Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB betting is now strongly back with Burnham but does
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB betting is now strongly back with Burnham but does it mean anything?
There have basically been three sources of data for the Labour leadership contest none of which really mean that much at all. The first has been the polling with all but one of the reported surveys being private ones where we don’t even know the name of the pollster if indeed they were carried out professionally.
0
Comments
Hillary Clinton 42%
Bernie Sanders 36%
http://www.wmur.com/politics/wmur-poll-clinton-leads-by-6-percentage-points-as-sanders-edges-closer/34536476
I'd be in a right dilemma if I had a US vote and the choice was Hilary. Little chance any of the republicans would be moderate for me to even consider.
Not to even mention the massive rise of extra-judicial extra-terrororial executions on Hilary's watch
It would really be helpful if there was a poll on how people would vote in the UK with the alternative Labour leaders - all we've seen so far was relative favourability ratings, which are interesting but not enough. Does Burnham's good likeability ratings translate into higher Labour scores? Does Corbyn energise or depress the Labour vote? It's odd that nobody is bothering to ask.
I guess polling is out of favour these days, and no-one wants to pay for it (or, the Labour leader candidates have payed for it, and they don't like what it says much).
Hope you're still enjoying your holiday, and haven’t bankrupted too many vegas folk!
Who'd have thought it - the voters get it. Why not Labour?
The polling is based on a survey of 3,000 English and Welsh people
And anyway True Believers SNP supporters think $50/oil is neither good nor bad for Scotland.....
I can fully appreciate @durganbandier's dilemma. If she is the best the Democrats can come up with, then politics in the US is in a pretty desperate state.
Could it finally sees calls within the Labour party to get rid of the AV voting system, replacing it with a far more straight forward FPTP Leadership voting system? And one that weeds out the also rans earlier to leave just two candidates left in a head to head contest like the Conservative party?
This contest has dragged on for months now, and with very little happening apart from the odd poll and a load of now finished hustings that have only been of interest to the Labour party faithful and Lobby journalists. For the most part, this contest has barely registered with the public as a result. Its almost as if the Labour Leadership contest has been designed to actually work against wider public involvement which might really test the candidates electability up against an audience out with the Labour movement, but one that really does have the final say in a GE.
Let's look at some of the issues it raises:
1) The party is now publicly split, with the (at least) two wings comparing the others to divers diseases and poisons, and suggesting invasive medical procedures to rectify their opponents' views.
2) Not one concrete policy proposal agreed by the party has been put forward since the election, now three months ago, and any that are put forward by a contender are instantly trashed by other Labour members.
3) With the AV system in place, it is impossible to predict the outcome, and therefore any chance of uniting at least the parliamentary party around one candidate is being lost. Indeed, confusion over what second preferences among the three serious candidates go where may well end up handing victory to Corbyn.
4) The membership have openly declared they think it is more important to have the right views than to win power, thereby essentially telling the electorate they are totally wrong and cannot be trusted to know what's best for them and carefully alienating what little moderate support they have left.
(continued)
5) It has also revealed that of the four Labour leadership contenders, two believe that the 2015 manifesto was essentially correct, and one believes it was not left-wing enough. That means only Liz Kendall understands how far out of step with the British, especially the English, electorate Labour is becoming. When 55% of people vote for parties to the right of you, it is not likely you will win votes by staying where you are or tacking left.
6) The icing on the cake from Osborne's point of view is that because Corbyn's entry, rather murky past and constant gaffes have enlivened the race considerably and caused a storm on social media, it has been played out in the full glare of publicity by the print and news media, and is now dragging on into August when there is little else to talk about and so will dominate the news cycles for another month.
It is hard to believe that any serious political party in a modern democracy can be so self-indulgent. Yet it is happening.
My key point is that whoever wins will probably scrape through on third preferences, and will be criticised for having no mandate. Then, they have to sort out this mess from a position of weakness, with the left attacking them if they try to be electable, and the right attacking them if they appease the membership. I do not see how that can be done. It would take a politician of extraordinary tact, intellect, rhetorical skill and personal charm to sort out. Not one of the contenders has even one of those qualities in abundance.
