Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Corbyn polling could be the 2015 version of what happen
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Corbyn polling could be the 2015 version of what happened to Hilary Benn in 2007
There have been only two Labour elections in recent times where there has been polling and we are able to look back and compare the survey numbers with the actual votes received.
0
Comments
I simply don't understand the Labour electorate and can't read it. At current odds, I'm probably most tempted by Yvette.
And let's face it , Cooper is no Thatcher but she has an impressive resume of 18yrs , is slick and polished and handles the Press with ease , compare that with Andy U -Turnham ;furthermore she has a decisive advantage insomuch that the LP are an idealistic party that promotes women's rights and feminism ; they are not going to miss an opportunity to elect their history making first female leader by electing a retread from the failed 1970s
Indeed , Sturgeon is the single most over rated politician in Britain today , while Jeremy Corbyn is becoming a close second , but this is exactly what happens when critical thinking skills are abandoned and folks allow their emotions to run wild ...''Springtime for Corbyn '' ?
I confidently predicted a TORY MAJORITY, on an almost daily basis , for over 5 months before the GE because it was bloody obvious to anyone able to ''read between the lines''that folks in middle England would never , and I mean NEVER take the risk of a weak Labour party being propped up and effectively held to ransom by an odious and opportunistic National Party from Scotland ; it didn't matter what the so called experts said or what the Bookies predicted , I knew that polling is not an exact science and sometimes voters can be less than forthwith and I was correct ! Furthermore I had the confidence to make over 40 bets and won all of them
It seems to me that this current bout of Corbyn-mania is something similar insomuch the polls are predicting a corbyn victory as is the weight of money at the bookies , However , things are not quite as they first seem ; the very real threat of a LP being engulfed by Leftists, burning with the zeal of the converted , and determined to create a Coup de Ta and foist on the LP a leader that maybe only 10% of MPs would have any confidence in will be enough to frighten the dead ; indeed anyone who thought this race was boring and uneventful is in for a rude awakening as the sober minded , silent majority wake up to the dangers they are in .They are not going to sit idley by and allow the Left make their party unelectable for a generation , they are going to unify behind one leader to destroy the threat from Corbyn-mania ..
.It is my prediction they will chose YVETTE COOPER as the compromise candidate and the first female leader of the LP and in doing so salvage a minor victory from the ashes of defeat ! The LP may sometime in the future commit political suicide but not yet !
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/29/operation-stack-kent-uk-migrant-crisis-calais
I suspect the real problem is the EHCR and Article 8, the right to family life, the same bundle of joy that prevents us from chucking out half the known terrorism supporters in the country.
The choice of EdM was madness.
Corbyn promises destruction.
Labour is unworthy of rational political analysis.
It's also hard to escape the conclusion that the polls were skewed by the fact that Benn had a famous name, a la Louis Napoleon Bonaparte being elected President of France because people confused him with his uncle. Nobody had heard of Jon Cruddas before (even I hadn't, as a wonkish student with a degree in politics) and Harman, Johnson, Blears and Hain, while competent mid-ranking ministers - well, at least mid-ranking ministers - were hardly household names. That doesn't apply to Corbyn, who is very much the Cruddas of this contest in terms of name recognition.
A more plausible point could be that he's the V-candidate - the one the Labour hierarchy loves to hate so, as everyone hates the Labour hierarchy as a bunch of pompous, arrogant and out-of-touch morons (something they need to understand, and very fast, if they wish to reconnect with voters) the one people say they will vote for. Again that doesn't apply to 2007.
The most dismal thought of all though is that just because Labour's high command are unpleasant and moronic doesn't mean that they are always wrong...and if those people who are influenced by the last point actually vote for Corbyn, they will surely come to regret it. The one positive might be that it would surely lead to a total purge of all the Brownites and Blairites at one go, and allow Labour to move on at last. But moving from the frying pan into the fire isn't really progress.
Multiple sabotages will wreck the polls more effectively than the election.
The madness was allowing Gordon Brown to become first Chancellor and then Prime Minister. If the Parliamentary Party had had the courage to tell him that he wasn't up to the top job in 1994 - publicly, and to his face, rather than by innuendo and hint - then 20 years of chaos caused by the egotism of this total inadequate would have been avoided. He might even have left politics - think of the benefits to our economy if that had happened.
Tony Blair obviously bears a large part of the blame. But was there really not one person in the PLP willing to risk being smeared by MacBride or Draper, or verbally abused by Watson, or having a stapler thrown at them...oh, hang on...
