Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hills starting taking bets on when we’ll see the likes of t

SystemSystem Posts: 12,219
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hills starting taking bets on when we’ll see the likes of this again – LAB winning a majority

AS JEREMY CORBYN’s LAB leader odds are cut to their shortest yet at 2/9 (stake £9 for potential £2 profit) by William Hill, the bookies have also opened a market on when Labour will next achieve an overall majority government – and make between 2026-30 their 5/2 favourite – offering just 3/1 that it will not happen before 2031.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • dont have nightmares...
  • it's a tough call which will be sooner - Lab majority or Spurs back in the CL.

    I don't expect either - one more sadly than the other.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    3rd Like Cooper
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    4th Like Kendall
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2015
    'As to the bet I can’t see the point of locking up cash for so long'

    Indeed, if the fixed parliament remains in situ, then we are talking a least a decade (or more).

    happy days. :lol:
  • The problem with Corbyn supporters is they just wont acknowledge this! They are blindly seeing him as their political savoir, while the rest of the country is backing away from Corbyn....
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The most extraordinary thing about those odds is that Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn are both members of the Labour Party.

    Tony only stood down in June 2007. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited August 2015
    Final comment - if not in 2020, in the event of a Non-Corbyn leader and Tory implosion, which does not seem like the most likely outcome right now, then 2025 for sure. 15 years and there wouldn't be a big wish to change our government provider?

    Writing off 2020 would be a big mistake though.

    The problem with Corbyn supporters is they just wont acknowledge this! They are blindly seeing him as their political savoir, while the rest of the country is backing away from Corbyn....

    Some comment that it doesn't matter if it makes Labour unelectable, they'll get the chance to vote for an honest leader for once. Meaning they don't actually think Tories are that bad, as Tory government is better than Labour-lite or Pseudo-Tory government from Labour.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2015
    kle4 said:

    Final comment - if not in 2020, in the event of a Non-Corbyn leader and Tory implosion, which does not seem like the most likely outcome right now, then 2025 for sure. 15 years and there wouldn't be a big wish to change our government provider?

    Writing off 2020 would be a big mistake though.

    The problem with Corbyn supporters is they just wont acknowledge this! They are blindly seeing him as their political savoir, while the rest of the country is backing away from Corbyn....

    You appear to have covered all your bases there... :lol:
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited August 2015
    He's not wrong:

    If the Prime Minister can't stop this immigration catastrophe, the British will do it for him...by voting to quit Europe: It is Britain's very stability that is now under threat, writes Labour MP Frank Field

    Any pretence he had that he could control net migration by gliding around Europe prattling on about restricting Britain’s social security benefits and tax credits must be relegated to the political kindergarten.

    He has got to make it plain to Mrs Merkel that he won’t be able to win a referendum unless Britain can temporarily control the number of Europeans migrating to Britain to work. She must know it’s a make or break issue. No control, no British membership. She’d be left with the fiscal basket case of an EU.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215696/If-Prime-Minister-t-stop-immigration-catastrophe-British-voting-quit-Europe-Britain-s-stability-threat-writes-Labour-MP-Frank-Field.html
  • it's a tough call which will be sooner - Lab majority or Spurs back in the CL.

    I don't expect either - one more sadly than the other.

    You think that's bad. As a long-suffering Liverpool fan which is going to happen next - a Labour Majority or a Liverpool League Title?
  • kle4 said:

    Final comment - if not in 2020, in the event of a Non-Corbyn leader and Tory implosion, which does not seem like the most likely outcome right now, then 2025 for sure. 15 years and there wouldn't be a big wish to change our government provider?

    Writing off 2020 would be a big mistake though.

    The problem with Corbyn supporters is they just wont acknowledge this! They are blindly seeing him as their political savoir, while the rest of the country is backing away from Corbyn....

    Some comment that it doesn't matter if it makes Labour unelectable, they'll get the chance to vote for an honest leader for once. Meaning they don't actually think Tories are that bad, as Tory government is better than Labour-lite or Pseudo-Tory government from Labour.
    But many backing Corbyn are not backing him as he is a nice honest guy, they actually believe he will be PM, they will get a shock when they see the polls really slide
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    I still think one of ABC will win, probably the Mogadon Pixie.

    f they vote for Jezza, they're saying they're the political equivalent of Millwall ... "The electorate don't like us, we don't care."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    If Corbyn leads Labour in 2020 no chance, if Cameron is still leading the Tories in 2020 no chance either even if Labour replace Corbyn. 2025 is an outside bet if they elect Dan Jarvis or Chuka or one of the new generation and Cameron has retired as Tory leader
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    edited August 2015

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
  • it's a tough call which will be sooner - Lab majority or Spurs back in the CL.

    I don't expect either - one more sadly than the other.

    You think that's bad. As a long-suffering Liverpool fan which is going to happen next - a Labour Majority or a Liverpool League Title?

    But when will we see a Tory majority in the Premier League, if ever?

    I think the current tally of three Tory clubs is the highest it's been since at least the early 90s, possibly longer.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Still - if we think of it those terms it still how shows how reasonable 2030 despite that seeming at first glance silly...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223

    it's a tough call which will be sooner - Lab majority or Spurs back in the CL.

    I don't expect either - one more sadly than the other.

    You think that's bad. As a long-suffering Liverpool fan which is going to happen next - a Labour Majority or a Liverpool League Title?

    But when will we see a Tory majority in the Premier League, if ever?

    I think the current tally of three Tory clubs is the highest it's been since at least the early 90s, possibly longer.
    I find it amusing when I go to watch Arsenal that Jeremey Corbyn is the club's MP!
  • HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Although given that Labour is notoriously bad at defenestrating its leaders we could be (even following that analogy) facing five years of Corbyn/IDS followed by five years of Howard-equivalent, meaning a Cameron-equivalent would only be elected following the Tories election victory in 2025. 15 more years of opposition and 20 before an overall majority, so 2035.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Cooper/Burnham crossover being threatened on Betfair.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    This is a silly market. I reckon there's a fair chance that we've seen the last Labour majority ever.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Pulpstar, with each other, or Kendall? :p
  • it's a tough call which will be sooner - Lab majority or Spurs back in the CL.

    I don't expect either - one more sadly than the other.

    You think that's bad. As a long-suffering Liverpool fan which is going to happen next - a Labour Majority or a Liverpool League Title?

