Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.
In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.
In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors
Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.
David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll
Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.
But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.
Indeed, the poll shows that in England and Wales 28% think Miliband took Labour too far left and only 19% not far enough, while in Scotland only 14% think he took Labour too far left and 45% not far enough.
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have governed more than any other party.
Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.
Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.
In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.
In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors
Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.
David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll
Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.
But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.
Er no. The unionists are in government with Sinn Féin. They do deals with whomever will deliver the goodies.
They have no choice but to be in government with Sinn Fein. It's not a voluntary coalition. They detest each other.
Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.
In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.
In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors
Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.
David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll
Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.
But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.
Their first "low hanging fruit" is 26th on the list with an SNP majority of 3,718 to overturn despite them pretty much maximising any tactical voting.
Their next "low hanging fruit" is 45th with an SNP majority of 5,597 and is due heavy Boundary Changes which will only help the SNP gain a higher notional majority.
In fact Labour only have 9 SNP seats in their top 100 targets and they are clustered at the upper end of the 100 with majorities well beyond anything Labour can expect to turn around.
And in every single one of these seats, the SNP will have the "first defence incumbence" advantage.
The SNP have the advantage that none of the candidates for Labour leader are Scottish. The English have voted in numbers for Scottish Labour and Lib Dem leaders but I don't see Scots voting for an English leader.
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.
In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.
In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors
Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.
David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll
Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.
But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.
Their first "low hanging fruit" is 26th on the list with an SNP majority of 3,718 to overturn despite them pretty much maximising any tactical voting.
Their next "low hanging fruit" is 45th with an SNP majority of 5,597 and is due heavy Boundary Changes which will only help the SNP gain a higher notional majority.
In fact Labour only have 9 SNP seats in their top 100 targets and they are clustered at the upper end of the 100 with majorities well beyond anything Labour can expect to turn around.
And in every single one of these seats, the SNP will have the "first defence incumbence" advantage.
They have 10 SNP targets including the 101st Labour target seat
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have governed more than any other party.
Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Have you ever been to anywhere in Europe outside of the big cities? Would love to see some sources for that interesting claim.
Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.
In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.
In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors
I doubt he'll be able to do it, but getting Scotland back may make a Corbyn leadership less damaging for Labour. None of the candidates can win back England, not a single one.
Scotland would be the only net plus of a Corbyn leadership for Labour. As for England, I would not rule out Burnham and Kendall pipping Osborne there in the right circumstances, though not Cameron if he stands again and probably not Johnson
On Cameron, I saw that Telegraph story - just seems to be the hopes of MPs that he'll stand again, as opposed to any real inside information as to what Cameron is thinking. Was interesting to read that several Tories are worried about Osborne's electability, though.
I don't think Osborne can get a majority, nor do I think he'd make a good PM - but most likely, he could preside over a minority Tory government. And then pretty much become unpopular from there.
We shall see, and if Corbyn wins whether he lasts the course or is IDS 2
I know @tyson and @SandyRentool are supporting Corbyn, but I don't think they necessarily think like Corbyn.
I'm probably going to vote for him. I don't agree with everything he thinks, but I don't see him as intolerant of dissent, and I'd rather have an appealing vision with issues that one can argue about than no particular vision at all.
Quick question: do you think a Corbyn-led Labour could get an appealing vision across to swing voters? Many in the media won't give him much of a hearing and there's a lot of history that could continually be brought up.
Are the right wing media keeping quiet about the dirt on Corbyn so that he wins - or does the right wing media not have any dirt on Corbyn?
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
Northern Europe, like the UK, is a very wealthy part of the world.
I don't think they are disputing that. They're saying that most of the wealth is in London, and that while Londoners may enjoy a standard of living comparative to the rest of North Europe, many throughout the country do not which is why we make up 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe. Don't you think that's a tad concerning?
Ladbrokes will sell me a 75 per cent probability that Jeremy Corbyn will be Labour leader at the end of September, or a 30 per cent probability that Jeremy Corby will be Labour leader at the next general election.
So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have governed more than any other party.
Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.
On a very real level, it is the fault of FPTP.
Under FPTP the Tories don't need deprived areas, all they have to do is ensure they have enough areas provided with government largesse to get enough seats. In any form of proportional representation, you can't do that because you either cannot form a majority without support everywhere or your coalition will include parties with representations which FPTP governments can safely ignore.
Almost every single thing which is wrong with the way the UK, socially and economically is the fault of FPTP.
Yes. They are correct only if you define "northern Europe" as excluding several EU member states further north than those in their sample. The sample is entirely artificial. France is apparently a member of "northern Europe", but Poland and the Baltic States aren't.
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have governed more than any other party.
Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.
Or it could just be duff statistics.
Why would the stats be wrong, exactly? Inequalitybriefing got their data from Eurostat.
Yes. They are correct only if you define "northern Europe" as excluding several EU member states further north than those in their sample. The sample is entirely artificial. France is apparently a member of "northern Europe", but Poland and the Baltic States aren't.
Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.
In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.
In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors
Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.
David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll
Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.
But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.
Er no. The unionists are in government with Sinn Féin. They do deals with whomever will deliver the goodies.
The Unionists will never do deals with a party led by a man who treats the IRA as equivalent to the British Army.
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systeou have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have governed more than any other party.
Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.
Or it could just be duff statistics.
Why would the stats be wrong, exactly? Inequalitybriefing got their data from Eurostat.
It depends what's in them.
having done a fair bit of travel round Europe I doubt Ireland's border counties are any better off than NI, regions of France like the Limousin or Marseilles are complete shitholes.
