Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don Brind: Why having an “electable” leader matters so much
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don Brind: Why having an “electable” leader matters so much
The great chronicler of US presidential elections, Theodore White, tells the story of a Democratic candidate for minor office in New York who complained to the local party boss that the party had issued no publicity with his name on it. Go down to the harbour, he was told. Look at the Staten Island ferry. When it comes in to dock it drags harbour garbage in its wake.
0
Comments
» show previous quotes
The Kulaks and other wreckers must be liquidated.
Danczuk wants to overthrow the newly elected leader, Mann wants to redraw the rules because he doesnt like the democratic result and Kendall would just be a better Tory MP than a Lab one IMO
Carry on talking Kulaks
Support for JC is a reaction to the paucity of the alternatives on offer - like what is happening across Europe.
I think you mean: 3rd like Labour in 2020.
;-)
Is he hinting this?
Why would he suggest he would stand down?
Thank you for the Runciman link. I found it interesting, but I don't think he's quite grasped the scale of the problem. Corbyn's admirers appear to be convinced he will do well at PMQs against Cameron, for example, because he is authentic. Never mind that he's not a great public speaker and has little experience of interacting with others live in debate. So there is an element of the wishful as well as the wilful about it (to coin Runciman's own phrase).
On a more amusing note, I misread Steve Richards' article. He said that Gordon Brown was 'close to bankers'. I misread that a for an o. I was slightly surprised at the admission, although let's face it, it had long been rumoured!
If so, just like Obama. Remember his pledge to close down Gitmo minside 12 months?
Besides, if the Labour left were Machiavellian (which they're not, so this is an unlikely scenario) Corbyn wins, radicalises the Labour party, ensures another (in his eyes) more plausible left wing candidate can win and then bows out in that person's favour.
Only thing is, John Trickett is not plausible and it's difficult to reconcile the rest with the word 'candidate'.
Still a day and a bit to go !
Sensible Labour MPs and activists now have to accept that reality and try to find ways of mitigating the damage (or leave politics altogether, which I imagine many will do). I don't really have many suggestions on the best way to do this - perhaps start by working with the remaining sane trade unionists? But I'm pretty sure that the Simon Danczuk approach is the wrong one; even more damaging for Labour than a Corbyn leadership itself will be the civil war which will follow.
There is nothing to stop Jezza becoming more popular with the general public, who never pay much attention to policies anyway.
All he has to do once he is ensconced as leader, is to appear genial on TV and talk quietly on radio. He will soon get the hoi polloi panting for him. The new fuhrer appeareth!
It's clearing up now, but back later. I can't imagine it's safe to play cricket even when dry.
Bright sunshine here in Staffordshire!
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983
Dandolo was a remarkable man. Doge of Venice, blind, very old (I forget if he was in his 80s or 90s) yet diverted the Fourth Crusade to invade Byzantium (notably for being Christian) rather than the Holy Land.
Byzantium fell and its empire was carved up between Latin potentates. It was recovered some time later, but never recovered its power, or status. It had also strategically lost the capability to resist the Turkish advance, which ultimately led not only to the city's fall, but the Turks going halfway across Europe.
Miliband heroically defeated the Blairites (including his own brother). It was unexpected and, to an extent, impressive. But now look. Was the game worth the candle? Was his 2010 victory the most Pyrrhic since the Battle of Asculum?
It is absurd to think that Corbyn will not have the same effect. Blair famously was first elected on the 1983 suicide note but that was still the party of Healey and Mason amongst others. Which centrist/centre left hopeful is going to be tempted by a Corbyn Labour party? We have seen this already in the new members. The grassroots of Labour are going to change in a way that will enthuse some but discourage many from even being involved.
If we accept, as per the SDP thread the other day, that the option of just starting again is unlikely to work the only sensible thing to do is find another career. And so the centre of the party swings further and further left.
Parties have surprising institutional strength and Labour has a large bank of very, very safe seats but as Scotland shows, nothing is forever.
