electable again.
Cooper actually does worse than Corbyn in some polls
Have there been any polls on "how would you vote if X were Labour leader"? That'd be interesting.
Not exactly the last thing, but the purpose of winning an election is to do what we believe to be good things. If we have nothing in particular in mind, why bother? Corbyn supporters feel that the first priority is to be clear what we want; trying to win an election on it is important, but not the only issue. If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?
"If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?" Yes. EMPHATICALLY. Consider this. What is better for a Labour supporter who lives in the real world? a) Electing a Labour Government with a trimmed manifesto to gain public support for example, only having 3-4 things in it out of a wishlist of 20), or b) losing the election and watching the Conservatives do lots of unpleasant things to you over the next five years.
I know what I would choose.
The problem with this argument is that the current shadow cabinet seem to have so completely lost any semblance of core principles, that it seems unlikely a Labour government would do even 3-4 things on a typical leftie's wishlist, judging by how they're now abstaining on cuts to low-paid workers and saying even the very modest things suggested in this year's manifesto are out of question and too left-wing.
I still think most Labour members are prepared to compromise and accept that the full Corbyn Jerusalem would not be politically possible. But the leadership have to show that there's atleast SOME rock-solid causes which they'll die in a ditch for even if it involves the press being mean about them (with welfare being one of the reddest of red lines even for "moderate" Labour members).
I've been out so I missed this poll news until about 30 mins ago. But I'm betting this might be the turning point. I've been hoping for some polling encouragement to support my instinct that Cooper will eventually be elected.
This poll confirms Corbyn's strong lead but it also confirms that he is beatable on second preferences. And this time by the other "change" candidate. "Change" because she is a woman.
Labour has a chance of wresting triumph from the jaws of disaster if they choose Cooper. Labour electing their first female leader wouldn't erase the Corbyn story but would ameliorate it greatly, in my view. The caravan could move on and Labour could become electable again.
Cooper actually does worse than Corbyn in some polls
Have there been any polls on "how would you vote if X were Labour leader"? That'd be interesting.
There have been polls from ORB, which had Burnham then Kendall with the highest favourables, Mori, which again had Burnham then Kendall seen as most likely to be a good PM and yougov on Sunday which had Burnham tied with Corbyn at the top on making voters more likely to vote Labour (Corbyn mainly helped by a strong performance in Scotland, in England and Wales he did less well and was 3rd)
What's happening with Labour is a sobering study in self-delusion. Hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters honestly believe that shifting leftwards will give them an enhanced opportunity of winning a general election. Everyone else knows they're wrong, but they're not interested in listening to them.
I don't actually think they do, in fact I think the last thing many Corbyn supporters are thinking of is Labour's GE chances.
Not exactly the last thing, but the purpose of winning an election is to do what we believe to be good things. If we have nothing in particular in mind, why bother? Corbyn supporters feel that the first priority is to be clear what we want; trying to win an election on it is important, but not the only issue. If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?
I'm supporting Cooper at present, but it wouldn't take much to push me to Corbyn. And party activists don't come much more centrist, loyalist and pragmatic than me. Don't underestimate the appeal of fighting for something positive.
You sound like you might be disappointed with the period of office that you were an MP. I am no fan of the 1997 labour government, but you set out a list of things you wanted to do, and you did them.
The problem with Corbyn is he has never had to take decisions. Ideologically purity rarely sits well with the hard grind of government. Whether as a council leader, or a government minister, you have to make decisions that compromise your core beliefs.
It is not 'principled' to have never had to reach a middle ground. You refer to your own pragmatism. How does a man of seventy make a pragmatic decision in a world which is not black and white, but he insists it is?
I've been out so I missed this poll news until about 30 mins ago. But I'm betting this might be the turning point. I've been hoping for some polling encouragement to support my instinct that Cooper will eventually be elected.
This poll confirms Corbyn's strong lead but it also confirms that he is beatable on second preferences. And this time by the other "change" candidate. "Change" because she is a woman.
