politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s English challenge

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s English challenge

Looking at the chart above we can see that in England Labour did best where it didn’t need to and the Tories did best where they did need to do well. In England overall there was a swing of 1.1% from the Tories to Labour but in the crucial battle ground of the fifty most marginal Tory held seats there was a swing of 0.9% FROM Labour to the Tories.

Read the full story here

RobD

First!

RobD

I made a plot on this showing change in share for Labour, as a function of 2010 share:

http://i.imgur.com/5c08a9h.png

The ones highlighted in red are Scottish seats, demonstrating how poorly they did.

RobD

Oh, and are the "top 100 safest" and "50 most marginal" are based on 2010 results, or 2015?

JackW

Thread Leader - "Corbyn's English Challenge"

Indeed.

Jezza speaks a minority language - an 80's dialect most voters have tuned out of.

MarqueeMark

Of those 16,000 conversations, how many started "when are you going to do something about immigration?" "You're leader is an unelectable idiot" or "Where is your economic policy?".....?

And why will the next 16,000 be any different?

Sean_F

JackW said:

Thread Leader - "Corbyn's English Challenge"

Indeed.

Jezza speaks a minority language - an 80's dialect most voters have tuned out of.

I can't see how messages of support from Hamas, Christine Kirchner, Martin McGuinness, or Gerry Adams can be anything other than harmful to Labour.

Innocent_Abroad

I'm in Westminster North, a hyper-marginal Labour held. Neither they nor the Tories fought a "ground war". Maybe neither of them had the troops.

I think TSE attaches too much importance to campaigning. I'd like to see a similar chart for ethnicity. I suspect Labour did worse the whiter the seat was.

JackW

Sean_F said:

JackW said:

Thread Leader - "Corbyn's English Challenge"

Indeed.

Jezza speaks a minority language - an 80's dialect most voters have tuned out of.

I can't see how messages of support from Hamas, Christine Kirchner, Martin McGuinness, or Gerry Adams can be anything other than harmful to Labour.

Quite so Sean.

A political car crash of spectacular proportions is unfolding before our eyes. What will be left of the wreckage is more difficult to assess but at some point another leader will have to visit the breakers yard and put together the remaining spare parts.

Sandpit

Morning all. Did yesterday actually happen? All I know is I have a hangover.

TGOHF

"Across England there are other examples like this from Stockton South to Nuneaton to Waveney."

Don't forget Broxtowe !

felix

Innocent_Abroad said:

I'm in Westminster North, a hyper-marginal Labour held. Neither they nor the Tories fought a "ground war". Maybe neither of them had the troops.

I think TSE attaches too much importance to campaigning. I'd like to see a similar chart for ethnicity. I suspect Labour did worse the whiter the seat was.

I'm not sure it's that simple - I do believe the strong Muslim Labour vote may sway other non-white and white ethnic groups [ such as Hindus, Sikhs and Jews away from Labour and towards the Tories. Sadiq Khan's ethnic quotas in London may also have a negative effect. I do think campaigning techniques and strategy are important in marginal seats. Westminster North has remained stubbornly Labour for many years - I'm not sure Corbyn's leadership will keep it that way. Also the Tooting by-election if and when it occurs would be quite an interesting one. Khan's majority barely changed in May. Under the boundary changes it would go nominally blue anyway.

Sean_F

Innocent_Abroad said:

I'm in Westminster North, a hyper-marginal Labour held. Neither they nor the Tories fought a "ground war". Maybe neither of them had the troops.

I think TSE attaches too much importance to campaigning. I'd like to see a similar chart for ethnicity. I suspect Labour did worse the whiter the seat was.

The 75 seats with the highest proportion of ethnic minority voters saw the Labour vote share rise by 8%, and the Tory vote share remain unchanged.

*But* such seats are all very urban, and tend to contain lots of students, public sector workers, and often, universities; all of which help to boost the Labour vote.