I suspect the Euro at 1.10 in 2014 and 1.42 today may be relevant. Likewise comparing Cornwall pop 500 k with London pop 9 milliondoesn't tell us much. Some of the poorest areas in the country are in London.
Some interesting stats from yougov's ST Labour leadership poll of the public a fortnight ago.
In England and Wales while 11% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party, 15% would be less likely giving him a net score of -4%, behind Burnham and Kendall.
In Scotland by contrast 18% would be more likely to vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party and only 11% less likely giving him a net score of +7%, well ahead of the other contendors
Thanks - missed that when it came out. Actually the overall figures are very similar for all four candidates - little evidence of Corbyn either attracting or repelling vast numbers at that stage. Another point of interest is that both Tories and Labour had put people off since the election.
David Miliband would do better than all of them north and south of the border, but Corbyn's strikingly better performance in Scotland than rUK is the most interesting part of the poll
Scotland offers some low-hanging fruit to Labour, if they shift further Left.
But, it makes life harder in England and Wales. And, as others have pointed, Corbyn as leader effectively gives the government 11 Unionist votes when it matters.
Their first "low hanging fruit" is 26th on the list with an SNP majority of 3,718 to overturn despite them pretty much maximising any tactical voting.
Their next "low hanging fruit" is 45th with an SNP majority of 5,597 and is due heavy Boundary Changes which will only help the SNP gain a higher notional majority.
In fact Labour only have 9 SNP seats in their top 100 targets and they are clustered at the upper end of the 100 with majorities well beyond anything Labour can expect to turn around.
And in every single one of these seats, the SNP will have the "first defence incumbence" advantage.
The SNP have the advantage that none of the candidates for Labour leader are Scottish. The English have voted in numbers for Scottish Labour and Lib Dem leaders but I don't see Scots voting for an English leader.
Jeremy Corbyn is English and I bet he will do a lot better in Scotland than Jim Murphy, who is a Scot
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
Northern Europe, like the UK, is a very wealthy part of the world.
I don't think they are disputing that. They're saying that most of the wealth is in London, and that while Londoners may enjoy a standard of living comparative to the rest of North Europe, many throughout the country do not which is why we make up 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe. Don't you think that's a tad concerning?
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
Hmm, if it includes France, I am surprised 9 out of 10 are in the UK, otherwise I'd not really be worried, given the rest of Northern Europe. As you say, the definitions are pretty varied - I'd generally include the UK in North or possible Western Europe, but France in Western but not Northern, and Germany in Western or Central Europe, and so on and so forth.
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
Why would the stats be wrong, exactly? Inequalitybriefing got their data from Eurostat.
Northern Europe is deceptive as it is not Northern Europe at all. They have excluded countries which would normally be considered part of Northern Europe.
The data is a mess - the GDP data is skewing the results and its kind of old now.
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
Wales and Northern Ireland and North East England are only "prosperous" on the broadest imaginable definition.
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systems such as the US. Where it doesn't work is views are much more fractured across the board - with very right people, very left wing people, and then moderates of both wings, with floating voters having a combination of left/right views.
Another weird argument - that Dan Hodges made, was that FPTP produces strong, good governments. Given the various issues the UK has - having 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in the EU, a housing crisis, poor rankings in regard to health and education, widening inequality and declining social mobility, the loss of talent aboard etc you have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
Wales and Northern Ireland and North East England are only "prosperous" on the broadest imaginable definition.
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the government negatively (which you wouldn't believe if you just read PB) 24% view the Tories more negatively than before, while 28% had a previously negative view - giving a total of 52% having a negative view of the Tories. Just as thought - rather than any of the big two being actually liked or popular, it's a contest between who is less hated (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systeou have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have governed more than any other party.
Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.
Or it could just be duff statistics.
Why would the stats be wrong, exactly? Inequalitybriefing got their data from Eurostat.
It depends what's in them.
having done a fair bit of travel round Europe I doubt Ireland's border counties are any better off than NI, regions of France like the Limousin or Marseilles are complete shitholes.
I suspect the Euro at 1.10 in 2014 and 1.42 today may be relevant. Likewise comparing Cornwall pop 500 k with London pop 9 milliondoesn't tell us much. Some of the poorest areas in the country are in London.
Eurostat use GDP per head in regions across the EU and take into account the different prices in different regions (from the inequalitybriefing link).
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.
Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".
I do think we're moving to a position where the election probably isn't tenable Simon Danczuk MP
I do think we are moving to a position where having MPs like Danczuk representing Labour isn't tenable
Where do you think he should go? I mean, it's not as though serially undermining the party is not permitted, as the presence of notable frequent rebels shows.
I think this kind of prolier-than-thou is so beneath any side that uses it and normally it's not the Spectator's side. Has he ever said he's working-class; come to think of it, who still self-identifies as working-class in this aspirational age?
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
According to the inequalitybriefing link, the Eurostat data takes in account the different prices in different regions.
I know @tyson and @SandyRentool are supporting Corbyn, but I don't think they necessarily think like Corbyn.
I'm probably going to vote for him. I don't agree with everything he thinks, but I don't see him as intolerant of dissent, and I'd rather have an appealing vision with issues that one can argue about than no particular vision at all.
Quick question: do you think a Corbyn-led Labour could get an appealing vision across to swing voters? Many in the media won't give him much of a hearing and there's a lot of history that could continually be brought up.
Are the right wing media keeping quiet about the dirt on Corbyn so that he wins - or does the right wing media not have any dirt on Corbyn?