    But when will we see a Tory majority in the Premier League, if ever?

    I think the current tally of three Tory clubs is the highest it's been since at least the early 90s, possibly longer.
    You mean PL clubs in Tory-controlled constituencies? I don't think that will ever happen. There is a direct correlation between the top football clubs and Labour areas. Same in Rugby League, but I'd be less certain about Rugby Union.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Still - if we think of it those terms it still how shows how reasonable 2030 despite that seeming at first glance silly...
    Indeed when you consider it took the Tories 14 years from 2001 to get a majority
  • "Is he dead?"

    "Corbynated!"
  • handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 213
    edited August 2015
    It's hard for me to see why the odds are continuing to shorten.

    There hasn't been any polling out for a while now, unless you've all been keeping very quiet?

    Corbyn is rightly the odds-on favourite based on the data we've seen from earlier in the campaign, but is there much apart from the YouGov poll to suggest he'll get more than 50%?

    My feeling is that it's going to be closer than that, with the percentage of 1st prefs closer to the 42% that will be there or thereabouts the threshold he has to overcome to avoid being overtaken by 2nd or 3rd preferences. Purging will have an impact, as will last-minute trepidation when it comes to time to actually vote. Plus, I'd be surprised if a YouGov cohort isn't more social media-savvy and therefore more likely to have been exposed to pro-JC content than the overall Labour population.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Cooper/Burnham crossover being threatened on Betfair.

    I don't understand this either (though it suits me if it happens because it means I can balance my Cooper and Burnham positions). Burnham coming 3rd will surely sew it up for Corbyn, unless JC's 1st prefs have been massively overestimated.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Although given that Labour is notoriously bad at defenestrating its leaders we could be (even following that analogy) facing five years of Corbyn/IDS followed by five years of Howard-equivalent, meaning a Cameron-equivalent would only be elected following the Tories election victory in 2025. 15 more years of opposition and 20 before an overall majority, so 2035.
    Corbyn had fewer MPs backing him than IDS and the mood seems to be for a challenge in 2017 or 2018 if he polls poorly with Alan Johnson taking Howard role. Also, even if Cameron does decide to stay for a third election as Blair did he will certainly not be leading the Tories in 2025
  • it's a tough call which will be sooner - Lab majority or Spurs back in the CL.

    I don't expect either - one more sadly than the other.

    You think that's bad. As a long-suffering Liverpool fan which is going to happen next - a Labour Majority or a Liverpool League Title?

    But when will we see a Tory majority in the Premier League, if ever?

    I think the current tally of three Tory clubs is the highest it's been since at least the early 90s, possibly longer.
    You mean PL clubs in Tory-controlled constituencies? I don't think that will ever happen. There is a direct correlation between the top football clubs and Labour areas. Same in Rugby League, but I'd be less certain about Rugby Union.
    It could conceivably happen if Brighton, Forest, Ipswich, Bolton, MK Dons and Reading win promotion over the next two seasons, while we win by-elections in Norwich South and Southampton Test.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    CD13 said:

    I still think one of ABC will win, probably the Mogadon Pixie.

    f they vote for Jezza, they're saying they're the political equivalent of Millwall ... "The electorate don't like us, we don't care."

    How about the Andrex Puppy?

    Caricatures are so cruel. I love them.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    ST.. Love it..let them get on with it..
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    SeanT said:

    Another reason Corbyn is a disaster (number 85 in a list of 639), he is co-chair of Stop the War. Co-chair. This isn't some meeting where he accidentally praised a terrorist warlord, or some tea party where he mistakenly offered biscuits to the IRA's chief bomb maker, this is something he has CHOSEN to lead.

    And Stop the War have endless suspicious and abhorrent opinions. e.g. they are against any criticism of the extremist, radical, segregating Muslim schools in the Trojan Horse case, because such criticism is deemed "Islamophobic".


    http://www.stopwar.org.uk/resources/stop-the-war-statements/islamophobia-and-birmingham-schools-stop-the-war-statement

    There's acres of this stuff on the Stop the War website. Enough material for 10 years of tortuous PMQ's and vicious tabloid hatchet jobs.

    Labour are committing an act of sectionable insanity.

    If UKIP weren't such an unorganised mess they could destroy Labour in the north.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Although given that Labour is notoriously bad at defenestrating its leaders we could be (even following that analogy) facing five years of Corbyn/IDS followed by five years of Howard-equivalent, meaning a Cameron-equivalent would only be elected following the Tories election victory in 2025. 15 more years of opposition and 20 before an overall majority, so 2035.
    Corbyn had fewer MPs backing him than IDS and the mood seems to be for a challenge in 2017 or 2018 if he polls poorly with Alan Johnson taking Howard role. Also, even if Cameron does decide to stay for a third election as Blair did he will certainly not be leading the Tories in 2025
    Still when was the last Labour Leader who got kicked out prior to facing an election? If Corbyn wins with a considerable lead in the votes he'll have a mandate that will be difficult to overturn given Labour Party's notorious rules.

    Furthermore that's before even thinking that Labour might back a loser to lose twice, as they did with Kinnock. That would make it 5 years of Corbyn-Foot-IDS, 10 years of Kinnock-Howard and 5 years with Blair-Cameron. 20 more years of opposition.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    LOL. A big publicity stunt by Hills.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    The 2-9 on Corbyn is an order of magnitude better than the 5-2 on 26-30 for a Lab majority.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    SeanT said:

    Another reason Corbyn is a disaster (number 85 in a list of 639), he is co-chair of Stop the War. Co-chair. This isn't some meeting where he accidentally praised a terrorist warlord, or some tea party where he mistakenly offered biscuits to the IRA's chief bomb maker, this is something he has CHOSEN to lead.

    And Stop the War have endless suspicious and abhorrent opinions. e.g. they are against any criticism of the extremist, radical, segregating Muslim schools in the Trojan Horse case, because such criticism is deemed "Islamophobic".


    http://www.stopwar.org.uk/resources/stop-the-war-statements/islamophobia-and-birmingham-schools-stop-the-war-statement

    There's acres of this stuff on the Stop the War website. Enough material for 10 years of tortuous PMQ's and vicious tabloid hatchet jobs.

    Labour are committing an act of sectionable insanity.