Labour has a chance of wresting triumph from the jaws of disaster if they choose Cooper. Labour electing their first female leader wouldn't erase the Corbyn story but would ameliorate it greatly, in my view. The caravan could move on and Labour could become electable again.
Cooper actually does worse than Corbyn in some polls
Have there been any polls on "how would you vote if X were Labour leader"? That'd be interesting.
There have been polls from ORB, which had Burnham then Kendall with the highest favourables, Mori, which again had Burnham then Kendall seen as most likely to be a good PM and yougov on Sunday which had Burnham tied with Corbyn at the top on making voters more likely to vote Labour (Corbyn mainly helped by a strong performance in Scotland, in England and Wales he did less well and was 3rd)
Last week's MORI poll on best PM actually had Cooper in 2nd place.
Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM?
Boris Johnson - 32% Theresa May - 28% Andy Burnham - 27% George Osborne - 23% Yvette Cooper - 22% Jeremy Corbyn - 17% Liz Kendall - 16% Michael Gove - 13%
I still think most Labour members are prepared to compromise and accept that the full Corbyn Jerusalem would not be politically possible. But the leadership have to show that there's atleast SOME rock-solid causes which they'll die in a ditch for even if it involves the press being mean about them (with welfare being one of the reddest of red lines even for "moderate" Labour members).
And the rock-solid cause for Labour should be "Keep the Tories out" (And for the Conservatives "Keep labour out"). As Tim_B says, "...winning is what matters."
If you can't achieve your own objectives (which we all want to do in an ideal world), then denying your opponents from achieving theirs must be your second priority.
As RAB Butler said, "Politics is the art of the possible"
You sound like you might be disappointed with the period of office that you were an MP. I am no fan of the 1997 labour government, but you set out a list of things you wanted to do, and you did them.
No. This is what I wrote about Corbyn in a recent private email:
In many ways he’s exactly what I think a politician should be – intelligent, polite, uninterested in his own glory. He lives modestly without making a fuss about it. More importantly, he actually has a clear sense of where he'd like to take Britain - to a more socialist, tolerant and equal society. I didn't join the Labour Party just to tinker with existing society, and in both the 2010 and 2015 elections I felt we were lacking a clear picture of what sort of better society we wanted. This isn’t an exclusively left-wing point: Tony Blair to my mind offered a plausible picture even if one didn’t altogether agree with it – he wanted a vigorous, liberal-minded society with strong public services delivered by private companies. One can agree or disagree with Blair or Corbyn, but in both cases the sense that we were trying to achieve something is important, and contrasts with the “Here's another policy I’ve thought of” approach of recent years, satirised by one observer as “Vote Labour and get a free toaster”.
Not exactly the last thing, but the purpose of winning an election is to do what we believe to be good things. If we have nothing in particular in mind, why bother? Corbyn supporters feel that the first priority is to be clear what we want; trying to win an election on it is important, but not the only issue. If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?
The problem with this argument is that the current shadow cabinet seem to have so completely lost any semblance of core principles, that it seems unlikely a Labour government would do even 3-4 things on a typical leftie's wishlist, judging by how they're now abstaining on cuts to low-paid workers and saying even the very modest things suggested in this year's manifesto are out of question and too left-wing.
I still think most Labour members are prepared to compromise and accept that the full Corbyn Jerusalem would not be politically possible. But the leadership have to show that there's atleast SOME rock-solid causes which they'll die in a ditch for even if it involves the press being mean about them (with welfare being one of the reddest of red lines even for "moderate" Labour members).
Nick P's point is a good one: "If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?" The mirror image of all this which keeps getting trotted out is the Tories electing IDS in 2001. I remember as a Tory voter how depressed I felt about it at the time. Yet the alternative was Ken Clarke - likeable, affable, probably effective, but horribly pro-EU. And what would have been the point in a Ken-led Conservative party winning an election if the UK had ended up in the Euro anyway? I'd rather have the Tories as an ineffective and unpopular opposition. Of course, it would have been best if the Tories could have found someone who was both electable and suitably anti-European, but that apparently wasn't on offer. Even so, it was close.