There is plenty of dirt on him. Not of the Daily Mail variety but about the sorts of people he associates with. It is not a pretty picture frankly, that is if you value real liberalism and truly progressive values as opposed to the ersatz version peddled by the Left represented by Corbyn et al.
Londoners, especially in the centre, have a standard of living well above the north European average but with a higher cost of living as pointed out, Wales, Cornwall, the North East and parts of the Midlands are closer to southern Europe
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
Wales and Northern Ireland and North East England are only "prosperous" on the broadest imaginable definition.
I expect that there is a pretty large intelligence file on Corbyn given his associations. If he is elected, the briefing given to the PM will be interesting.
Londoners, especially in the centre, have a standard of living well above the north European average but with a higher cost of living as pointed out, Wales, Cornwall, the North East and parts of the Midlands are closer to southern Europe
Cornwall also has one of the highest costs of living due to the astronomical housing costs.
I know @tyson and @SandyRentool are supporting Corbyn, but I don't think they necessarily think like Corbyn.
I'm probably going to vote for him. I don't agree with everything he thinks, but I don't see him as intolerant of dissent, and I'd rather have an appealing vision with issues that one can argue about than no particular vision at all.
JC's vision is in monochrome (that's PC ain't it?)
Also, looking at those YG results, it's striking to see how many view the g (Labour are currently losing that one, being on 68% in terms of negative image).
That's entirely due to the unique way the UK government is "elected".
FPTP creatures utterly bizarre situations and we are currently in one, where an absolute majority is commanded by a party which could only get support of 37% of the voters.
I agree - this is why I don't get it when people think FPTP is an amazing system. FPTP works in two party systeou have to question that argument.
Any evidence for the series of assertions in the final paragraph? The 9 out 10 poorest regions is, shall we say, surprising.
I stand corrected: It's 9 out 10 in Northern Europe (as opposed to EU, forgive my hazy memory). It's still pretty bad, though.
So it's all Labour's fault, despite, as one PBer mentioned the Tories in the post-war era, have . After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.
Or it could just be duff statistics.
Why would the stats be wrong, exactly? Inequalitybriefing got their data from Eurostat.
It depends what's in them.
having done a fair bit of travel round Europe I doubt Ireland's border counties are any better off than NI, regions of France like the Limousin or Marseilles are complete shitholes.
I suspect the Euro at 1.10 in 2014 and 1.42 today may be relevant. Likewise comparing Cornwall pop 500 k with London pop 9 milliondoesn't tell us much. Some of the poorest areas in the country are in London.
Eurostat use GDP per head in regions across the EU and take into account the different prices in different regions (from the inequalitybriefing link).
they have to make two adjustments for the UK, pricing ( which is easy if everything is in Euros ) and then exchange rate. I'm, afraid PPP comparators tend to jump about a bit when currencies move, Run the same data today and I suspect you'd get different answers.
Given the choice of living in "rich" Seine et Saint Denis or "poor" Cornwall. I'll take the cut in my standard of living.
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.
Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".
French Guiana (pronounced /ɡiːˈɑːnə/ or /ɡiːˈænə/, French: Guyane française; French pronunciation: [ɡɥijan fʁɑ̃sɛz]), officially called Guiana (French: Guyane), is an overseas department and region of France, on the north Atlantic coast of South America. It borders Brazil to the east and south, and Suriname to the west. Its 83,534 km2 (32,253 sq mi) area has a very low population density of only 3 inhabitants per km2, with half of its 250,109 inhabitants in 2013 living in the metropolitan area of Cayenne, its capital. By land area, it is the largest overseas department of France. As an overseas region, it is inside the European Union, and its official currency is the euro.
From the wiki description, it doesn't appear that it's in Europe. On Inequalitybriefing, well that would explain the exclusion of some countries.
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
Wales and Northern Ireland and North East England are only "prosperous" on the broadest imaginable definition.
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
Wales and Northern Ireland and North East England are only "prosperous" on the broadest imaginable definition.
I do think we're moving to a position where the election probably isn't tenable Simon Danczuk MP
I do think we are moving to a position where having MPs like Danczuk representing Labour isn't tenable
Where do you think he should go? I mean, it's not as though serially undermining the party is not permitted, as the presence of notable frequent rebels shows.
Deselection is far too difficult IMO.
Where an MP is so seriously out of touch with the party (as is Danczuk and mine) they should do the decent thing but of course will not.
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.
Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".
French Guiana (pronounced /ɡiːˈɑːnə/ or /ɡiːˈænə/, French: Guyane française; French pronunciation: [ɡɥijan fʁɑ̃sɛz]), officially called Guiana (French: Guyane), is an overseas department and region of France, on the north Atlantic coast of South America. It borders Brazil to the east and south, and Suriname to the west. Its 83,534 km2 (32,253 sq mi) area has a very low population density of only 3 inhabitants per km2, with half of its 250,109 inhabitants in 2013 living in the metropolitan area of Cayenne, its capital. By land area, it is the largest overseas department of France. As an overseas region, it is inside the European Union, and its official currency is the euro.
From the wiki description, it doesn't appear that it's in Europe. On Inequalitybriefing, well that would explain the exclusion of some countries.
I do think we're moving to a position where the election probably isn't tenable Simon Danczuk MP
I do think we are moving to a position where having MPs like Danczuk representing Labour isn't tenable
I see he's another one who's suddenly discovered he's against non-members signing up to vote. Funny how he wasn't against it before the contest when the assumption was it would favour centrist candidates.
I know @tyson and @SandyRentool are supporting Corbyn, but I don't think they necessarily think like Corbyn.