    Or are they? It's not over yet. I remain convinced this is actually not going to happen. Which probably makes me 'sectional'.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Although given that Labour is notoriously bad at defenestrating its leaders we could be (even following that analogy) facing five years of Corbyn/IDS followed by five years of Howard-equivalent, meaning a Cameron-equivalent would only be elected following the Tories election victory in 2025. 15 more years of opposition and 20 before an overall majority, so 2035.
    Corbyn had fewer MPs backing him than IDS and the mood seems to be for a challenge in 2017 or 2018 if he polls poorly with Alan Johnson taking Howard role. Also, even if Cameron does decide to stay for a third election as Blair did he will certainly not be leading the Tories in 2025
    Why oh why do people persist with the A Johnston suggestion. He had refused every time he had been asked and he really isn't that good. Especially as Labour have the perfect elder Statesman in Harriet.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Borough, indeed, but it also reflects/influences the train of thought that Labour is heading out into the wilderness.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137

    Pulpstar said:

    Cooper/Burnham crossover being threatened on Betfair.

    I don't understand this either (though it suits me if it happens because it means I can balance my Cooper and Burnham positions). Burnham coming 3rd will surely sew it up for Corbyn, unless JC's 1st prefs have been massively overestimated.

    Word id getting around that sanity is being restored??
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited August 2015
    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    That is a bloody big if, Mr. JEO. Have you been following the news from Germany? Given what their politicians have been saying over the past week or two I would imagine there is no chance whatsoever of them agreeing a deal on the movement of people for the UK.

    As to the criminals issue the problem there is not so much stopping them coming in but not being able to kick them out and most of that problem has been caused by our very own judges and nothing to do with the EU.

    Cameron seems to think he can use his massive charm to convince the voters that he will have won a super deal. The plan seems to be that the great and the good will rally round and the electorate will follow like sheep, just like the 1975 referendum. Whether that will work in today's climate and when Cameron has been exposed on the immigration issue is open to doubt. Probably it will, but at this stage I wouldn't bet on it.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited August 2015
    The problem with this bet is how are we meant to assess certain unknown localities and areas of the electorate when Labour are next likely to win. As a most basic example.....How will we be able to gauge the mood of the expatriates which will have among them many swing voters when they are resident far away on the British sectors of MoonBase 3 and Mars Base 5?

    Most importantly will non resident aliens from the local planets also be able to enrol and vote for the price of a mere 3 Galatics for the leader of this country?

    These are things we need to know because if Labour are to win again then these issues are of the utmost importance. The aliens have rights of course but we have human rights as well don't you know.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    philiph said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Although given that Labour is notoriously bad at defenestrating its leaders we could be (even following that analogy) facing five years of Corbyn/IDS followed by five years of Howard-equivalent, meaning a Cameron-equivalent would only be elected following the Tories election victory in 2025. 15 more years of opposition and 20 before an overall majority, so 2035.
    Corbyn had fewer MPs backing him than IDS and the mood seems to be for a challenge in 2017 or 2018 if he polls poorly with Alan Johnson taking Howard role. Also, even if Cameron does decide to stay for a third election as Blair did he will certainly not be leading the Tories in 2025
    Why oh why do people persist with the A Johnston suggestion. He had refused every time he had been asked and he really isn't that good. Especially as Labour have the perfect elder Statesman in Harriet.
    Yougov had Alan Johnson with a net positive rating a few weeks ago while the 4 leadership contenders and Harman were negative. Only David Miliband of those named was higher. He has said he will be loyal to the party even if Corbyn wins and could be persuaded if he is the only viable unity candidate
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    That is a bloody big if, Mr. JEO. Have you been following the news from Germany? Given what their politicians have been saying over the past week or two I would imagine there is no chance whatsoever of them agreeing a deal on the movement of people for the UK.

    As to the criminals issue the problem there is not so much stopping them coming in but not being able to kick them out and most of that problem has been caused by our very own judges and nothing to do with the EU.

    Cameron seems to think he can use his massive charm to convince the voters that he will have won a super deal. The plan seems to be that the great and the good will rally round and the electorate will follow like sheep, just like the 1975 referendum. Whether that will work in today's climate and when Cameron has been exposed on the immigration issue is open to doubt. Probably it will, but at this stage I wouldn't bet on it.
    The police officer I was speaking to on Friday was incredibly exasperated with the inability to keep Eastern European gangs out. He knew of one criminal that he personally had caught and got kicked out three times and came back all three times.

    But yes, I agree with your last paragraph. This isn't the 1970s, where the establishment press and BBC is the only source of media opinion. People are increasingly getting their news from non-traditional sources and if he comes back with a dud, people will know its a dud. If he doesn't address the immigration issue in a way that goes beyond benefits, he's screwed.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    Do British jobless in Spain get arrested?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Will Corbyn make the red-team unelectable?"

    Yes. Next question.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Although given that Labour is notoriously bad at defenestrating its leaders we could be (even following that analogy) facing five years of Corbyn/IDS followed by five years of Howard-equivalent, meaning a Cameron-equivalent would only be elected following the Tories election victory in 2025. 15 more years of opposition and 20 before an overall majority, so 2035.
    Corbyn had fewer MPs backing him than IDS and the mood seems to be for a challenge in 2017 or 2018 if he polls poorly with Alan Johnson taking Howard role. Also, even if Cameron does decide to stay for a third election as Blair did he will certainly not be leading the Tories in 2025
    Still when was the last Labour Leader who got kicked out prior to facing an election? If Corbyn wins with a considerable lead in the votes he'll have a mandate that will be difficult to overturn given Labour Party's notorious rules.

    Furthermore that's before even thinking that Labour might back a loser to lose twice, as they did with Kinnock. That would make it 5 years of Corbyn-Foot-IDS, 10 years of Kinnock-Howard and 5 years with Blair-Cameron. 20 more years of opposition.
    The Tories stuck with Major and Hague to the end but by IDS had lost patience Labour stuck with Brown and Miliband but backbenchers certainly seem to suggest Corbyn would be on probation but we shall see. Remember IDS won 60% of Tory members votes. Kinnock only stayed on because he increased Labour's vote in 1987 and of course the Tories let Heath stay on after losing in 1966 but that was because the election was only 2 years in to a new government
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    SeanT said:

    Another reason Corbyn is a disaster (number 85 in a list of 639), he is co-chair of Stop the War. Co-chair. This isn't some meeting where he accidentally praised a terrorist warlord, or some tea party where he mistakenly offered biscuits to the IRA's chief bomb maker, this is something he has CHOSEN to lead.