Overall, it looks as though both Labour and Conservatives pushed up support among BME voters.

DavidL

I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.

Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.

They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

Innocent_Abroad

DavidL said:

I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.

Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.

They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Interesting stats. Cheers Mr. Eagles and Mr. Disraeli.

Sean_F

DavidL said:

I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.

Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.

They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

I think pretty much any Conservative MP is closer to the centre ground than Corbyn is.

Innocent_Abroad

Sean_F said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

I'm in Westminster North, a hyper-marginal Labour held. Neither they nor the Tories fought a "ground war". Maybe neither of them had the troops.

I think TSE attaches too much importance to campaigning. I'd like to see a similar chart for ethnicity. I suspect Labour did worse the whiter the seat was.

The 75 seats with the highest proportion of ethnic minority voters saw the Labour vote share rise by 8%, and the Tory vote share remain unchanged.

*But* such seats are all very urban, and tend to contain lots of students, public sector workers, and often, universities; all of which help to boost the Labour vote.

Overall, it looks as though both Labour and Conservatives pushed up support among BME voters.

The Tory increase in the vote last May was at the expense of the Liberal Democrats, not Labour. Broxtowe is an excellent example. Presumably this was as true of BME as of white votes.

TGOHF

DavidL said:

. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

Polly has started already

"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"

DavidL

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.

Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.

They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Sean_F

TGOHF said:

DavidL said:

. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

Polly has started already

"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"

Would Polly rather have a Conservative government, with UKIP providing supply and confidence, which is what PR would give us?

There is such a thing as being careful what you wish for.

JosiasJessop

On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.

After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.

Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.

They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

richardDodd

The likes of Polly and her ilk will be first in the Tumbril..commercials directors in the second one..

DavidL

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.

Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.

They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

I think pretty much any Conservative MP is closer to the centre ground than Corbyn is.

There are still some ideologues seeking intellectual purity on the right that are nearly as daft as Corbyn. But Cameron has moved the centre of the party back to where it needed to be.

MarqueeMark

JosiasJessop said:

On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.

After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.

Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.

They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.

Innocent_Abroad

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.

Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.

They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?

Sean_F

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

I repeatedly forecast before the last election that the efficiency of the Labour vote would decline from the very high efficiency in 2010/2005. It is really about the only part of the election I got right.

Our system greatly rewards the party who is thought to be nearest to the centre ground. In the Blair years whilst the Tories wasted their time and energy on bickering about the EU in pointless opposition this was indisputably Labour. In 2010 it was pretty close and so was the election. In 2015 it was fairly clearly the Tories who therefore got a majority. 2020 is looking like a walk in the park for the Tories at the moment.

They need a new leader that appeals to the centre more than Corbyn. Pretty much anyone to the left of Chris Grayling will do that. And they need to get through the referendum without tearing themselves apart. That just might be trickier. Still, I fancy their chances. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

richardDodd

Are there any governments in Europe..the EU..that were elected under AV or PR....

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

Oh, and are the "top 100 safest" and "50 most marginal" are based on 2010 results, or 2015?

2010

MarqueeMark

TGOHF said:

DavidL said:

. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

Polly has started already

"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"

Polly, wait until that iron fist is rammed up Labour's jacksy in 2020. THAT will be eye-watering.

richardDodd

When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.

alex.

TGOHF said:

DavidL said:

. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

Polly has started already

"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"

How outrageous! Needing to obtain the support of people who previously voted for your political opponents. What a travesty of democracy!

Sandpit

TGOHF said:

DavidL said:

. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

Polly has started already

"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"

I wonder what she thought of this wicked electoral system back in 2005..?

Is it finally dawning on some of the more excitable of the commentariat, that Jeremy Corbyn is completely unelectable?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dodd, I believe Germany uses a variety of PR (again, that's partly a legacy of war guilt - they don't want any one party to have a predominant position).