So if Labour is to even hold its position at the next election, something has got to give. The ruthless option would be to purge some of the wilder elements. A more cunning option would be to give them shadow briefs where they have no control over those areas where the trouble lies (e.g. Corbyn to Transport or Culture). But the likeliest option is for bitter in-fighting for three to four years, which whatever the travails of the government would surely cost Labour the election.
George Osborne is far from brilliant, but he is undoubtedly lucky.
I'd like to start a competition to see if anyone can come up with a more leading question.
How about 'given that Corbyn's policies could see the imposition of Shariah law in the UK, do you intend to vote for Kendall to be labour leader?'
The broader problem for any Labour candidate is that public debt is going to remain a major issue even if the deficit is eliminated in this Parliament. The Tory cuts that Labour want to oppose are necessary to reduce the deficit and are seen to be so by the vast majority of the public. How can a left of centre politician address the lack of public money and remain relevant? If even Kendall can't answer that there is no hope for the others.
Watched some old Who on Horror [channel 70 on Freeview] last night. Tom Baker and the first adventure with Romana. Miles better than most new Who [which does have its moments, but I've stopped watching].
Turning from 1980s style horror to... oh. Anyway, I wonder how many more polls would be needed to make Corbyn favourite. Whilst he may be less likely to get second preferences, entryism from the left (and piss-taking right) coupled with others not including second preferences on their ballots surely puts him in a decent position.
http://labourlist.org/2015/08/weve-already-tried-jeremy-corbyns-altnernative-electoral-strategy-and-it-didnt-work/
Why oh why does the new series obsess about not having wobbly sets and not think about things like imaginative scripts and good-quality acting?
http://labourlist.org/2015/08/weve-already-tried-jeremy-corbyns-altnernative-electoral-strategy-and-it-didnt-work/
Extremely sensible = agrees with me. Surprise surprise. Labour supporters unsurprisingly don't want someone who agrees with the Tories, otherwise they'd vote for the Tories. I'm still worried you claim to be a professional historian yet seem to have very limited knowledge of that field, by the way.
The plot coming together nicely was something I noted too, in stark contrast, as you say, to much of new Who. I really liked the character of Capaldi's Doctor, but the storylines left me so cold I just stopped watching (also, there's no problem with a CGI T-Rex. There is a problem with a CGI T-Rex which appears to be 200 feet tall).
If there's one near certainty in all this, it's that Kendall will be last. How many votes she'll get is unclear but 10% plus or minus a bit is probably not a bad prediction given the little polling we have had and the other hints. I'd expect that a majority of her votes will transfer to Cooper, both on grounds of sisterhood and as the next-most-centrist candidate. If so, then Cooper only needs to be within a couple of points or so and she'll pass Burnham. In fact, she may already be ahead (or not but it's close), and Alan Johnson's endorsement of her today won't do any harm.
Now, it may well be true that if it's a Corbyn-Cooper fight, then Corbyn is likely to do better in transfers from Burnham than he would if it's a Corbyn-Burnham battle with a redistribution from Cooper - but the effect is probably marginal: the bearded one won't get much either way.
So in terms of winning overall, there's probably very little in it between Cooper and Burnham. As I think that Corbyn is still underpriced anyway, the best bet now is therefore to lay Burnham.
The American media is fond of calling any lead less than 6% a tie, which is "statistical bollocks".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33641889
Also worth noting the latter of those was with Ecclestone and the former was David Tennant.
Luke Akehurst does not agree with me, on many things. He is merely pointing out that if a far better candidate than Corbyn cannot win under far more favourable circumstances, then it is not likely Corbyn will win. Would you dispute that?
As for your comment on my qualifications, I think the problem is that you have no knowledge of the field - and believe me, you really do not - but think you are an expert. If you swallow the lies of Marxist propagandists neat, of course professional historians will seem to have 'limited knowledge' of the field, operating on pesky things like facts rather than on the parallel reality of discredited philosophers.
What you need to do is do some reading of proper historians to bring your knowledge up to scratch. I've provided lots of information for you, but you're clearly not reading it. So, let's try a Marxist approach. You might find Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes interesting, although it's quite heavy going. Hobsbawm is tendentious, but he is also honest and he has the courage to admit when the evidence contradicts his Marxism (his autobiography, Interesting Times, is a very interesting read and a book I enjoy).