I'm probably going to vote for him. I don't agree with everything he thinks, but I don't see him as intolerant of dissent, and I'd rather have an appealing vision with issues that one can argue about than no particular vision at all.
Quick question: do you think a Corbyn-led Labour could get an appealing vision across to swing voters? Many in the media won't give him much of a hearing and there's a lot of history that could continually be brought up.
Are the right wing media keeping quiet about the dirt on Corbyn so that he wins - or does the right wing media not have any dirt on Corbyn?
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
Wales and Northern Ireland and North East England are only "prosperous" on the broadest imaginable definition.
So you technically can't on the raw numbers - it just looks and feels and smells like it? That's even worse.
To be fair the idea of small regional comparisons based on GDP is utterly meaningless due to the Head Office Effect. Some of the richest areas of the country end up at the bottom of the list because they are wealth dormitories with little internal economic activity.
Those figures for 2007 would have included the entire value of Lloyds TSB's economic activity despite virtually no part of their business having any operations in Glasgow.
I still don't understand why Lloyds set their brass plate in Glasgow after the TSB takeover. It just makes no sense.
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
According to the inequalitybriefing link, the Eurostat data takes in account the different prices in different regions.
Looking at the Eurostat regional numbers, there's not much difference between the UK and France, save for an unusual spike in GDP per head in Inner London.
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
Wales and Northern Ireland and North East England are only "prosperous" on the broadest imaginable definition.
I do think we're moving to a position where the election probably isn't tenable Simon Danczuk MP
I do think we are moving to a position where having MPs like Danczuk representing Labour isn't tenable
I see he's another one who's suddenly discovered he's against non-members signing up to vote. Funny how he wasn't against it before the contest when the assumption was it would favour centrist candidates.
Danczuk is awful. Thinks of himself as some kind of ordinary bloke, no doubt.
Londoners, especially in the centre, have a standard of living well above the north European average but with a higher cost of living as pointed out, Wales, Cornwall, the North East and parts of the Midlands are closer to southern Europe
Eastern Wales and Northumberland/Tyneside do pretty well.
75% of UK GDP per head (which is roughly the figure for Northen Ireland ) is still c. $28,000 which is hardly disastrous.
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.
Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".
French Guiana (pronounced /ɡiːˈɑːnə/ or /ɡiːˈænə/, French: Guyane française; French pronunciation: [ɡɥijan fʁɑ̃sɛz]), officially called Guiana (French: Guyane), is an overseas department and region of France, on the north Atlantic coast of South America. It borders Brazil to the east and south, and Suriname to the west. Its 83,534 km2 (32,253 sq mi) area has a very low population density of only 3 inhabitants per km2, with half of its 250,109 inhabitants in 2013 living in the metropolitan area of Cayenne, its capital. By land area, it is the largest overseas department of France. As an overseas region, it is inside the European Union, and its official currency is the euro.
From the wiki description, it doesn't appear that it's in Europe. On Inequalitybriefing, well that would explain the exclusion of some countries.
Off the top of my head France regards its overseas departments as being part of France rather than at all separate. So clearly within the EU. As for "europe" the short answer is there's no fixed definition of what a continent is or what "Europe" is.
So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.
Measures of regional GDP per head need to take into account the local cost of living. London has a huge GDP per head, but also a huge cost of living. The incomes that my wife and I earn go much further in Luton than they did when we lived in Wembley, despite the fact that GDP per head in Bedfordshire is far lower than in London. There are depressed towns, and parts of cities in the UK, but no region of the UK is anything other than prosperous.
Wales and Northern Ireland and North East England are only "prosperous" on the broadest imaginable definition.
I think the £3 thing could have worked well if Corbyn hadn't been nominated. Assuming that it was reasonably close between the three candidates they would have been pitching to people outside the party to boost their vote and if they were successful at that, it would have a been good sign they can appeal to people outside of the party.
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.
Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".
French Guiana (pronounced /ɡiːˈɑːnə/ or /ɡiːˈænə/, French: Guyane française; French pronunciation: [ɡɥijan fʁɑ̃sɛz]), officially called Guiana (French: Guyane), is an overseas department and region of France, on the north Atlantic coast of South America. It borders Brazil to the east and south, and Suriname to the west. Its 83,534 km2 (32,253 sq mi) area has a very low population density of only 3 inhabitants per km2, with half of its 250,109 inhabitants in 2013 living in the metropolitan area of Cayenne, its capital. By land area, it is the largest overseas department of France. As an overseas region, it is inside the European Union, and its official currency is the euro.
From the wiki description, it doesn't appear that it's in Europe. On Inequalitybriefing, well that would explain the exclusion of some countries.
Off the top of my head France regards its overseas departments as being part of France rather than at all separate. So clearly within the EU. As for "europe" the short answer is there's no fixed definition of what a continent is or what "Europe" is.
So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.
I don't know if its my lack of regularity on the site but not seen you about Mr Corporeal. I hope you have recovered since the events of the GE.
I do think we're moving to a position where the election probably isn't tenable Simon Danczuk MP
I do think we are moving to a position where having MPs like Danczuk representing Labour isn't tenable
I see he's another one who's suddenly discovered he's against non-members signing up to vote. Funny how he wasn't against it before the contest when the assumption was it would favour centrist candidates.
All very well to kick Danczuk, but I think you will find an awful lot of Labour voters will consider the party is untenable. Its the same circumstance as Ed Miliband but much much worse. Voters could not see Ed as PM because he was weird and stood for nothing but platitudes, they wont be able to see Corbyn because he is completely barking and although he has policies, they are equally as barking as he is.
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.
Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".