Besides, Constantinople was a new-fangled name.
Can the punters be wrong, again?
http://labourlist.org/2015/04/john-woodcock-says-he-will-quit-as-mp-if-labour-dont-support-full-trident-renewal/
'There was a small surplus in 1951-52, not in 1951 itself. This was partly done by printing money to pay other bills, which meant the incoming government had to raise interest rates (it had also led to a major devaluation of the pound in the late 1940s). In 1970 there had been two years of surpluses, again partly by printing money which had required the infamous 'pocket or your purse' devaluation of 14.3%. '
No - the Attlee Government ran a Budget Surplus in 1948/49 of £0.5bn - in 1949/50 of £0.8bn - in 1950/51 of £0.5bn - and in 1951/52 of £0.1bn.. Figures are from House of Commons Library.
Just think, it's barely three months ago that we might, had the polls been right, have seen Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.
One can only assume the prime concern of the Conservative Party is trying to stop David Cameron laughing so hard his head falls off.
"Dame Tessa also has a clear lead over Khan among Labour supporters – 37% back her bid compared to 25% for Khan.
Today’s poll suggests Jowell would beat likely Tory runner Zac Goldsmith by 53% to 47% in the final run-off.
Mr Goldsmith is the preferred Tory candidate of 79% of Londoners and 83% of Tory members
Goldsmith’s best chance of succeeding Boris Johnson as Mayor seems to rest with Labour picking Khan as its candidate, today’s poll suggests that in a contest between the two men Goldsmith would win by 54% to 46%."
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/new-poll-shows-londoners-want-tessa-jowell-in-city-hall/
No figures for Abbott although another reported part - satisfaction among all voters, indiciates he is not far behind Khan.
As before it's second preferences that might worry Jowell.
ydoethur said:
» show previous quotes
'
Justin, whatever the manifold and egregious faults of Tony Blair and George W. Bush, they were not mass killers bent on world domination and the genocide of racial groups they didn't approve of. It was perfectly possible to disagree flatly with their ideas and behaviour - I did - and it is possible to see them as hopelessly misguided and very unwise, but they are not actually evil to the extent that would justify taking up arms against them or working to sabotage or imperil our own armed forces.
EDIT - and strange to reflect that the only person I met who fully supported the invasion was actually a Communist, who had been a great admirer of Khrushchev and regarded the Second Gulf War as a fully justified strike against an evil Fascist dictator'
.I agree with most of that - but would not wish to see aggression by any country prevail. To condemn other countries for aggression and then proceed to turn a blind eye and say nothing when my own country does the same thing is nothing less than pure humbug and hypocrisy. For that reason, I wished to see the invading forces defeated in 2003. I did not wish UK forces any direct harm but any casualties I blame entirely on those who sent them there -a sentiment clearly shared by many relatives of the victims. At the end of the day, those being attacked had every right to defend themselves
Whelk stalls really don't come into it.
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, I was deeply concerned by the lack of appropriate media censure for Miliband's insane price freeze even when it was announced (and especially when prices fell).
If he'd become PM... just imagine. This government has flaws (especially around basic comprehension of the internet), but Miliband would've been a full-blown catastrophe.
And Labour... I feel sympathy for it. The Labour Party now appears incapable of running the Labour Party. The electoral system's insane, but trying to depose a democratically elected leader the day after he's elected is as demented as organising an anti-government march a week or two after the General Election.
The poll reveals 31% of Londoners would be uncomfortable with a Muslim mayor, while 55% would be comfortable
By contrast, 71% would be comfortable if the mayor was homosexual, compared to 16% who would be uncomfortable"
http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-08-13/gay-mayor-or-muslim-mayor-which-would-you-prefer/
Can the punters be wrong, again?
I know who hopes the punters are wrong again. Those who laid Corbyn on Betfair at odds of 100/1 and higher. They must be sweating, particularly the punter who laid Corbyn at 980/1 for £2.