Could be wrong, it's a while since I covered it.

malcolmg

FPT for Chestnut ...... I am not in and have never been in the SNP so would not make any difference.

richardDodd

I am in London next week grading a couple of hours of TV Drama for the BBC..any PB gatherings during the week

TGOHF

Polly quote is from here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-victory-guardian-panellists-verdict

DavidL

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?

I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.

TGOHF

richardDodd said:

When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.

JC seemed to back track on R5 yesterday - sounded like he was more thinking of asking questions given to him by others or giving up some of his 6.

richardDodd

MD..So those election systems don't seem too popular with our European brethren..why is it pushed so hard in the UK..

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Good morning everyone.
Dannis MacShane doesn't seem to impressed with Jezza
http://www.theglobalist.com/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-british-politics/

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dodd, some people seem to genuinely like it, others want to gerrymander the system so we perpetually have weak government and/or to advantage their particular party.

Innocent_Abroad

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?

I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.

We are coming together. The consequence is that England is a Tory country, just as Northern Irish politics are dominated by religion with class a poor second.

I am still hoping for a list of the seats that Liz Kendall would have won that JC won't

richardDodd

MD Not surprised at that..

JackW

richardDodd said:

When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.

The Speaker may have already done so.

Unless legitimately absent the six PMQ questions for LotO are not available for Jezza to depute. He uses them or loses them. If Jezza declines the Speaker will simply move to the next question.

Sandpit

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.

After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.

Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.

They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.

Quite.

I imagine that Kendall would have grown into the role, and surrounded herself with the likes of Jarvis, Bradshaw as well as a few old faces.

Parking Labour's tank firmly on Cameron's lawn would have been a nightmare for the PM and his successor, made the next election a genuine contest between the two parties. As it is now, I doubt if the No.10 party's finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!

DavidL

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.

Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.

Sandpit

richardDodd said:

When is Bercow expected to give his answer to Corbyns bizarre request to pass the baton at PMQs..and if he oks it ..will he announce it to the house with the reasons for it.

One might suppose that Bercow's reply to Corbyn, given the Speaker's reputation as a defender of the House, will be not dissimilar to the reply given by the respondent in Arkell vs Pressdram.

saddened

TGOHF said:

DavidL said:

. I think after the next election there will be lots of discussions about the bias in the system in favour of the Tories. But that will just be the reward for being nearest the centre. We are a moderate lot really.

Polly has started already

"The iron fist of our wicked electoral system means he must sway some who voted Tory in the 100 seats he must win"

Labour need to atract voters from other parties! Incisive stuff.

richardDodd

JackW..Seems sensible..bit of a skutch in Corbyns wheels then..

DavidL

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?

I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.

We are coming together. The consequence is that England is a Tory country, just as Northern Irish politics are dominated by religion with class a poor second.

I am still hoping for a list of the seats that Liz Kendall would have won that JC won't

England is a centralist country that does not like those who would scare the horses. We don't really want exciting, radical, scary politicians. We want to be left alone but have decent public services.

That sort of government doesn't have to be Tory. For most of the last 30 years it wasn't.

Innocent_Abroad

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.

Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.

You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.

malcolmg

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.

After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.

Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.

They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.

Quite.

I imagine that Kendall would have grown into the role, and surrounded herself with the likes of Jarvis, Bradshaw as well as a few old faces.

Parking Labour's tank firmly on Cameron's lawn would have been a nightmare for the PM and his successor, made the next election a genuine contest between the two parties. As it is now, I doubt if the No.10 party's finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!

LOL, she is totally and utterly useless, she could not run a bath.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Abroad, well, quite. But if I were Labour I'd be trying to change the 'losing' part of that proposition not the 'compromising ideological purity' bit.

But then, I'd want to form the government and make changes instead of go on protest marches and snuggle up to the likes of the Argentine president.

Sean_F

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?

I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.