French Guiana (pronounced /ɡiːˈɑːnə/ or /ɡiːˈænə/, French: Guyane française; French pronunciation: [ɡɥijan fʁɑ̃sɛz]), officially called Guiana (French: Guyane), is an overseas department and region of France, on the north Atlantic coast of South America. It borders Brazil to the east and south, and Suriname to the west. Its 83,534 km2 (32,253 sq mi) area has a very low population density of only 3 inhabitants per km2, with half of its 250,109 inhabitants in 2013 living in the metropolitan area of Cayenne, its capital. By land area, it is the largest overseas department of France. As an overseas region, it is inside the European Union, and its official currency is the euro.
From the wiki description, it doesn't appear that it's in Europe. On Inequalitybriefing, well that would explain the exclusion of some countries.
Off the top of my head France regards its overseas departments as being part of France rather than at all separate. So clearly within the EU. As for "europe" the short answer is there's no fixed definition of what a continent is or what "Europe" is.
So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.
I don't know if its my lack of regularity on the site but not seen you about Mr Corporeal. I hope you have recovered since the events of the GE.
It's been my own failings my mathematically symbolic PB colleague, partially I burnt out of politics a bit and partially the travails of what some tend to call real life that's kept me away more than I'd have liked.
Off the top of my head France regards its overseas departments as being part of France rather than at all separate. So clearly within the EU. As for "europe" the short answer is there's no fixed definition of what a continent is or what "Europe" is.
So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.
So within the EU, but not actually geographically a part of Europe - which is what inequalitybriefing seem to be referring to - although their use of EU only countries didn't help.
And: Europe is now generally defined by geographers as the western peninsula of Eurasia, with its boundaries marked by large bodies of water to the north, west and south; Europe's limits to the far east are usually taken to be the Urals, the Ural River, and the Caspian Sea; to the southeast, including the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea.
Londoners, especially in the centre, have a standard of living well above the north European average but with a higher cost of living as pointed out, Wales, Cornwall, the North East and parts of the Midlands are closer to southern Europe
Cornwall also has one of the highest costs of living due to the astronomical housing costs.
Yes, but that is mainly holiday homes of wealthy Londoners and retirement homes of wealthy pensioners from the Home Counties
I think the £3 thing could have worked well if Corbyn hadn't been nominated. Assuming that it was reasonably close between the three candidates they would have been pitching to people outside the party to boost their vote and if they were successful at that, it would have a been good sign they can appeal to people outside of the party.
The whole point of the system was to do precisely that, and it was the Blairites who wanted it the most because they thought it would favour them. Here's Alan Milburn saying how they should sign up non-members and make it more like "a US Primary" - from 9:30:
Maybe instead of whining about the rules they wanted, they should be reflecting on why the Blairite formula has proved so much less effective at engaging/inspiring normal members of the public enough to sign up than the left-wing formula has.
Londoners, especially in the centre, have a standard of living well above the north European average but with a higher cost of living as pointed out, Wales, Cornwall, the North East and parts of the Midlands are closer to southern Europe
Eastern Wales and Northumberland/Tyneside do pretty well.
75% of UK GDP per head (which is roughly the figure for Northen Ireland ) is still c. $28,000 which is hardly disastrous.
In Cardiff and Newcastle maybe, in the likes of Merthyr Tydfil clearly not
Off the top of my head France regards its overseas departments as being part of France rather than at all separate. So clearly within the EU. As for "europe" the short answer is there's no fixed definition of what a continent is or what "Europe" is.
So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.
So within the EU, but not actually geographically a part of Europe - which is what inequalitybriefing seem to be referring to - although their use of EU only countries didn't help.
And: Europe is now generally defined by geographers as the western peninsula of Eurasia, with its boundaries marked by large bodies of water to the north, west and south; Europe's limits to the far east are usually taken to be the Urals, the Ural River, and the Caspian Sea; to the southeast, including the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea.
Of course it depends who you ask, geographers, sociologists, politicians, etc. All will give you different answers, it's a rather flexible concept.
Off the top of my head France regards its overseas departments as being part of France rather than at all separate. So clearly within the EU. As for "europe" the short answer is there's no fixed definition of what a continent is or what "Europe" is.
So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.
So within the EU, but not actually geographically a part of Europe - which is what inequalitybriefing seem to be referring to - although their use of EU only countries didn't help.
And: Europe is now generally defined by geographers as the western peninsula of Eurasia, with its boundaries marked by large bodies of water to the north, west and south; Europe's limits to the far east are usually taken to be the Urals, the Ural River, and the Caspian Sea; to the southeast, including the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea.
Of course it depends who you ask, geographers, sociologists, politicians, etc. All will give you different answers, it's a rather flexible concept.
Even if we take that point, I doubt a country which borders Brazil all the way in South America would be seen as 'Europe' by most in either of those groups. Though I was thinking of the geographical definition of Europe from the off, not the political definition (the EU I assume).
The definition of "Northern Europe" used is fairly erratic. It is apparently "France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark". So more Northwest Europe, really.
So poorest regions in North-West Europe, then. R.E the article mentions Guayana, but I don't know why they are including them - they aren't even in Europe, it's in South America. It also mentions Italy, Spain, and Greece on near neighbours, but again, they're in Southern Europe, which is why they aren't included. Looking at that article, either way a significant amount of UK regions are among the poorest in Northern Europe even if you include those countries - which isn't the case with countries such as Germany etc.
Guiana is in the EU. And the article appears to be "Northern EU" not "Northern Europe".