Right now, Labour activists are being offered the chance to compromise their principles for the not-immediately-obvious election winning attributes of Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper. It's obvious why Jeremy Corbyn is winning so much support.
Not exactly the last thing, but the purpose of winning an election is to do what we believe to be good things. If we have nothing in particular in mind, why bother? Corbyn supporters feel that the first priority is to be clear what we want; trying to win an election on it is important, but not the only issue. If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?
The problem with this argument is that the current shadow cabinet seem to have so completely lost any semblance of core principles, that it seems unlikely a Labour government would do even 3-4 things on a typical leftie's wishlist, judging by how they're now abstaining on cuts to low-paid workers and saying even the very modest things suggested in this year's manifesto are out of question and too left-wing.
I still think most Labour members are prepared to compromise and accept that the full Corbyn Jerusalem would not be politically possible. But the leadership have to show that there's atleast SOME rock-solid causes which they'll die in a ditch for even if it involves the press being mean about them (with welfare being one of the reddest of red lines even for "moderate" Labour members).
Nick P's point is a good one: "If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?" The mirror image of all this which keeps getting trotted out is the Tories electing IDS in 2001. I remember as a Tory voter how depressed I felt about it at the time. Yet the alternative was Ken Clarke - likeable, affable, probably effective, but horribly pro-EU. And what would have been the point in a Ken-led Conservative party winning an election if the UK had ended up in the Euro anyway? I'd rather have the Tories as an ineffective and unpopular opposition. Of course, it would have been best if the Tories could have found someone who was both electable and suitably anti-European, but that apparently wasn't on offer. Even so, it was close.
Right now, Labour activists are being offered the chance to compromise their principles for the not-immediately-obvious election winning attributes of Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper. It's obvious why Jeremy Corbyn is winning so much support.
Good points. Of course, that can be taken to extremes too, as in Lenin's continual purges of the Communist party in the early years.
What's happening with Labour is a sobering study in self-delusion. Hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters honestly believe that shifting leftwards will give them an enhanced opportunity of winning a general election. Everyone else knows they're wrong, but they're not interested in listening to them.
I don't actually think they do, in fact I think the last thing many Corbyn supporters are thinking of is Labour's GE chances.
Not exactly the last thing, but the purpose of winning an election is to do what we believe to be good things. If we have nothing in particular in mind, why bother? Corbyn supporters feel that the first priority is to be clear what we want; trying to win an election on it is important, but not the only issue. If the party you support could *probably* win an election but had to abandon most of what you like about it in order to do it, would you be keen?
I'm supporting Cooper at present, but it wouldn't take much to push me to Corbyn. And party activists don't come much more centrist, loyalist and pragmatic than me. Don't underestimate the appeal of fighting for something positive.
I think one of the quotes from the Blair speech is quite telling on this point, and speaks to the disconnect between Corbyn supporters and others:
“Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”
That's pretty unambiguous. It suggests to me that the electability argument is, for at least some of the people making it, actually a proxy for a more fundamental antipathy to Corbyn's positions. But they don't want to say that, so they hide behind "he's unelectable".
Corbyn has created a tremendous buzz around the campaign, particularly among young people. He consistently comes across as authentic, as someone who speaks from the heart. That's something that's been lacking from left-of-centre politics for years.
It has come as a surprise to many people, but not me, that he is doing so well in the polls since reaching the ballot. Before 15 June I wasn't sure he'd get on the ballot - I thought the party would anticipate what would happen if he got on and ensure he didn't. I'm glad I was wrong about that. This is a great opportunity for Labour to make a break from 'empty suit with a script' politics and elect a leader with conviction and the ability to inspire hope in the new generation - I hope they take it.
I'm surprised that Jeremy Corbyn's views on Ukraine and Russia haven't been highlighted yet. I expect the Tories are saving them to swiftboat him, but what's the excuse of the other Labour leadership candidates?
Looks as if Jezza's grasp on history is not one his strong points.
Looks like a bloody apologist for Russian expansion of its Western borders.