There's also a more elite element to the hard left, in the universities, the legal profession, the arts, media, fashion, and design, but still concentrated in major cities.

Alanbrooke

Andy Burnham, what a chump.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.

Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.

Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.

JackW

For all of Bercow's (small) foibles he is an extremely strong defender of the HoC. He is neither the governments man nor the opposition but the Commons man.

DavidL

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Why do they live in safe Labour seats, David? (My son is one of them, although JC has a hard row to hoe with him.) I am offering ethnicity as an explanation, you don't seem to have one except this notion of "centrism" - whatever that means. If we are all so moderate, why did the moderate Party par excellence tank so last May?

I would have thought that was obvious. The hard left are found amongst the impoverished and disenfranchised, ethnic minorities (I completely agree with that point) and the extreme end of public sector trade unionism. All of these are concentrated in our major cities which is where the Labour party still thrives. But it will never be enough.

There's also a more elite element to the hard left, in the universities, the legal profession, the arts, media, fashion, and design, but still concentrated in major cities.

Yes, that is true as well.

Sandpit

malcolmg said:

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.

After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.

Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.

They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.

Quite.

I imagine that Kendall would have grown into the role, and surrounded herself with the likes of Jarvis, Bradshaw as well as a few old faces.

Parking Labour's tank firmly on Cameron's lawn would have been a nightmare for the PM and his successor, made the next election a genuine contest between the two parties. As it is now, I doubt if the No.10 party's finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!

LOL, she is totally and utterly useless, she could not run a bath.

Mr G maybe you're right, but she would have been a lot more concerning for the PM and Govt than the 1970s terrorist-appeasing trot that Labour just elected. Think seats like Broxtowe, Nuneaton, Corby - where the election is actually decided - rather than Islington and Liverpool.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Brooke, is that a response to a statement by Burnham, or merely an observation of reality?

Edited extra bit: I can't remember who posted it, but no paper had a headline as good as 'A Bad Case of the Trots'.

JosiasJessop

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.

After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.

Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.

They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.

As a PBTory, I'll say the following to the idiots ideological travellers who are supporting Corbyn:

A few years back, I stated Miliband's biggest problem: he was good at spotting problems, but he was terrible at choosing solutions to those problems. This was compounded by the fact that by the time of the general election, those solutions formed a hideous mish-mash rather than a coherent platform.

That cannot even be said about Corbyn. He is spotting the problems of forty or more years ago and fighting old battles. He wants green targets but also to reopen coal mines. He wants to accept refugees but also give everyone who wants to live in London a home.

He is worse than Miliband in all ways save one: ideological purity. And that is never a vote winner amongst the GBP.

Morris_Dancer

F1: application to put Lotus into administration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34232784

DavidL

Alanbrooke said:

Andy Burnham, what a chump.

Well yes, it is hard to believe after one of the worst campaigns in history he could make himself look more ridiculous but he is a trier.

I just wondered if he thought that Corbyn would be so desperate to have someone people had actually heard of in his shadow cabinet that he might be offered Shadow Chancellor if he played hard to get. But keeping to a consistent strategy for a whole day is not really his strong suit.

TGOHF

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.

Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.

Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.

Yes in Scotland you also have the choice of the SNP Mafia style cronyism ...

JosiasJessop

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.

Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.

You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.

Their hatred will turn against Corbyn in time. That's because it isn't a hatred based on fact, but on stupidity. It's unthinking hatred, and therefore it can turn against anyone, very quickly.

Even the MessiahCorbyn.

alex.

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Andy Burnham, what a chump.

Well yes, it is hard to believe after one of the worst campaigns in history he could make himself look more ridiculous but he is a trier.

I just wondered if he thought that Corbyn would be so desperate to have someone people had actually heard of in his shadow cabinet that he might be offered Shadow Chancellor if he played hard to get. But keeping to a consistent strategy for a whole day is not really his strong suit.

What's he done now?