French Guiana (pronounced /ɡiːˈɑːnə/ or /ɡiːˈænə/, French: Guyane française; French pronunciation: [ɡɥijan fʁɑ̃sɛz]), officially called Guiana (French: Guyane), is an overseas department and region of France, on the north Atlantic coast of South America. It borders Brazil to the east and south, and Suriname to the west. Its 83,534 km2 (32,253 sq mi) area has a very low population density of only 3 inhabitants per km2, with half of its 250,109 inhabitants in 2013 living in the metropolitan area of Cayenne, its capital. By land area, it is the largest overseas department of France. As an overseas region, it is inside the European Union, and its official currency is the euro.
From the wiki description, it doesn't appear that it's in Europe. On Inequalitybriefing, well that would explain the exclusion of some countries.
Off the top of my head France regards its overseas departments as being part of France rather than at all separate. So clearly within the EU. As for "europe" the short answer is there's no fixed definition of what a continent is or what "Europe" is.
So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.
France also insists that its citizens resident overseas are represented in the French parliament. London supposedly has about 300,000 French residents making it the sixth biggest French city by population. So if the UK were to leave the EU at least some of its people would still have a voice inside. The views of Londoners could still be heard albeit at second hand and through the French legislature. Wellington must be spinning in his grave.
If 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe are in the UK, why is this vital information being withheld from the economic migrants at Calais trying to get through the Eurotunnel? They are being lured here on a false prospectus.
Londoners, especially in the centre, have a standard of living well above the north European average but with a higher cost of living as pointed out, Wales, Cornwall, the North East and parts of the Midlands are closer to southern Europe
Eastern Wales and Northumberland/Tyneside do pretty well.
75% of UK GDP per head (which is roughly the figure for Northen Ireland ) is still c. $28,000 which is hardly disastrous.
In Cardiff and Newcastle maybe, in the likes of Merthyr Tydfil clearly not
Without doubt, there are depressed towns.
In my experience, the North East is very variable. Places like Easington, Spennymoor, Consett were hit very hard when the pits or steelworks closed. But, places like Barnard Castle, Hexham, Darlington are thriving. And the centre of Newcastle bears no relation to 30 years ago.
If 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe are in the UK, why is this vital information being withheld from the economic migrants at Calais trying to get through the Eurotunnel? They are being lured here on a false prospectus.
Because even poor regions of the UK are better than Sudan and Eritrea.
I think the £3 thing could have worked well if Corbyn hadn't been nominated. Assuming that it was reasonably close between the three candidates they would have been pitching to people outside the party to boost their vote and if they were successful at that, it would have a been good sign they can appeal to people outside of the party.
The whole point of the system was to do precisely that, and it was the Blairites who wanted it the most because they thought it would favour them. Here's Alan Milburn saying how they should sign up non-members and make it more like "a US Primary" - from 9:30:
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KjW071EtRk
Maybe instead of whining about the rules they wanted, they should be reflecting on why the Blairite formula has proved so much less effective at engaging/inspiring normal members of the public enough to sign up than the left-wing formula has.
Undoubtedly they are unhappy that the non-Corbyn candidates have not excited the outsiders as much as Corbyn has, but they didn't get all the rules they wanted (or at least some of them) - the rules would have prevented Corbyn from being presented to members in the first place, it's just people didn't adhere to the spirit of those rules. Serves them right really.
Jon Trickett @jon_trickett 4m4 minutes ago Who'd have thunk it? 450,000 eligible to vote for Leader? They said politics was dying! Yes it was - the old politics.
Febrile times; the other candidates won't move a single voter in Scotland; the task for Labour looks nigh on impossible anyway; voters are agitating for an era away from managerial politics, and like Mr Palmer says, at least Corbyn isn't intolerant of debate.
He has baggage galore and dubious 'friends' and would probably suffer a military coup led by Princess Anne if he ever became PM. He will undoubtedly be marmalised by the Tories and the right wing press and may even split his party. But the media loves a rags to riches story, the economy is worryingly unpredictable and the Brits relish an underdog - he'd give Labour an undeniable interest factor and will have a raft of populist policies to win over the starry-eyed and indelibly naive.
I can't see Labour getting out of first base with Burnham. He'd be marginally better than Miliband maybe, but he certainly won't win a GE2020. Cooper is probably the sensibilists sensible shout but would she win a GE? Would she inspire the GOTV campaign and jump-start the chavs (like me) away from their rizlas and green? Sadly, even though she is a woman and a decent politician, I don't think she'd win either.
So it's worth a crack. Team Jezzer for me.
Corbyn will be like a Molotov Cocktail thrown onto a petrol can in a fireworks factory. He would make British politics more fascinating than its ever been.
300,000 French residents in London? They must all be in the very wealthy parts of London.
I dunno, Miss. South Kensington has been a French colony for as long as I can remember, as to where the rest are (if they exist) your guess is as good as mine. I'd look to the places where the trendy young things gather - Shoreditch, maybe, places like that.
If 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe are in the UK, why is this vital information being withheld from the economic migrants at Calais trying to get through the Eurotunnel? They are being lured here on a false prospectus.
Because even poor regions of the UK are better than Sudan and Eritrea.
The weather's better in Sudan and Eritrea though..
Londoners, especially in the centre, have a standard of living well above the north European average but with a higher cost of living as pointed out, Wales, Cornwall, the North East and parts of the Midlands are closer to southern Europe
Eastern Wales and Northumberland/Tyneside do pretty well.
75% of UK GDP per head (which is roughly the figure for Northen Ireland ) is still c. $28,000 which is hardly disastrous.