Cooper is bottom of my list of 4. The humourless puritan candidate seems to have the support of Cromwell though.
I think it's different from the Benn case for another reason as well. Benn was too much of a blank page, generic Labour politician. He polled well because there were few reasons for him not to poll well, not because there were strong reasons to vote for him. As soon as others provided better reasons to vote for them, the voters did. Now, it's Corbyn who is engaging all the positive voters (and Kendall, but they're the wrong reasons at the wrong time for this Labour membership), and Burnham and Cooper who are the generic politicians.
The momentum lies with Corbyn and it's likely to stay with him. It'd probably take a completely out of character Hail Mary from one of the others to make the impact necessary to change the debate now, so quickly and so dramatically. Look at what Burnham's talking about: a new social care tax. There may or there may not be a case for that but it's detail (and detail in his comfort zone at that); not vision.
I would currently rate Corbyn at marginal odds-on to win; about 4/5. Too much information has come out to suggest that he has a very comfortable lead for it to be otherwise, and even if he doesn't do well on second preferences, I expect that all that'll do is reduce his lead by the time he wins.
(That's Jeremy...)
- public spending on subsidised off-road parking for lorries with decent facilities (besides the cost, I'm sure the Garden of England would like to be concreted over)
- "we need to do more" to help the migrants
Is that really common sense?
A Corbyn victory might cost Labour the 2020 election but not its entire future.
Perkins seems to get into a terrible muddle over the asylum business though. The people coming through on the lorries are not asylum seekers, for the simple reason that if they were, their only legal course of action would be to claim asylum in France (assuming, for the moment and probably wrongly, that they had not passed any other designated safe country - e.g. Hungary - en route). Genuine asylum seekers with perfectly clear-cut cases do of course arrive in this country - but by air, where the airport is the first safe soil they have touched.
That means they are economic migrants. This is therefore a straightforward political question - do we take them to work in our economy or not? And the clear evidence is that the British public have said no, we should not take them to work in the economy. Therefore, the government is acting democratically in trying to stop them. However, in practice only the French can do so (as the problem is in France) and I think they are too disorganised at present to mount the necessary security operation.
Perkins is of course entitled to disagree with that if she wishes, but she needs to argue on the basis of facts rather than left-wing prejudices about right-wing views, which is what she seems to be doing.
I'm not sure the French are too disorganised. I think they know exactly what they are doing: the minimum to get away with looking like they are trying, while hoping that the migrants move to the UK and are no longer their problem.
I heard a BBC reporter on Today, describing the scenes she'd witnessed at Coquelles last night.
Is it too much to expect for Theresa May to get out from behind her comfy desk in Whitehall, and visit the problem herself one evening? She sure as hell should - this is a major vote loser for her party, particularly in Kent.
If Labour does implode of its own accord, a replacement would be found. Just because there doesn't appear to be an obvious one at present doesn't mean it wouldn't happen - and it might be a very sinister party indeed. Who would bet against an English branch of the SNP committed to the break-up of the UK on a xenophobic manifesto with a few social democratic platitudes doing well in the current climate against a Corbyn-led Labour party?
(PS - bear in mind it's not just tone and policies. Labour seriously need a top-to-bottom reorganisation, something Corbyn would be too inexperienced and too disorganised, on present evidence, to even begin. He would not be a positive step for Labour.)
The real irony of course is that two-thirds of them are in the Lords - a body Farron has called for the abolition of!
The article is the usual Grauniad bollocks.
I had the LD survey yesterday looking at how the party should approach the Euroref. Tactical issues as well as political and attitudinal ones. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. I think Labour will be in internal chaos so it is likely that if the referendum is next year that the LDs and SNP will be the most vocal "inners".
You mean the Conservative party?
The Guardian on-line has been swamped by anti-immigration immigrants. I don't think there will be room to park them on the Sun's premises. Where are they all flocking from?
If Ramsgate has the capacity it might make sense. The runway is massive, both in length and width; 9000 ft long, with parking for 15-20 trucks abreast maybe?
the old timers I know- long standing party members, a pretty moderate and generally sensible bunch, are going for Corbyn too.
Mike- the Hillary Benn reference is just not relevant here. Corbyn's going to sail through
A constitutional convention was a good idea though
Getting another country to accept those we try to deport, if we can't prove they are from that country, is basically impossible.
Illegal immigrants know this, which makes it an incredibly expensive problem.
Great article in the Telegraph on the migrant crisis. The attitudes towards the migrants that I have read here by most of the pbCOM fraternity is utterly appalling.
Hand wringing whilst reading your rental income statements in a sunlit Italian cafe doesn't count.