You mean Russia protecting Russians ! Remind me what Falklands was all about .
What fraction in the Crimea were Russians?
A majority easily. I think Ukranians form about 20% of the population. Don't forget the Crimea was part of Russia until 1954 when Khruschev "gave" it to the Ukraine.
That was just an "illegal" giveaway.
What was illegal about that?
Wasn't it done for administrative purposes, as all the utilities and vital supplies had to come through the land link to Ukraine?
I think one of the quotes from the Blair speech is quite telling on this point, and speaks to the disconnect between Corbyn supporters and others:
“Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”
Well if Blair said that he is a pillock. Corbyn and his supporters are not the Khmer Rouge for heaven's sake! He should want a Labour government, whichever wing of the party can deliver it.
Surely to a Labour supporter even a weak Labour government has to be better than a Tory one?
Or does the average Labour supporter feel better being ideologically pure and sitting in opposition as the Conservative Party churn out budgets attacking the very people that they are supposed to be defending.
I don't get it - but I'm not one of the Labour faithful. Maybe that's the problem - I lack the mindset.
I think one of the quotes from the Blair speech is quite telling on this point, and speaks to the disconnect between Corbyn supporters and others:
“Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”
Well if Blair said that he is a pillock. Corbyn and his supporters are not the Khmer Rouge for heaven's sake! He should want a Labour government, whichever wing of the party can deliver it.
Surely to a Labour supporter even a weak Labour government has to be better than a Tory one?
Or does the average Labour supporter feel better being ideologically pure and sitting in opposition as the Conservative Party churn out budgets attacking the very people that they are supposed to be defending.
I don't get it - but I'm not one of the Labour faithful. Maybe that's the problem - I lack the mindset.
I can understand why Blair said what he did. I suspect his politics are considerably closer to Cameron's than Corbyn's.
So Hillary reveals a global warming agenda, then boards a Dassault Falcon 900B which costs $5850 an hour to rent, and burns 347 gallons of fuel an hour.
I think one of the quotes from the Blair speech is quite telling on this point, and speaks to the disconnect between Corbyn supporters and others:
“Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”
Well if Blair said that he is a pillock. Corbyn and his supporters are not the Khmer Rouge for heaven's sake! He should want a Labour government, whichever wing of the party can deliver it.
Surely to a Labour supporter even a weak Labour government has to be better than a Tory one?
Or does the average Labour supporter feel better being ideologically pure and sitting in opposition as the Conservative Party churn out budgets attacking the very people that they are supposed to be defending.
I don't get it - but I'm not one of the Labour faithful. Maybe that's the problem - I lack the mindset.
I'm not an absolutist on that - it depends what the other lot are like, don't you think? If the Tories were led by Donald Trump, say, I'd support whichever leader had the best chance of stopping him, even if they wanted to halve benefits and privatise everything. In the same way, if I had to choose between a Tory Government and a UKIP Government, I'd vote Tory. But although I don't like a lot of what Cameron does, he's not Trump or Le Pen. I'm not prepared to base my choices entirely on the negative proposition of stopping the Tories. The chance of stopping them with Corbyn is not zero, and the chance with someone else is not 100%. So it's just one factor to be considered - important, but not decisive. Having an opposition that puts forward interesting alternatives is important too.
I'm not prepared to base my choices entirely on the negative proposition of stopping the Tories. The chance of stopping them with Corbyn is not zero, and the chance with someone else is not 100%. So it's just one factor to be considered - important, but not decisive. Having an opposition that puts forward interesting alternatives is important too.
This is probably down to a person's individual outlook on politics - and life in general - I guess.
Probably my own views on this are a bit coloured by my own upbringing, which may surprise some people here. It was very working class and very, very poor, with an attitude of gaining what you can out of life and be grateful for it.
I don't want to run the risk of starting the "Four Yorkshireman" sketch though,
Labour has a chance of wresting triumph from the jaws of disaster if they choose Cooper. Labour electing their first female leader wouldn't erase the Corbyn story but would ameliorate it greatly, in my view. The caravan could move on and Labour could become electable again.