In total, £1,500 has been laid on Corbyn at odds of 100/1 or greater which will lose them£260,000 if Corbyn wins. Whoops! Those on the other side of these bets must be smiling.
1947 25,630
1948 25,620
1949 25,127 (roughly agrees with your figures)
1950 25,802 (so that's the same figure but in reverse - are you sure it says surplus?)
1951 25,921
1952 25,890 (so £31 million, not 0.1 billion).
(Source: Twentieth Century British Political Facts).
But as I pointed out above, that was a bit of a con trick anyway. The Attlee government printed roughly £1.4 billion in the period 1947-51 in short term bills and paper credits to banks to finance its programmes, (source: Sidney Pollard, The Development of the British Economy 1914-1980 p. 242, cf. p. 245) which goes a long way towards accounting for both the surplus and the inflation/devaluation that Butler had to deal with in 1951.
Osborne could pull the same con trick, but it would be very stupid of him. Printing money on a grand scale tends to cure the immediate problem at the expense of making matters worse later. In fact, it's arguable that the economy never quite got over the credit binge of Attlee until it went on a worse one in the 1960s under Maudling and then Callaghan.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/271940748/Listening-to-Labour-s-Lost-Labour-Voters-bbm-Research-July-2015
By the way, I'd advise PBers who have staken the house on Corbyn to have a saver on Cooper - in my opinion opinion the most likely challenger, and likely to be shown moving closer in the next poll. Corbyn should still win but I don't think it will be a walkover.
In total, £1,500 has been laid on Corbyn at odds of 100/1 or greater which will lose them£260,000 if Corbyn wins. Whoops! Those on the other side of these bets must be smiling.
What was the 980-1 person thinking ?
Were they thinking ?
Were they thinking ?
They've probably got an all-green book, or will at least have cut their losses. (As an aside, sometimes bets on "impossible" outcomes are used to move money between accounts, but that is beside the point.)
Were they thinking ?
Their bank account not paying them 0.1%!?
Its the Labour Party who have let the mad old man escape from the attic, where they have kept him hidden from the prying eyes of gullible suitors all these years. And now he may be about to burn the historic family house down. Well its too late for them to expect the MP for Rochester to rush blindly in to save them now.
Still a terrible lay, mind.
Either that or they're an idiot.
It seems quite possible that all the people in the country who are keen on Mr Corbyn's approach have already signed up to vote in the leadership election. If they haven't signed up by now, they aren't that keen on a Labour party with Mr Corbyn's policies & won't be voting Labour at the next GE if the policies remain the same.
Certainly any comparison of the British left to Willi Brandt is to my mind wholly inappropriate. Brandt and other German dissidents risked their lives, and the lives of their families. Labour opponents of Blair risked their careers (except that most of them didn't have careers - Cook and Short were both at the end of theirs).
Remember also that the people of Iraq were initially very pleased to see Saddam ousted, until the American occupation turned into a worse shambles than the Ba'athi government had been. I don't think too many people in the occupies countries of Europe were pleased to see the Wehrmacht, although there were exceptions - the Ukrainians were delighted when the Germans showed up as they thought that they would get their farms back (they rapidly realised their mistake, but not rapidly enough to stop Stalin taking some pretty brutal reprisals in 1944-46).
Were they thinking ?
Do you have to hand over the money first with a bet like that? I guess you do, otherwise you might disappear and never pay up.
The other is that the damage is already done, no matter who wins. As I say below - the madwoman has been let out of the attic.
BTW - the real tragedy for the Conservatives is that Burnham will not win under any circumstances. Sad.
Yes, you need to have all £1960 upfront.
Whoever laid it would have been heavily involved and may previously have had a healthy position on Jeremy by virtue of laying other candidates. Which they promptly undid.
The person who laid at 980 may not neccesarily have made an underwater book mind, if they went back in again heavily enough at a lower price.
Interesting to note that the two years of Conservative surplus were also where Lawson and then Major pulled similar con tricks, although in their case it was to enter the ERM.