In Cardiff and Newcastle maybe, in the likes of Merthyr Tydfil clearly not
Without doubt, there are depressed towns.
In my experience, the North East is very variable. Places like Easington, Spennymoor, Consett were hit very hard when the pits or steelworks closed. But, places like Barnard Castle, Hexham, Darlington are thriving. And the centre of Newcastle bears no relation to 30 years ago.
I think the £3 thing could have worked well if Corbyn hadn't been nominated. Assuming that it was reasonably close between the three candidates they would have been pitching to people outside the party to boost their vote and if they were successful at that, it would have a been good sign they can appeal to people outside of the party.
The whole point of the system was to do precisely that, and it was the Blairites who wanted it the most because they thought it would favour them. Here's Alan Milburn saying how they should sign up non-members and make it more like "a US Primary" - from 9:30:
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KjW071EtRk
Maybe instead of whining about the rules they wanted, they should be reflecting on why the Blairite formula has proved so much less effective at engaging/inspiring normal members of the public enough to sign up than the left-wing formula has.
Undoubtedly they are unhappy that the non-Corbyn candidates have not excited the outsiders as much as Corbyn has, but they didn't get all the rules they wanted (or at least some of them) - the rules would have prevented Corbyn from being presented to members in the first place, it's just people didn't adhere to the spirit of those rules. Serves them right really.
A very good point.
I originally thought Corbyn was chanceless because I over-estimated the willingness of centrist people to vote in the "primary", vis a vis Corbyn considerers. But it's also clear that moderate people are voting for Corbyn because they think he is no worse than the other three.
If they're so electable why's no-one voting for them...
I think the £3 thing could have worked well if Corbyn hadn't been nominated. Assuming that it was reasonably close between the three candidates they would have been pitching to people outside the party to boost their vote and if they were successful at that, it would have a been good sign they can appeal to people outside of the party.
The whole point of the system was to do precisely that, and it was the Blairites who wanted it the most because they thought it would favour them. Here's Alan Milburn saying how they should sign up non-members and make it more like "a US Primary" - from 9:30:
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KjW071EtRk
Maybe instead of whining about the rules they wanted, they should be reflecting on why the Blairite formula has proved so much less effective at engaging/inspiring normal members of the public enough to sign up than the left-wing formula has.
Undoubtedly they are unhappy that the non-Corbyn candidates have not excited the outsiders as much as Corbyn has, but they didn't get all the rules they wanted (or at least some of them) - the rules would have prevented Corbyn from being presented to members in the first place, it's just people didn't adhere to the spirit of those rules. Serves them right really.
If someone who looks like they might poll more than the other 3 candidates put together had been excluded from standing, the rules are rather silly.
300,000 French residents in London? They must all be in the very wealthy parts of London.
I dunno, Miss. South Kensington has been a French colony for as long as I can remember, as to where the rest are (if they exist) your guess is as good as mine. I'd look to the places where the trendy young things gather - Shoreditch, maybe, places like that.
Shoreditch is well-stocked with young Spanish and Italians, and a thriving population of bright young Japanese, Chinese and Koreans. I've not noticed so many French.
If 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe are in the UK, why is this vital information being withheld from the economic migrants at Calais trying to get through the Eurotunnel? They are being lured here on a false prospectus.
Because even poor regions of the UK are better than Sudan and Eritrea.
If 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe are in the UK, why is this vital information being withheld from the economic migrants at Calais trying to get through the Eurotunnel? They are being lured here on a false prospectus.
Because even poor regions of the UK are better than Sudan and Eritrea.
The weather's better in Sudan and Eritrea though..
No its not! Eritrea is scorchingly hot in the summer, as is most of Sudan.
If 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe are in the UK, why is this vital information being withheld from the economic migrants at Calais trying to get through the Eurotunnel? They are being lured here on a false prospectus.
Because even poor regions of the UK are better than Sudan and Eritrea.
The weather's better in Sudan and Eritrea though..
No its not! Eritrea is scorchingly hot in the summer, as is most of Sudan.
That's fine, so long as I can get out of the heat into air conditioning. That's how we exist here.
I know a lot of professional friends who have moved from London jobs or are thinking about it. All of them are moving to cities outside the UK. People who can earn 50k salaries anywhere in the world aren't interested in living in a city where half a million only buys them a two bed flat in a nice area. And transport congestion is so bad its a hellish commute from the home counties. London will soon be a place where the super rich can afford to live, and the rest of the population are just people there temporarily to earn their money before moving abroad. We will lose a huge chunk of our young professionals while replacing them with low wage Eastern EU labour.
I know a lot of professional friends who have moved from London jobs or are thinking about it. All of them are moving to cities outside the UK. People who can earn 50k salaries anywhere in the world aren't interested in living in a city where half a million only buys them a two bed flat in a nice area. And transport congestion is so bad its a hellish commute from the home counties. London will soon be a place where the super rich can afford to live, and the rest of the population are just people there temporarily to earn their money before moving abroad. We will lose a huge chunk of our young professionals while replacing them with low wage Eastern EU labour.
I worked that out in the mid 70s and moved to Manchester, then left for the new world.
Comments
23% in England and Wales think the next leader should make Labour more left wing, 28% think he should not. In Scotland 48% think he should make Labour more left wing, only 17% less left wing
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf
Surely it's the fault of both Labour and the Tories? After all it's going to be pretty difficult for councils to transform long-standing differences in inequality between regions. After all, London is the richest region in Northern Europe which says it all.
The SNP have the advantage that none of the candidates for Labour leader are Scottish. The English have voted in numbers for Scottish Labour and Lib Dem leaders but I don't see Scots voting for an English leader.