    And Stop the War have endless suspicious and abhorrent opinions. e.g. they are against any criticism of the extremist, radical, segregating Muslim schools in the Trojan Horse case, because such criticism is deemed "Islamophobic".


    http://www.stopwar.org.uk/resources/stop-the-war-statements/islamophobia-and-birmingham-schools-stop-the-war-statement

    There's acres of this stuff on the Stop the War website. Enough material for 10 years of tortuous PMQ's and vicious tabloid hatchet jobs.

    Labour are committing an act of sectionable insanity.

    Or are they? It's not over yet. I remain convinced this is actually not going to happen. Which probably makes me 'sectional'.
    Possibly but the damage that will be done even in that scenario is incalculable. If the flip flop wins then Cotrby has a place at the table along with others from the extreme left. If the flip flop fails and snowflake gets it the ructions of "we Woz robbed" in the party will make San Andreas fault look like a delicate china cup crack.

    There really is no real easy way out for Labour now and every way they go will be met with disaster. They will brave face it of course but they all know now it's irretrievable.

    Oh dear me..... What a shame, never mind heh?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Moses, like Mr. Borough, I do wonder if Labour will really elect Corbyn.

    The number of purged votes compared to the ultimate winner's margin of victory will be an interesting statistic.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223

    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    Do British jobless in Spain get arrested?
    Who cares? That's another country and it's up to them how they run it.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2015
    Electing Corbyn isn't quite as ludicrous as it seems because there's plenty of time for Labour to replace him as leader between now and 2020. Without the fixed-term parliament act it really would be stupid to choose him. A less patrician Tory leader might attempt to repeal the fixed-term act but I get the impression Cameron would somehow regard it as bad manners to do so.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Although given that Labour is notoriously bad at defenestrating its leaders we could be (even following that analogy) facing five years of Corbyn/IDS followed by five years of Howard-equivalent, meaning a Cameron-equivalent would only be elected following the Tories election victory in 2025. 15 more years of opposition and 20 before an overall majority, so 2035.
    Corbyn had fewer MPs backing him than IDS and the mood seems to be for a challenge in 2017 or 2018 if he polls poorly with Alan Johnson taking Howard role. Also, even if Cameron does decide to stay for a third election as Blair did he will certainly not be leading the Tories in 2025
    Still when was the last Labour Leader who got kicked out prior to facing an election? If Corbyn wins with a considerable lead in the votes he'll have a mandate that will be difficult to overturn given Labour Party's notorious rules.

    Furthermore that's before even thinking that Labour might back a loser to lose twice, as they did with Kinnock. That would make it 5 years of Corbyn-Foot-IDS, 10 years of Kinnock-Howard and 5 years with Blair-Cameron. 20 more years of opposition.
    The Tories stuck with Major and Hague to the end but by IDS had lost patience Labour stuck with Brown and Miliband but backbenchers certainly seem to suggest Corbyn would be on probation but we shall see. Remember IDS won 60% of Tory members votes. Kinnock only stayed on because he increased Labour's vote in 1987 and of course the Tories let Heath stay on after losing in 1966 but that was because the election was only 2 years in to a new government
    The Tory rules allow the MPs a much greater say than the Labour rules do in narrowing the field. Triggering a leadership contest is tougher under Labour's rules and even if Corbyn is overthrown (unlikely) the Party Union membership is likely to elect a Corbynista again until they lose an election.

    It is extremely optimistic for you to think Labour can rid itself of Corbyn so easily.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. JS, Labour is pretty useless at regicide, though. You'd never confuse it for 3rd century Rome.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Mr. Moses, like Mr. Borough, I do wonder if Labour will really elect Corbyn.

    The number of purged votes compared to the ultimate winner's margin of victory will be an interesting statistic.

    Also the possibility of the spoilt ballots. The paper requires 1,2,3 type entries but I understand from reports and Corby was sending reminders because some are putting "x" for the single candidate and no 2nd prefs.

    The fall out is just going to be quite spectacular either way win or lose I suspect.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    tlg86 said:

    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    Do British jobless in Spain get arrested?
    Who cares? That's another country and it's up to them how they run it.
    Nail...head
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,571
    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    How? I can see them not getting benefits, but is it proposed to ban tourism?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Moses, good point on spoilt ballots.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    SeanT said:

    There's acres of this stuff on the Stop the War website. Enough material for 10 years of tortuous PMQ's and vicious tabloid hatchet jobs.

    What should really scare Labour is that whereas Cameron's attacks on Ed about him being in the pockets of the unions always seemed a bit irrelevant (to me, at least), all the stuff about Corbyn's past is for real. There's no innuendo, there's no propaganda.

    I think Corbyn's had quite an easy ride so far. Every time I see a press review about him there's a sense of "well I don't necessarily agree with him but it's refreshing to see a politician engaging with the youngsters. etc.". I suspect his supporters don't realise what is about to hit him if he is elected leader.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    BJO It would rather rely on them committing a crime..most retirees just seem to live quietly just spending their pensions..
  • Moses_ said:

    Mr. Moses, like Mr. Borough, I do wonder if Labour will really elect Corbyn.

    The number of purged votes compared to the ultimate winner's margin of victory will be an interesting statistic.

    Also the possibility of the spoilt ballots. The paper requires 1,2,3 type entries but I understand from reports and Corby was sending reminders because some are putting "x" for the single candidate and no 2nd prefs.

    The fall out is just going to be quite spectacular either way win or lose I suspect.
    If you put an X in an AV vote is it a spoilt ballot or does it not just count as a 1 for the one marked X but eliminated vote if your candidate is eliminated? I think it works that way in Australia.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    Do British jobless in Spain get arrested?
    Swarms of emigrants probably care
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,512
    AndyJS said:

    Electing Corbyn isn't quite as ludicrous as it seems because there's plenty of time for Labour to replace him as leader between now and 2020. Without the fixed-term parliament act it really would be stupid to choose him. A less patrician Tory leader might attempt to repeal the fixed-term act but I get the impression Cameron would somehow regard it as foul play to do so.

    Firstly, replacing Corbyn might be difficult. It's not as if Labour have a great track record in getting rid of hopeless leaders, as the last parliament shows. The last leader to be deposed (in a way) was Blair. The party's current woes started with Brown's machinations to get rid of Blair and the political careers that were left buried at the roadside.