Corbyn has captured the imagination of the Labour membership because he is charming, authentic, believable, charismatic. People relate to him, and he relates well to people.
I too am looking forward for him take on Cameron- the superficial PR man who doesn't really believe in anything. The juxtaposition couldn't be more stark. You may find that Corbyn captures a mood in the public that yearns for something believable, and he may well last longer than you think.
Cin Cin, compagni.
Bizarrely, of course, most economic migrants do get work more or less immediately on arrival - illegally, in the 'black' economy.
It's all very silly and I would love to see a government bring in temporary work permits to put an end to the confusion. Then in the event of an application being turned down (1) they can be revoked and (2) not only will they not have cost us anything to support, they will have been helping the economy in the meanwhile and possibly in many cases helping to sort out the original problems that drove them here in the first place. Win-win.
In addition, I think Scots will feel leave that leaving the UK is a bigger jump to make than leaving the EU.
In much the same way, by all that is holy, you have to believe that Lab members, as they go to mark their crosses (or however they do it - Ms Black is right on a few things), will go for a safety candidate. I have backed Yvette but whoever it is (and I don't necessarily expect them to be leader in 2020) needs to be a steady hand while Lab has its famous "internal debate".
I also still expect JC to step down prior to the vote.
I salute your humanity, but asylum seekers don't journey across Europe, bypassing your place in Italy, to reach Calais before asking for asylum. They must be predominantly economic migrants. We must be a very attractive island.
And we should take them all in. Hampstead Heath could be turned into a giant camp site, Islington would be nice, and I'm sure our British Asians would welcome a million or two of our African brothers into Southall.
Numbers are all. And when crowds meet traffic, there is the real risk of accidents.
I may be a simpleton, but are they not on French soil? Or have they finally returned Calais to us?
What achievements are you thinking of in particular?
Brownite=disaster
Blairite= no one in Labour is listening
Three things about this thread and re Brown
Anyone who takes bricks in a plastic bag to a party is not to be trusted.
Brown and his ideas were a disaster for Britain, so forget Yvette even if she wins.. disastrous for Labour
If Corbyn wins Labour are absolutely fecked
If Kendal wins . see above/Blairite.
Oh and DONT TRUST POLLS>
I feel most sympathy for the lorry drivers who are having their livelihoods ruined. Many of them are threatened on a regular basis as they pass through Calais, often with weaponry by some of these thugs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32658907/election-2015-mp-thanks-voter-for-penis-ballot-paper-mark
Are there any bets on what marks might be used for any of the four candidates?
BTW - are you in favour of rent controls so that rents are proportionate to the living wage?
Watch stopped last night. Not too serious (clocks abound, of course) but mildly irksome. Had it for about 17 years, only replaced the battery once.
On-topic: not sure I buy this argument. Isn't the closest leadership contender (from last time) to Corbyn, in terms of being an outsider, Abbott?
My friends in Labour are probably a long way from typical, they are Scottish, older, wealthier, more establishment and conservative ( with a small c of course) but they are in despair at the idea that Corbyn winning and even more so at the quality of the alternatives. Not a happy bunch and unlikely to be knocking on many doors whatever the outcome.
In practice it will be a ratchet. At every turn the SNP will make the case - quite reasonably - for more independence. The convention will reach a reasonable settlement that is fair to all parts of the UK.
And then the wailing will start. "Oh the English, the English, the evil Tories are oppressing us".
It will achieve nothing except to move the baseline further towards devolution.
The SNP aren't ready to settle yet. For comparison (although obvious not equating the two), it made no sense to talk to Sinn Fein in the 1980s. But by the mid 1990s the PIRA was ready to surrender, so it made sense to open negotiations.
In practice it will be a ratchet. At every turn the SNP will make the case - quite reasonably - for more independence. The convention will reach a reasonable settlement that is fair to all parts of the UK.
And then the wailing will start. "Oh the English, the English, the evil Tories are oppressing us".
It will achieve nothing except to move the baseline further towards devolution.
The SNP aren't ready to settle yet. For comparison (although obvious not equating the two), it made no sense to talk to Sinn Fein in the 1980s. But by the mid 1990s the PIRA was ready to surrender, so it made sense to open negotiations.
It would be in our best interests to offer the Italians naval help in stopping the migrants. Once migrants get into mainland Europe, at least some are going to end up getting to Calais, or getting across the Channel.
Easy solution - doesn't count if you can't prove how you've arrived, and where from. At the same time, making sure to deport failed applications back to last safe country.