Edit: Refreshed page and sources provided.
Are the right wing media keeping quiet about the dirt on Corbyn so that he wins - or does the right wing media not have any dirt on Corbyn?
Under FPTP the Tories don't need deprived areas, all they have to do is ensure they have enough areas provided with government largesse to get enough seats. In any form of proportional representation, you can't do that because you either cannot form a majority without support everywhere or your coalition will include parties with representations which FPTP governments can safely ignore.
Almost every single thing which is wrong with the way the UK, socially and economically is the fault of FPTP.
Public Policy Polling in Iowa post-debate -
Trump 19%
Walker 12%
Carson 12%
Bush 11%
Fiorina 10%
Cruz 9%
Huckabee and Rubio 6%
all the rest 3% or lower.
MOE 3.9%
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=poland+
Poland is an eastern European country on the Baltic Sea known for its medieval architecture, Jewish heritage and hearty cuisine
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/has_the_donald_peaked?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter
having done a fair bit of travel round Europe I doubt Ireland's border counties are any better off than NI, regions of France like the Limousin or Marseilles are complete shitholes.
I suspect the Euro at 1.10 in 2014 and 1.42 today may be relevant. Likewise comparing Cornwall pop 500 k with London pop 9 milliondoesn't tell us much. Some of the poorest areas in the country are in London.
Members - 282,000
Union affiliates - 90,000
£3 supporters - 70,000
Total - 442,000
I think it was only 390,000 just a few days ago!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/11/labour-leadership-campaign-teams-reassure-them-integrity-ballot
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/are-9-of-the-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-really-in-the-uk--eJ0axHCqmx
The data is a mess - the GDP data is skewing the results and its kind of old now.
Simon Danczuk MP
I do think we are moving to a position where having MPs like Danczuk representing Labour isn't tenable
you can say the same about Glasgow.
Sadly, it seems that not many Labour people do.
Londoners, especially in the centre, have a standard of living well above the north European average but with a higher cost of living as pointed out, Wales, Cornwall, the North East and parts of the Midlands are closer to southern Europe
You cannot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_regions_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
I expect that there is a pretty large intelligence file on Corbyn given his associations. If he is elected, the briefing given to the PM will be interesting.
Given the choice of living in "rich" Seine et Saint Denis or "poor" Cornwall. I'll take the cut in my standard of living.
From the wiki description, it doesn't appear that it's in Europe. On Inequalitybriefing, well that would explain the exclusion of some countries.
That's even worse.
Where an MP is so seriously out of touch with the party (as is Danczuk and mine) they should do the decent thing but of course will not.
Those figures for 2007 would have included the entire value of Lloyds TSB's economic activity despite virtually no part of their business having any operations in Glasgow.
I still don't understand why Lloyds set their brass plate in Glasgow after the TSB takeover. It just makes no sense.
75% of UK GDP per head (which is roughly the figure for Northen Ireland ) is still c. $28,000 which is hardly disastrous.
So whether the poorer regions of France can be said to be among the poorest in Europe is a firm, maybe.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Good night.
On the definition of Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe#Definition within the link there's a map of Europe, which again doesn't appear to include Guiania.
And: Europe is now generally defined by geographers as the western peninsula of Eurasia, with its boundaries marked by large bodies of water to the north, west and south; Europe's limits to the far east are usually taken to be the Urals, the Ural River, and the Caspian Sea; to the southeast, including the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KjW071EtRk
Maybe instead of whining about the rules they wanted, they should be reflecting on why the Blairite formula has proved so much less effective at engaging/inspiring normal members of the public enough to sign up than the left-wing formula has.
They are being lured here on a false prospectus.
In my experience, the North East is very variable. Places like Easington, Spennymoor, Consett were hit very hard when the pits or steelworks closed. But, places like Barnard Castle, Hexham, Darlington are thriving. And the centre of Newcastle bears no relation to 30 years ago.
Who'd have thunk it? 450,000 eligible to vote for Leader? They said politics was dying! Yes it was - the old politics.
F**k it. Why not.
Febrile times; the other candidates won't move a single voter in Scotland; the task for Labour looks nigh on impossible anyway; voters are agitating for an era away from managerial politics, and like Mr Palmer says, at least Corbyn isn't intolerant of debate.
He has baggage galore and dubious 'friends' and would probably suffer a military coup led by Princess Anne if he ever became PM. He will undoubtedly be marmalised by the Tories and the right wing press and may even split his party. But the media loves a rags to riches story, the economy is worryingly unpredictable and the Brits relish an underdog - he'd give Labour an undeniable interest factor and will have a raft of populist policies to win over the starry-eyed and indelibly naive.
I can't see Labour getting out of first base with Burnham. He'd be marginally better than Miliband maybe, but he certainly won't win a GE2020. Cooper is probably the sensibilists sensible shout but would she win a GE? Would she inspire the GOTV campaign and jump-start the chavs (like me) away from their rizlas and green? Sadly, even though she is a woman and a decent politician, I don't think she'd win either.
So it's worth a crack. Team Jezzer for me.
Corbyn will be like a Molotov Cocktail thrown onto a petrol can in a fireworks factory. He would make British politics more fascinating than its ever been.
0-0.25
I originally thought Corbyn was chanceless because I over-estimated the willingness of centrist people to vote in the "primary", vis a vis Corbyn considerers. But it's also clear that moderate people are voting for Corbyn because they think he is no worse than the other three.
If they're so electable why's no-one voting for them...
read the book first or watch the TV show first?
Go do something interesting instead.