    Blair, as much as he is hated now, was Labour's last electable leader. And they got rid of him, but not the much worse Gordon or Ed. It almost seems that hte more hopeless you are as leader, the more secure you are.

    Secondly, there is the question of what damage Corbyn does to the party in the meantime, and whether the internal structures of the party in (say) 2017 or 2018 will favour a more electable candidate for leader.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall .
    Corbyn had fewer MPs backing him than IDS and the mood seems to be for a challenge in 2017 or 2018 if he polls poorly with Alan Johnson taking Howard role. Also, even if Cameron does decide to stay for a third election as Blair did he will certainly not be leading the Tories in 2025
    Still when was the last Labour Leader who got kicked out prior to facing an election? If Corbyn wins with a considerable lead in the votes he'll have a mandate that will be difficult to overturn given Labour Party's notorious rules.

    Furthermore that's before even thinking that Labour might back a loser to lose twice, as they did with Kinnock. That would make it 5 years of Corbyn-Foot-IDS, 10 years of Kinnock-Howard and 5 years with Blair-Cameron. 20 more years of opposition.
    The Tories stuck with Major and Hague to the end but by IDS had lost patience Labour stuck with Brown and Miliband but backbenchers certainly seem to suggest Corbyn would be on probation but we shall see. Remember IDS won 60% of Tory members votes. Kinnock only stayed on because he increased Labour's vote in 1987 and of course the Tories let Heath stay on after losing in 1966 but that was because the election was only 2 years in to a new government
    The Tory rules allow the MPs a much greater say than the Labour rules do in narrowing the field. Triggering a leadership contest is tougher under Labour's rules and even if Corbyn is overthrown (unlikely) the Party Union membership is likely to elect a Corbynista again until they lose an election.

    It is extremely optimistic for you to think Labour can rid itself of Corbyn so easily.
    If 2/3 of Labour MPs nominate Johnson or another candidate against Corbyn he is dead rules or not. Johnson is a former union leader anyway and of course there is no longer a union members block vote in the electoral college
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Moses_ said:

    Mr. Moses, like Mr. Borough, I do wonder if Labour will really elect Corbyn.

    The number of purged votes compared to the ultimate winner's margin of victory will be an interesting statistic.

    Also the possibility of the spoilt ballots. The paper requires 1,2,3 type entries but I understand from reports and Corby was sending reminders because some are putting "x" for the single candidate and no 2nd prefs.

    The fall out is just going to be quite spectacular either way win or lose I suspect.
    He sent a tweet out last week on this - we debated it a bit and the general consensus seemed to be that as long as the voters intention was clear - the ERS would let them through.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    tlg86 said:

    This is a silly market. I reckon there's a fair chance that we've seen the last Labour majority ever.

    It may be a while until we see another Conservative overall majority. Betfair (in a very thin market) has it as a 55% chance in 2020. There is the EU, the economy, Cameron's departure, events ...

    It is quite possible that we may have 10-15 years of minority governments. And then a new generation will be in place and who knows? Corbyn will be in his eighties in the newly created Senate.

    There may a Labour majority government (in 2035?) before there is Conservative majority (in 2045?). I'll be over 100 so I may never see the day.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Corbyn now 1.23 with Betfair. The lowest it's been AFAIK.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.103946886
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    Do British jobless in Spain get arrested?
    I travel a lot. I commonly have to get visas and part of the application is

    naming of the sponsor in country?
    where I intend to stay and proof?
    for how long?
    what will I be doing or that I have meaningful work / employment.

    I also need a financial backer that will support me when in country in case of
    any expenditures?
    medical treatment?

    I also have to provide before departure letter of invite at flight desk, on arrival at immigration flight tickets booked already to go home.

    This happens. Even in West African countries let along other places worldwide. If I don't do this I don't enter the country and get put back on the plane, boat, method of transport to my original boarding point.

    Why can't we do that here? It's a simply way of ensuring people are legitimate workers.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    Do British jobless in Spain get arrested?
    Not bothered,that's up to Spain.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited August 2015

    Moses_ said:

    Mr. Moses, like Mr. Borough, I do wonder if Labour will really elect Corbyn.

    The number of purged votes compared to the ultimate winner's margin of victory will be an interesting statistic.

    Also the possibility of the spoilt ballots. The paper requires 1,2,3 type entries but I understand from reports and Corby was sending reminders because some are putting "x" for the single candidate and no 2nd prefs.

    The fall out is just going to be quite spectacular either way win or lose I suspect.
    If you put an X in an AV vote is it a spoilt ballot or does it not just count as a 1 for the one marked X but eliminated vote if your candidate is eliminated? I think it works that way in Australia.
    I understood from the report it is considered "spoilt"

    Edit - just seen Calum's update so maybe they will now be accepted.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680

    AndyJS said:

    Electing Corbyn isn't quite as ludicrous as it seems because there's plenty of time for Labour to replace him as leader between now and 2020. Without the fixed-term parliament act it really would be stupid to choose him. A less patrician Tory leader might attempt to repeal the fixed-term act but I get the impression Cameron would somehow regard it as foul play to do so.

    Firstly, replacing Corbyn might be difficult. It's not as if Labour have a great track record in getting rid of hopeless leaders, as the last parliament shows. The last leader to be deposed (in a way) was Blair. The party's current woes started with Brown's machinations to get rid of Blair and the political careers that were left buried at the roadside.

    Blair, as much as he is hated now, was Labour's last electable leader. And they got rid of him, but not the much worse Gordon or Ed. It almost seems that hte more hopeless you are as leader, the more secure you are.

    Secondly, there is the question of what damage Corbyn does to the party in the meantime, and whether the internal structures of the party in (say) 2017 or 2018 will favour a more electable candidate for leader.
    Corbyn will go of his own accord before the next election when he has finished his mission.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    philiph said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Although given that Labour is notoriously bad at defenestrating its leaders we could be (even following that analogy) facing five years of Corbyn/IDS followed by five years of Howard-equivalent, meaning a Cameron-equivalent would only be elected following the Tories election victory in 2025. 15 more years of opposition and 20 before an overall majority, so 2035.
    Corbyn had fewer MPs backing him than IDS and the mood seems to be for a challenge in 2017 or 2018 if he polls poorly with Alan Johnson taking Howard role. Also, even if Cameron does decide to stay for a third election as Blair did he will certainly not be leading the Tories in 2025
    Why oh why do people persist with the A Johnston suggestion. He had refused every time he had been asked and he really isn't that good. Especially as Labour have the perfect elder Statesman in Harriet.
    Quite right, Mr. H. The old postie is a good old boy and, probably, a nice chap but he isn't the brightest star in the firmament and he has less leadership ability than my cat. On top of which as you correctly say he doesn't want the job and has made that clear.