Marxist analyses of the Soviet Union are comparatively rare - perhaps surprisingly. E. H. Carr might be your best starting point, but it is quite old now and a lot of his work has subsequently been superseded by new material, particularly of course since 1991. With Marxist histories really now rather a back number, I'm not aware off-hand of anything recent in the field. If you want to look up the historiography the work of Roger Markwick, at Newcastle University, is probably your best starting point.
I hope you find that useful. Remember, people used to have to pay thousands in tuition fees to get this kind of thing, and I'm giving it to you for free.
Older Labour heads may put me right but I believe that the most divisive internal campaign was the 1981 deputy leadership election between Healey and Benn (and Silkin, though no-one remembers him).
Tempting to re-use stuff, though.
I know there are arguments about whether Labour would survive until a JC leadership, but if I was a diehard YC/AB fan, then a JC win is better for my candidate's long-term prospects than the other one winning.
It'll be interesting to see if that holds, or if your point (and mine) happens to be true in the light of Corbyn's unexpected popularity.
I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?
The Labour Party does, however, need voters who agreed with the Tories this last election.
Corbyn has grown on me quite a bit, and I can see that if he doesn't win then he will be very close. Benn was narrowly defeated by Healey in the early eighties deputy contest, but it just seemed to make the Bennites stronger.
The Falklands was out of the blue and a gamechanger. Until then Maggie looked completely out of her depth. It was very depressing watching the news in 81-82 with each day another round of factory closures and redundancies. It was a major harrowing of the North, and in large part a direct result of Maggies high interest rates and overvalued pound.
" THE SNP is facing criticism after it emerged that members will not get a say over a possible second independence referendum at the party's upcoming conference.
The draft agenda for the SNP conference in October includes no mention of a potential repeat vote, as reported by The Herald on Monday, or last year's historic poll.
Jim Sillars, the former SNP deputy leader, told website CommonSpace that he knew motions regarding another referendum had been tabled by local branches. What makes it on to the agenda is decided by a party committee.
He said: "Why the committee has not approved them for discussion at the conference is a mystery to me"."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11783403/HS2-plans-could-be-derailed-if-Jeremy-Corbyn-wins-Labour-leadership.html
I'm also baffled by the idea that if a charity cannot meet its obligations, it should be bailed out by the state. If its functions are that vital and the charity is insolvent - which it clearly is if it can't pay its staff - wouldn't it be more sensible to take them 'in house' and run them under the aegis of the local social services? After all, just because something is run by the government doesn't mean volunteers are excluded - I've worked with many volunteers who came in to schools to help out for free, and done it myself.
All in all, I think Letwin and Hancock should go before the PAC to explain themselves over this.
If Corbyn wins off tactical transfer votes as you suggest, there are two big risks.
Firstly, that Corbyn, contrary to expectations but not to history, does not get replaced at some point in the parliament and leads Labour into righteous disaster come 2020, from where any new leader inherits a party so far back they're likely to be looking at 2030 rather than 2025.
Secondly, that if Corbyn is replaced, Labour has already steered itself into an impossible position for 2020 and Burnham or Cooper simply becomes for fall-guy (or -girl), all the more so for having replaced the 'democratically elected leader'.
There is another risk, of course, which is that having installed Corbyn to prevent the alternative bagging the leadership, then when Corbyn stands down or is ousted, either that earlier alternative or some third candidate then walks off with the leadership anyway.
No they don't.
The Falklands war undoubtedly helped the Conservatives in the polls, but they were already on an upward path:
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2449/Voting-Intentions-in-Great-Britain-19761987.aspx
Of course they don't .. if they want to remain politically irrelevant.
You still haven't explained what policies from the Spanish Republican and Allende popular front manifestos would be out of place in a traditional mid- century labour manifesto.
Maggie did the right thing.
I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.
@antifrank
There had indeed been worse polling for Maggie in 81 than 82, but it was the Falklands that recreated Maggie with the image of a tough leader, having looked out of her depth before. People like the smack of firm government, as Osborne shows.