Third, not first. Or, if you prefer, "Labour having its first elected leader...".
If only one preference is stated which then denies other candidates the benefit of a preference on the second count then basically we have two voting systems within the same election. AV and FPTP? Or not?
I'm not sure what your question is; but if a voter doesn't put a 2nd preference, then their vote becomes non-transferable when their first preference candidate is eliminated.
Like you, I appear to lack the mindset of a Labour supporter, but I also reckon that you can judge a politician by the company he keeps. So I am then at a loss to understand why Nick Palmer would think that Jeremy Corbyn might be the answer to a more socialist, tolerant and equal society as a result, especially when socialism has usually yielded anything but tolerance or equality.
I think one of the quotes from the Blair speech is quite telling on this point, and speaks to the disconnect between Corbyn supporters and others:
“Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”
Well if Blair said that he is a pillock. Corbyn and his supporters are not the Khmer Rouge for heaven's sake! He should want a Labour government, whichever wing of the party can deliver it.
Surely to a Labour supporter even a weak Labour government has to be better than a Tory one?
Or does the average Labour supporter feel better being ideologically pure and sitting in opposition as the Conservative Party churn out budgets attacking the very people that they are supposed to be defending.
I don't get it - but I'm not one of the Labour faithful. Maybe that's the problem - I lack the mindset.
I think one of the quotes from the Blair speech is quite telling on this point, and speaks to the disconnect between Corbyn supporters and others:
“Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”
Well if Blair said that he is a pillock. Corbyn and his supporters are not the Khmer Rouge for heaven's sake! He should want a Labour government, whichever wing of the party can deliver it.
Surely to a Labour supporter even a weak Labour government has to be better than a Tory one?
Or does the average Labour supporter feel better being ideologically pure and sitting in opposition as the Conservative Party churn out budgets attacking the very people that they are supposed to be defending.
I don't get it - but I'm not one of the Labour faithful. Maybe that's the problem - I lack the mindset.
I'm not an absolutist on that - it depends what the other lot are like, don't you think? If the Tories were led by Donald Trump, say, I'd support whichever leader had the best chance of stopping him, even if they wanted to halve benefits and privatise everything. In the same way, if I had to choose between a Tory Government and a UKIP Government, I'd vote Tory. But although I don't like a lot of what Cameron does, he's not Trump or Le Pen. I'm not prepared to base my choices entirely on the negative proposition of stopping the Tories. The chance of stopping them with Corbyn is not zero, and the chance with someone else is not 100%. So it's just one factor to be considered - important, but not decisive. Having an opposition that puts forward interesting alternatives is important too.
This is meant as a detached comment not a snark, but one thing this contest is showing us is that Labour supporters generally don't think the Tory government is that bad. If they did they'd be focussing more on electability. I think this shows the wisdom of Cameron's positioning: Although a lot of the substance is very right-wing, the mood music is a bit more subtle.
I've been out so I missed this poll news until about 30 mins ago. But I'm betting this might be the turning point. I've been hoping for some polling encouragement to support my instinct that Cooper will eventually be elected.
This poll confirms Corbyn's strong lead but it also confirms that he is beatable on second preferences. And this time by the other "change" candidate. "Change" because she is a woman.
Labour has a chance of wresting triumph from the jaws of disaster if they choose Cooper. Labour electing their first female leader wouldn't erase the Corbyn story but would ameliorate it greatly, in my view. The caravan could move on and Labour could become electable again.
Cooper actually does worse than Corbyn in some polls
Have there been any polls on "how would you vote if X were Labour leader"? That'd be interesting.
There have been polls from ORB, which had Burnham then Kendall with the highest favourables, Mori, which again had Burnham then Kendall seen as most likely to be a good PM and yougov on Sunday which had Burnham tied with Corbyn at the top on making voters more likely to vote Labour (Corbyn mainly helped by a strong performance in Scotland, in England and Wales he did less well and was 3rd)
Last week's MORI poll on best PM actually had Cooper in 2nd place.
Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM?
Boris Johnson - 32% Theresa May - 28% Andy Burnham - 27% George Osborne - 23% Yvette Cooper - 22% Jeremy Corbyn - 17% Liz Kendall - 16% Michael Gove - 13%
Comments
'I just posted a compassionate piece that we should help the Calais migrants rather than demonise them.'
Crap, you just posted your bigoted view that people that don't play by the rules should be rewarded.
I find it sad but amusing that those who see irrationally unreasonable and cartoonishly motivated people everywhere often fail to see that the shadow they chase is also the one they cast, to borrow a phrase.
'Just sounds like virtue signalling. Costs you nothing, you make yourself feel good while being able to demonise someone else. I can see why you want Corbyn as leader.'
Spot on, badge of honor for a leftie.
Good night all, may tempers ease.
This poll confirms Corbyn's strong lead but it also confirms that he is beatable on second preferences. And this time by the other "change" candidate. "Change" because she is a woman.
Labour has a chance of wresting triumph from the jaws of disaster if they choose Cooper. Labour electing their first female leader wouldn't erase the Corbyn story but would ameliorate it greatly, in my view. The caravan could move on and Labour could become electable again.
I buy that.On paper Corbyn, transfer repellent as he may be outside of those 1st preferences may be just too close to the 50.1 percent on the first go to be stopped IF the polls are accurate.
Here is the thing that leads to doubt. Whilst lots of people have a vote, how many people will vote? How many will vote down the card? If Corbyn's 1st preferences slipped a bit under 40% in reality this becomes a bit more interesting.
None of the four potential leaders pose much trouble for the Conservatives.
Gordon Brown built up his credibility (and subsequently lost it) with his golden rule
"Gordon Brown introduced the "golden rule" to try to assure money markets that governments would not spend more than they could afford.
The rule requires that current spending does not exceed tax revenue over the course of a complete economic cycle."
Labour are handing over all notions of fiscal prudence to the Conservatives.
If JC wants to bring about a socialist republic, he still needs to show how he can balance the books.
I know Lab defectors aren't that common but we must be due some!
Problem solved for the French government.
That was just an "illegal" giveaway.
I'm supporting Cooper at present, but it wouldn't take much to push me to Corbyn. And party activists don't come much more centrist, loyalist and pragmatic than me. Don't underestimate the appeal of fighting for something positive.
In Great Britain , Cons (37.7) + UKIP (12.9) = 50.6%
Yes. EMPHATICALLY.
Consider this. What is better for a Labour supporter who lives in the real world?
a) Electing a Labour Government with a trimmed manifesto to gain public support
for example, only having 3-4 things in it out of a wishlist of 20), or
b) losing the election and watching the Conservatives do lots of unpleasant things to you over the next five years.
I know what I would choose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Løkke_Rasmussen#The_Cabinet_of_Lars_L.C3.B8kke_Rasmussen_II_.2828_June_2015_.E2.80.93_present.29
Our problem is that because of the despotism and barbarity of a substantial part of the world, that there are not hundreds or thousands of people like him but tens of millions. We cannot take thrm all.
The BBC Storyville that I mentioned earlier was in large part about refugees fleeing Vietnam in 75. I can see Afghanistan and Iraq collapsing in the same way. Possibly also Saudi, Yemen, Egypt Jordan etc.
Talk of tens of thousands is a statistic, and one that ignores the human predicament of events. No easy answers.
The Democratic Party is way left of where it was a decade or so. It seems Labour might go the same way. At some point it will have an effect on electability.
I'm pretty much convinced now that the only way Jeremy Corbyn doesn't win is if he pulls out of the race or if the party change the rules by which people can join in.
*problem only if you think having your party led by Jeremy Corbyn is a problem.
I still think most Labour members are prepared to compromise and accept that the full Corbyn Jerusalem would not be politically possible. But the leadership have to show that there's atleast SOME rock-solid causes which they'll die in a ditch for even if it involves the press being mean about them (with welfare being one of the reddest of red lines even for "moderate" Labour members).