    Why people ignore Harman for the elder Labour statesperson role is another matter. Perhaps, as Burnham said, the time isn't right for Labour to have a woman leader (honestly how that idiot is even a contender for the leadership is a mystery).
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    The problem with Corbyn supporters is they just wont acknowledge this! They are blindly seeing him as their political savoir, while the rest of the country is backing away from Corbyn....

    I think many of them don't actually care. What they are doing is sticking two fingers up to the establishment (or is that one now?). It will give them more of a voice than they presently have and that is enough. They don't think they'll look like tits and won't acknowledge it when they do.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    SeanT said:

    tlg86 said:

    SeanT said:

    There's acres of this stuff on the Stop the War website. Enough material for 10 years of tortuous PMQ's and vicious tabloid hatchet jobs.

    What should really scare Labour is that whereas Cameron's attacks on Ed about him being in the pockets of the unions always seemed a bit irrelevant (to me, at least), all the stuff about Corbyn's past is for real. There's no innuendo, there's no propaganda.

    I think Corbyn's had quite an easy ride so far. Every time I see a press review about him there's a sense of "well I don't necessarily agree with him but it's refreshing to see a politician engaging with the youngsters. etc.". I suspect his supporters don't realise what is about to hit him if he is elected leader.
    Yep. To continue Blair's over-the-cliff metaphor, The Corbyntifada is like a cartoon character running off a precipice. I suspect that for a few months after he is elected, his legs will keep pumping and all will seem well. Or at least not too bad. View OK, nice fresh air, ooh look at that eagle.

    Then reality will kick in, and he will plunge, taking Labour with him.
    I used this exact comparison a few weeks ago! Corbyn will likely be just behind the Conservatives for a bit, and above where they are now, frustrating those who want to remove him. But then there will be a gradual drift down, causing Labour to despair.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    Do British jobless in Spain get arrested?
    No, and no-one is advocating Spanish jobless in Britain should get arrested. We're just recommending that the jobless are kept out in the first place. If Spain wants to follow a similar path, that should be their sovereign right.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Plato said:

    The most extraordinary thing about those odds is that Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn are both members of the Labour Party.

    Tony only stood down in June 2007. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around that.

    Iraq casts a very long shadow. What I've never got is how TB makes so much money selling his Middle East expertise. I'm sure someone will tell me.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    If he can get himself into 1st place in the regional list for Glasgow, Professor Adam Tomkins, could scrape a seat - he's likely to be going head to head with Tommy Sheridan for a seat. A televised debate between the pair of them would be very entertaining !!

    In the blue corner we have Tomkins:

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/uniontwat3.jpg

    In the red corner we have Tommy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CKfS_Wb9Pw&sns=fb
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    JEO said:

    He's not wrong:

    If the Prime Minister can't stop this immigration catastrophe, the British will do it for him...by voting to quit Europe: It is Britain's very stability that is now under threat, writes Labour MP Frank Field

    Any pretence he had that he could control net migration by gliding around Europe prattling on about restricting Britain’s social security benefits and tax credits must be relegated to the political kindergarten.

    He has got to make it plain to Mrs Merkel that he won’t be able to win a referendum unless Britain can temporarily control the number of Europeans migrating to Britain to work. She must know it’s a make or break issue. No control, no British membership. She’d be left with the fiscal basket case of an EU.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215696/If-Prime-Minister-t-stop-immigration-catastrophe-British-voting-quit-Europe-Britain-s-stability-threat-writes-Labour-MP-Frank-Field.html

    FF has always been a sensible kind of chap and you're never, ever agree with everything someone else says unless you're talking to yourself. This I agree with.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    AndyJS said:

    Electing Corbyn isn't quite as ludicrous as it seems because there's plenty of time for Labour to replace him as leader between now and 2020. Without the fixed-term parliament act it really would be stupid to choose him. A less patrician Tory leader might attempt to repeal the fixed-term act but I get the impression Cameron would somehow regard it as foul play to do so.

    Firstly, replacing Corbyn might be difficult. It's not as if Labour have a great track record in getting rid of hopeless leaders, as the last parliament shows. The last leader to be deposed (in a way) was Blair. The party's current woes started with Brown's machinations to get rid of Blair and the political careers that were left buried at the roadside.

    Blair, as much as he is hated now, was Labour's last electable leader. And they got rid of him, but not the much worse Gordon or Ed. It almost seems that hte more hopeless you are as leader, the more secure you are.

    Secondly, there is the question of what damage Corbyn does to the party in the meantime, and whether the internal structures of the party in (say) 2017 or 2018 will favour a more electable candidate for leader.
    The Tories got rid of Thatcher but not Major or Hague but by IDS had had enough
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    it's a tough call which will be sooner - Lab majority or Spurs back in the CL.

    I don't expect either - one more sadly than the other.

    You think that's bad. As a long-suffering Liverpool fan which is going to happen next - a Labour Majority or a Liverpool League Title?
    Your sights are higher but you're right: the odds are way longer
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    philiph said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    If we think that this is Labour's 1998 equivalent, then it could be 17 years from now (20, under 5 year parliaments) before there is a Labour majority. That would be 2030, at best, or 2035 quite easily. Which seems staggering. But it happens like that sometimes.

    No Ed Miliband was Hague, Corbyn would be IDS so that means 10 more years in opposition and 15 before an overall majority, so 2030
    Although given that Labour is notoriously bad at defenestrating its leaders we could be (even following that analogy) facing five years of Corbyn/IDS followed by five years of Howard-equivalent, meaning a Cameron-equivalent would only be elected following the Tories election victory in 2025. 15 more years of opposition and 20 before an overall majority, so 2035.
    Corbyn had fewer MPs backing him than IDS and the mood seems to be for a challenge in 2017 or 2018 if he polls poorly with Alan Johnson taking Howard role. Also, even if Cameron does decide to stay for a third election as Blair did he will certainly not be leading the Tories in 2025
    Why oh why do people persist with the A Johnston suggestion. He had refused every time he had been asked and he really isn't that good. Especially as Labour have the perfect elder Statesman in Harriet.
    Quite right, Mr. H. The old postie is a good old boy and, probably, a nice chap but he isn't the brightest star in the firmament and he has less leadership ability than my cat. On top of which as you correctly say he doesn't want the job and has made that clear.