Not just "ministers" - the Prime Minister, too, according to The Telegraph:
"David Cameron overruled officials to order a £4.3 million grant to Kids Company, the charity run by the charismatic campaigner Camila Batmanghelidjh, despite concerns about its management of taxpayers money, it has been claimed. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11717503/David-Cameron-overruled-officials-to-order-Kids-Company-grant.html
Poor judgement from Cameron, if true.
Some of my best friends are Marxists or Socialists (hardly surprising, with my Welsh connections). What they've always had in common is that they enjoy a good argument. They love debate, and considering all points of view, and finding out new stuff to inform us all. That's the key reason I think why Marxist historiography had such a profound impact on history in the 1950s. Because it was good history.
As somebody who makes vague and abstract remarks or flat denials based on zero knowledge and a refusal to engage with the arguments of others, you therefore come as a bit of a surprise - and indeed a disappointment. But there - as you appear to be without any sense of irony, I suppose it won't hurt you.
I do hope you find the reading interesting. When you have done it, if you want to start working with people, I'll be happy to discuss things further.
(PS regarding Spanish Republicans - I don't recall reading the Labour manifesto promising to disestablish the Church of England and close all its cathedrals, seizing its property and banning it from a role in education. In many ways, that is a surprising omission, as Labour was largely a nonconformist movement, in itself something that set it apart from the atheistic nature of Stalinism - but it may be that they felt it was an attack too far on a church that most people until thirty years ago still identified with. As for Allende, I don't recall the Labour government of 1945-51 implementing collective farming either. But as this is the first time you actually mentioned this, I'm not sure why you are going on about it now - or was it thread I missed because I had to go and do some work?)
Besides which, if an organisation is dependent on taxpayers' money for its existence then it must be considered public, not third, sector.
Tackling the Unions did not require the high interest rates that decimated British manufacturing industry.
You are assuming the Tories will lose votes and labour gain votes without any transfer between the two, and both those things will happen in swing seats specifically?
I'm not one saying labour need to be Tory lite to win, but it seems high risk to just ignore people who voted Tory this time but who are not committed Tories, but are persuadable. I assumed the 35% strategy would be enough for labour this time but it was unnecessarily risky and I was wrong. Even if something like it works this time as the Tories have more time to build up negatives it's still needlessly risky.
There's a very strange vein of thought from some that if someone ever votes Tory even once they need no longer be pitched to, as though swing voters don't exist - they are now Tories forevermore, seems to be how the thinking goes.
My limited anecdotal evidence from last GE is that Crudas and his research is correct. But, I think this could end up being a case of generals fighting the last war. At the GE 2020 what will be the deficit position? Will voters still be worrying about it?
If Osborne delivers what he has promised we will be in surplus. If he hasn't then the most likely reason is another recession. It seems to me that in this case it is just as likely that voters will have tired of trying to sort out the deficit and be looking for other answers. A nimble-footed leader of opposition is required.
I do wonder what Greece's latest eurozone misadventures have done to public sentiment regarding the SNP fairytale dream of a currency union with the UK (post-Scottish independence), both north and south of the border.
They are both a wish to break away from drab conformity, and politics as it is. Romance versus financial security. The Scots in the end chose their head rather than their heart, but it was close.
The Jezza voters might be tending to heart over head, but they know, even in their heart, that it will lead to electoral suicide and irrelevance.. Corbynism is international socialism but the forces of old Labour represent the ice-pick. Jezza is sound and fury signifying nothing.
The Scots have a national perspective, a much stronger pull, so the heart could win eventually.
Jezza will never be LOTO, but the Scots might or might not become independent.
If you are a Keynesian then you would argue that the voters don't understand macro-economics. See Paul Krugman et al. The voters still get to vote though.
There is some truth in that. Real leadership requires changing peoples perceptions not just following focus panels in some sort of lazy groupthink. Osborne shows this, to a degree, as does Gove, though I often do not like where they are leading! Most of the rest of our frontbenchers are sheep.
I'm not one saying labour need to be Tory lite to win, but it seems high risk to just ignore people who voted Tory this time but who are not committed Tories, but are persuadable. I assumed the 35% strategy would be enough for labour this time but it was unnecessarily risky and I was wrong. Even if something like it works this time as the Tories have more time to build up negatives it's still needlessly risky.