The problem with Corbyn is he has never had to take decisions. Ideologically purity rarely sits well with the hard grind of government. Whether as a council leader, or a government minister, you have to make decisions that compromise your core beliefs.
It is not 'principled' to have never had to reach a middle ground. You refer to your own pragmatism. How does a man of seventy make a pragmatic decision in a world which is not black and white, but he insists it is?
Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM?
Boris Johnson - 32%
Theresa May - 28%
Andy Burnham - 27%
George Osborne - 23%
Yvette Cooper - 22%
Jeremy Corbyn - 17%
Liz Kendall - 16%
Michael Gove - 13%
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/political-monitor-july-2015-topline.pdf
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/political-monitor-july-2015-topline-part-two.pdf
If you can't achieve your own objectives (which we all want to do in an ideal world), then denying your opponents from achieving theirs must be your second priority.
As RAB Butler said, "Politics is the art of the possible"
In many ways he’s exactly what I think a politician should be – intelligent, polite, uninterested in his own glory. He lives modestly without making a fuss about it. More importantly, he actually has a clear sense of where he'd like to take Britain - to a more socialist, tolerant and equal society. I didn't join the Labour Party just to tinker with existing society, and in both the 2010 and 2015 elections I felt we were lacking a clear picture of what sort of better society we wanted. This isn’t an exclusively left-wing point: Tony Blair to my mind offered a plausible picture even if one didn’t altogether agree with it – he wanted a vigorous, liberal-minded society with strong public services delivered by private companies. One can agree or disagree with Blair or Corbyn, but in both cases the sense that we were trying to achieve something is important, and contrasts with the “Here's another policy I’ve thought of” approach of recent years, satirised by one observer as “Vote Labour and get a free toaster”.
Of course, it would have been best if the Tories could have found someone who was both electable and suitably anti-European, but that apparently wasn't on offer. Even so, it was close.
Right now, Labour activists are being offered the chance to compromise their principles for the not-immediately-obvious election winning attributes of Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper. It's obvious why Jeremy Corbyn is winning so much support.
'I'm supporting Cooper at present, but it wouldn't take much to push me to Corbyn.'
Blair,Brown,Cooper & Corbyn.
A man for all seasons & a prime example of a Tony Benn weathercock.
“Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”
That's pretty unambiguous. It suggests to me that the electability argument is, for at least some of the people making it, actually a proxy for a more fundamental antipathy to Corbyn's positions. But they don't want to say that, so they hide behind "he's unelectable".
Corbyn has created a tremendous buzz around the campaign, particularly among young people. He consistently comes across as authentic, as someone who speaks from the heart. That's something that's been lacking from left-of-centre politics for years.
It has come as a surprise to many people, but not me, that he is doing so well in the polls since reaching the ballot. Before 15 June I wasn't sure he'd get on the ballot - I thought the party would anticipate what would happen if he got on and ensure he didn't. I'm glad I was wrong about that. This is a great opportunity for Labour to make a break from 'empty suit with a script' politics and elect a leader with conviction and the ability to inspire hope in the new generation - I hope they take it.
He should want a Labour government, whichever wing of the party can deliver it.
Surely to a Labour supporter even a weak Labour government has to be better than a Tory one?
Or does the average Labour supporter feel better being ideologically pure and sitting in opposition as the Conservative Party churn out budgets attacking the very people that they are supposed to be defending.
I don't get it - but I'm not one of the Labour faithful. Maybe that's the problem - I lack the mindset.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3176630/Video-shows-Hillary-Clinton-boarding-private-jet-just-hours-launching-global-warming-push-s-using-FRENCH-aircraft-burns-347-gallons-fuel-hour.html
He says he is looking forward to it.
August 6 in Cleveland.
Probably my own views on this are a bit coloured by my own upbringing, which may surprise some people here. It was very working class and very, very poor, with an attitude of gaining what you can out of life and be grateful for it.
I don't want to run the risk of starting the "Four Yorkshireman" sketch though,