    Why people ignore Harman for the elder Labour statesperson role is another matter. Perhaps, as Burnham said, the time isn't right for Labour to have a woman leader (honestly how that idiot is even a contender for the leadership is a mystery).
    Intelligence is not always a necessity in being electable and Johnson polls better than Harman, as indeed does Burnham though to a lesser extent. Harman has also burnt most of her bridges with the Left after the welfare vote
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electing Corbyn isn't quite as ludicrous as it seems because there's plenty of time for Labour to replace him as leader between now and 2020. Without the fixed-term parliament act it really would be stupid to choose him. A less patrician Tory leader might attempt to repeal the fixed-term act but I get the impression Cameron would somehow regard it as foul play to do so.

    Firstly, replacing Corbyn might be difficult. It's not as if Labour have a great track record in getting rid of hopeless leaders, as the last parliament shows. The last leader to be deposed (in a way) was Blair. The party's current woes started with Brown's machinations to get rid of Blair and the political careers that were left buried at the roadside.

    Blair, as much as he is hated now, was Labour's last electable leader. And they got rid of him, but not the much worse Gordon or Ed. It almost seems that hte more hopeless you are as leader, the more secure you are.

    Secondly, there is the question of what damage Corbyn does to the party in the meantime, and whether the internal structures of the party in (say) 2017 or 2018 will favour a more electable candidate for leader.
    The Tories got rid of Thatcher but not Major or Hague but by IDS had had enough
    Just about everyone of your posts in defence of the Labour actions is simply stating what the Tories did.

    That's not a defence and it's incredibly boring and repetitive.
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106

    Plato said:

    The most extraordinary thing about those odds is that Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn are both members of the Labour Party.

    Tony only stood down in June 2007. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around that.

    Iraq casts a very long shadow. What I've never got is how TB makes so much money selling his Middle East expertise. I'm sure someone will tell me.
    Simple. He's a terrific consultant.
    1) A situation arises
    2) Tony is bought in to explain how he personally would handle the situation
    3) Tony's clients do the exact opposite
    4) Situation sorted
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    SeanT said:

    Another reason Corbyn is a disaster (number 85 in a list of 639), he is co-chair of Stop the War. Co-chair. This isn't some meeting where he accidentally praised a terrorist warlord, or some tea party where he mistakenly offered biscuits to the IRA's chief bomb maker, this is something he has CHOSEN to lead.

    And Stop the War have endless suspicious and abhorrent opinions. e.g. they are against any criticism of the extremist, radical, segregating Muslim schools in the Trojan Horse case, because such criticism is deemed "Islamophobic".


    http://www.stopwar.org.uk/resources/stop-the-war-statements/islamophobia-and-birmingham-schools-stop-the-war-statement

    There's acres of this stuff on the Stop the War website. Enough material for 10 years of tortuous PMQ's and vicious tabloid hatchet jobs.

    Labour are committing an act of sectionable insanity.

    This sounds delicious. Please let it be true.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    Moses_ said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electing Corbyn isn't quite as ludicrous as it seems because there's plenty of time for Labour to replace him as leader between now and 2020. Without the fixed-term parliament act it really would be stupid to choose him. A less patrician Tory leader might attempt to repeal the fixed-term act but I get the impression Cameron would somehow regard it as
    Blair, as much as he is hated now, was Labour's last electable leader. And they got rid of him, but not the much worse Gordon or Ed. It almost seems that hte more hopeless you are as leader, the more secure you are.

    Secondly, there is the question of what damage Corbyn does to the party in the meantime, and whether the internal structures of the party in (say) 2017 or 2018 will favour a more electable candidate for leader.

    The Tories got rid of Thatcher but not Major or Hague but by IDS had had enough
    Just about everyone of your posts in defence of the Labour actions is simply stating what the Tories did.

    That's not a defence and it's incredibly boring and repetitive.
    Maybe but history often repeats herself as it seems to be here even if you find it boring. The toppling of Blair is now haunting Labour as much as the toppling of Thatcher haunted the Tories. Meanwhile just as Blair made Labour accept much of Thatcherism so Cameron has made the Tories accept much of Blairism
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,512
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Electing Corbyn isn't quite as ludicrous as it seems because there's plenty of time for Labour to replace him as leader between now and 2020. Without the fixed-term parliament act it really would be stupid to choose him. A less patrician Tory leader might attempt to repeal the fixed-term act but I get the impression Cameron would somehow regard it as foul play to do so.

    Firstly, replacing Corbyn might be difficult. It's not as if Labour have a great track record in getting rid of hopeless leaders, as the last parliament shows. The last leader to be deposed (in a way) was Blair. The party's current woes started with Brown's machinations to get rid of Blair and the political careers that were left buried at the roadside.

    Blair, as much as he is hated now, was Labour's last electable leader. And they got rid of him, but not the much worse Gordon or Ed. It almost seems that hte more hopeless you are as leader, the more secure you are.

    Secondly, there is the question of what damage Corbyn does to the party in the meantime, and whether the internal structures of the party in (say) 2017 or 2018 will favour a more electable candidate for leader.
    The Tories got rid of Thatcher but not Major or Hague but by IDS had had enough
    Thatcher - accepted. It's interesting to consider how she would have fared in a rematch against Kinnock in 1992, has she stayed on.

    Major won an election, but after about 1993 it's hard to see any figure in the party who could have turned the party around to avoid the smashing they got in 1997. The party was self-destructing just as Blair was making Labour electable.