There's a very strange vein of thought from some that if someone ever votes Tory even once they need no longer be pitched to, as though swing voters don't exist - they are now Tories forevermore, seems to be how the thinking goes.
I love it when Marxists (so called) argue on public forums. Perhaps a few weeks in the Gulag would have tempered their enthusiasm; a few months may have killed them.
'The [Republican] manifesto advocated a moderate left-leaning economic policy that rejected the idea of nationalization of land and instead supported the provision of state economic assistance to agriculture, a new progressive tenancy law, and promotion of collective forms of production. It supported protectionist measures to defend national industry, encouraged state research to assist national industry, promised protection of small businesses, major expansion of public works, and progressive tax reform.' Hardly Stalinist. You are full of it.
Similarly land reform under Allende took place in an environment of semi-feudal conditions unlike those in the UK.
Both governments took power on moderate left social democratic manifestos.
I bring this up because it was your nonsense statement about socialist governments that tipped me off to your blinkered zealotry and limited knowledge, not an attractive or helpful trait in a supposed historian.
That's very true. The only problem I think is that you have to match what you are offering to already preconceived ideas in a democracy. So, Osborne goes big on the deficit. People are nervous about these huge numbers so they back Osborne. (He then does of course cut much more slowly than he said he would - because, to be candid, his targets were always very optimistic. But the principle is established, helpfully reinforced by Labour's message that he is cutting extremely hard, so he gets away with it.)
Gove, meanwhile, says that he is about getting rid of dead wood in the education system from the progressive methods of the 1960s and driving up standards for all. Not sure he's achieving that, but people like the sound of schools being run by heads and teachers being free to teach (if only!) so they vote for it. If he had said clearly and openly that he was going to set up academy chains to be run for profit - an aspect he soft-pedalled - I think people would have been much less enthusiastic.
Corbyn, meanwhile, will be (indeed, has been) telling people they have been wrong for decades. I'm not sure how that message is going to go down in an election campaign...
I look forward to you posting your photo of your voting form.
Can you be Deputy and run for the leadership, thus creating a domino election? And does a guaranteed male leader mean a female must get the job anyway?
Labour run by Tom Watson... goody.
electedappointed and Harman doesn't appear to want to be leader.George Brown as well was the acting leader after Gaitskell died in 1963, and Wilson's main rival in the election itself.
Besides, at least your exchanges are good-humoured - I'm more than a little tired of JWiseman's petulance and refusal to engage with the material I am providing, while repeatedly abusing me in what I can only describe as childish terms for not having read it myself (when I have).
Take that last comment on socialist policies that would have been out of place in a Labour manifesto. I provide examples and he immediately says, 'well, they don't count because the circumstances were different.' OF COURSE, they were different. That's why they were not in, er, a Labour manifesto, which was what I was asked for (although interestingly some form of both would likely have been in a Liberal manifesto in 1915 - but I digress). Because they would not have been voted for in Britain, because with the exception of admittedly a fairly large but geographically concentrated minority the people didn't want Socialism.
If anyone wishes to study the philosophical basis behind this sort of goalpost moving, I recommend Antony Flew's concept of the 'no true Scotsman'. Quite a good WP article (not a source I usually encourage, but this is OK) here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
OK, I'm now grumbling and wandering off the point. I shall go and work on my Schemes of Work until I feel better.
Have a good morning everyone!
If that's the case, then I think there should be a clear case to sue the Trustees personally for the return of the money. Obviously it depends on whether it was a legal condition of the grant vs an "understanding" but it does smell extremely bad
“Move follows concerns that votes for Jeremy Corbyn from trade unionists as well as bogus rightwing applicants could undermine integrity of party ballot”
I wonder if this anxiety would still apply if Jeremy Corbyn was languishing at the bottom?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/labour-leadership-harriet-harman-mps-jeremy-corbyn
1) Burnham 40%
2) Corbyn 28%
3) Cooper 27%
but I think it should be
1) Corbyn 45%
2) Cooper 30%
3) Burnham 25%
Something like that.