    Hague was facing an invincible Blair. The party's problems went much deeper than him, and people knew it.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Five years is an eternity in politics. In 1999 Blair was still getting 60% approval rates in the polls IIRC. By 2004 he was hated by many of his own supporters.
  • HYUFD said:

    If 2/3 of Labour MPs nominate Johnson or another candidate against Corbyn he is dead rules or not. Johnson is a former union leader anyway and of course there is no longer a union members block vote in the electoral college

    Actually even then Corbyn can cling on. In order to challenge Corbyn 20% of MPs need to sign an open letter nominating a specific alternative. That is a very high bar (compare to 15% of Tory's anonymously writing to the 1922 committee). Furthermore I believe even if challenged Corbyn as incumbent is automatically on the ballot paper to continue, if he doesn't want to go he doesn't need to be re-nominated. So he could cling on even in your scenario and win a public vote.
  • AndyJS said:

    Five years is an eternity in politics. In 1999 Blair was still getting 60% approval rates in the polls IIRC. By 2004 he was hated by many of his own supporters.

    Though he still won a majority in 2005.
  • calum said:
    Is that legitimately his campaign or a joke spoof? It has the tick so should be legit but seems like a joke.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    tlg86 said:

    JEO said:

    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. JEO, disagree. I still think In will win easily.

    On-topic: I'm also averse to locking up cash for so long, though I only bet bottle tops compared to the deep pockets of Mr. Smithson and others here.

    May has come out arguing for limiting jobless EU citizens from coming here. If they get that, and also limit criminals, I think In could do it.
    Do British jobless in Spain get arrested?
    Who cares? That's another country and it's up to them how they run it.
    +1
    We need a bit more of this approach and a lot less looking over our shoulders at others.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,774
    One way our lavish aid budget could find a useful outlet:
    "Post-conflict situations are politically fragile, and rapid economic recovery helps to stabilise them. The smart way to meet the duty to rescue is to incubate that economic recovery now, before the conflict ends.

    Europe can do that by fostering a Syria–in-exile economy located in Jordan and other neighbouring countries. Working in this economy would restore some dignity to the daily lives of refugees and offer them credible hope of a return to normality. Providing a skilled minority of Syrians with dream lives in Europe is not the answer: it would be detrimental to recovery because once settled in Europe, with their children in schooling, such people would be unlikely to go back to a post-conflict society. In consequence, it would gut Syria of the very people it will most need. It is an intellectually lazy feel-good policy for the bien‑pensant."
    Paul Collier: www.spectator.co.uk/features/9602132/if-you-really-want-to-help-refugees-look-beyond-the-mediterranean/
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,389
    edited August 2015
    """Will Corbyn make the red-team unelectable?"""

    AQTWTAIYOC
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Another reason Corbyn is a disaster (number 85 in a list of 639), he is co-chair of Stop the War. Co-chair. This isn't some meeting where he accidentally praised a terrorist warlord, or some tea party where he mistakenly offered biscuits to the IRA's chief bomb maker, this is something he has CHOSEN to lead.

    And Stop the War have endless suspicious and abhorrent opinions. e.g. they are against any criticism of the extremist, radical, segregating Muslim schools in the Trojan Horse case, because such criticism is deemed "Islamophobic".


    http://www.stopwar.org.uk/resources/stop-the-war-statements/islamophobia-and-birmingham-schools-stop-the-war-statement

    There's acres of this stuff on the Stop the War website. Enough material for 10 years of tortuous PMQ's and vicious tabloid hatchet jobs.

    Labour are committing an act of sectionable insanity.

    Or are they? It's not over yet. I remain convinced this is actually not going to happen. Which probably makes me 'sectional'.
    I kind of agree. Electing Corbyn is so clearly an act of collective lunacy I still don't quite buy it. In some ways I'd like it to happen because I believe it would destroy Labour, yet in other ways it would harm our politics, because Corbyn is clearly a nasty piece of work, or so stupid and vain he is happy to associate with evil people as long as it makes him feel good.

    Having an actively nasty, or vain and stupid leader of the opposition is bad for the country.
    This isn't how JC is usually represented but I kinda feel that I wouldn't accept a diminished responsibility plea.
  • MontyMonty Posts: 346
    Nature abhors a vacuum. There will need to be a party for sensible left of centre voters who are interested in government rather than simply protest.
    That's still likely to be Labour due to to FPTP.
    I suspect it will take 10-15 years.
    The Conservatives won't have it all their own way forever.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486

    AndyJS said:

    Five years is an eternity in politics. In 1999 Blair was still getting 60% approval rates in the polls IIRC. By 2004 he was hated by many of his own supporters.

    Though he still won a majority in 2005.
    Which is why it's better to have a leader who plays well in the marginals even if it's at the expense of your core support (see David Cameron causing a UKIP uprising but still only losing one seat to them at the GE). Unless there is a viable alternative on the same part of the spectrum (the SNP exception)
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    edited August 2015
    Moses_ said:

    Moses_ said:

    Mr. Moses, like Mr. Borough, I do wonder if Labour will really elect Corbyn.

    The number of purged votes compared to the ultimate winner's margin of victory will be an interesting statistic.

    Also the possibility of the spoilt ballots. The paper requires 1,2,3 type entries but I understand from reports and Corby was sending reminders because some are putting "x" for the single candidate and no 2nd prefs.

    The fall out is just going to be quite spectacular either way win or lose I suspect.
    If you put an X in an AV vote is it a spoilt ballot or does it not just count as a 1 for the one marked X but eliminated vote if your candidate is eliminated? I think it works that way in Australia.
    I understood from the report it is considered "spoilt"

    Edit - just seen Calum's update so maybe they will now be accepted.
    If that were treated as a spoilt ballot it would be a novel and unwelcome development in electoral administration. The governing principle has been "is the voter's intention clear?" for as long as I can remember. A single X in an AV/STV should always be functionally equivalent to a plump 1.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,974
    Barnesian said:

    tlg86 said:

    This is a silly market. I reckon there's a fair chance that we've seen the last Labour majority ever.

    It may be a while until we see another Conservative overall majority. Betfair (in a very thin market) has it as a 55% chance in 2020. There is the EU, the economy, Cameron's departure, events ...

    It is quite possible that we may have 10-15 years of minority governments. And then a new generation will be in place and who knows? Corbyn will be in his eighties in the newly created Senate.

    There may a Labour majority government (in 2035?) before there is Conservative majority (in 2045?). I'll be over 100 so I may never see the day.
    The voters won't let Labour in control of the economy - either on its own or as part of a coalition - until it convinces that it has a plan that does not come with a serious risk of blowing the nation's finances yet again. Corbyn is taking them so far away from a convincing economic narrative, the only issue is how far backwards Labour travels under his leadership...
Sign In or Register to comment.