Alanbrooke

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Brooke, is that a response to a statement by Burnham, or merely an observation of reality?

Edited extra bit: I can't remember who posted it, but no paper had a headline as good as 'A Bad Case of the Trots'.

I was simply reflecting on the whole campaign.

The one thing that does come through is that Burnham should never be let near a position of responsibility.

Alanbrooke

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.

Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.

Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.

You speak of choice yet vote for a one party state.

Have a turnip !

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Brooke, indeed, he's almost Milibandesque.

Mr. Jessop, I'm not so sure. The evil media, the uncaring public and, of course, the baby-eating Tories provide plenty of targets.

John_M

DavidL said:

England is a centralist country that does not like those who would scare the horses. We don't really want exciting, radical, scary politicians. We want to be left alone but have decent public services.

That sort of government doesn't have to be Tory. For most of the last 30 years it wasn't.

Good morning all. Wow, it wasn't all just a fevered dream, Labour really did defenestrate themselves.

I agree with you. I don't think I'm alone in taking a managerial view of politics. I'm not an ideologue (I'd hope I never was) or partisan. We need a government that's thinking ahead, whether that's how to deal with health, demographics, energy, defence, borders, sovereignty and so forth.

Unfortunately, that's ultimately quite dull and uninspiring for many activists - quiet analysis, working groups and committee work. So much easier to just emote "48 hours to save the NHS!".

JackW

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.

Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.

Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.

You speak of choice yet vote for a one party state.

Have a turnip !

Titter ....

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Brooke, is that a response to a statement by Burnham, or merely an observation of reality?

Edited extra bit: I can't remember who posted it, but no paper had a headline as good as 'A Bad Case of the Trots'.

The Sun went with "In the Corbyn", the rest none too complimentary either
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/642805850499887106

JackW

Polly on Marr now ....

Titters a little more ....

JosiasJessop

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: application to put Lotus into administration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34232784

Hope not.

I despise Briatore and didn't like the team when he was in charge, but they've got some really good people working for them. Within enough finance, they could be winners again.

Sean_F

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Brooke, is that a response to a statement by Burnham, or merely an observation of reality?

Edited extra bit: I can't remember who posted it, but no paper had a headline as good as 'A Bad Case of the Trots'.

The Sun went with "In the Corbyn", the rest none too complimentary either
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/642805850499887106

"The Tories are terrified" was one comment.

In a way, Yes. You're terrified when you see someone standing on a window ledge, saying they're going to jump. You're terrified for them, not terrified for yourself.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jessop, I agree. Hope Renault buy them promptly.

JackW

Meanwhile .... Sturgeon to put another "once in a generation" independence referendum proposal in the SNP 2016 election manifesto.

Chortle ....

Sandpit

LOL, Polly blaming the media for the bad headlines, then questioning why Corbyn didn't turn up himself to talk to Marr.

MarqueeMark

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.

Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.

You are assuming that Labour activists want to win elections at any price. They don't. They've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and it doesn't fit. You have to have been a member of the Party to understand the deep hatred the average Labour activist has for MPs and councillors, the odd vegan teetotal leftie excepted.

The Mail has a story about Corbyn's campaign T-shirts - being made in Nicaragua by workers paid pennies an hour.

It is going to be a horror show....

Plato_Says

I see from the Survation poll that 36% think Labour will lose the next TWO general elections, 22% don't.

I filled in a YouGov yesterday all about relative right vs left, who I'd vote for as PM from quite a long list. Hope this will be published as it sounded rather interesting.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, the capitalist media barons will have their lying tongues stilled by Chairman Corbyn!

Mr. Mark, 'This is what socialism looks like'?

JosiasJessop

Polly ranting against Labour rent-a-mouths.

Chortle.

alex.

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: application to put Lotus into administration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34232784

Hope not.

I despise Briatore and didn't like the team when he was in charge, but they've got some really good people working for them. Within enough finance, they could be winners again.

They're going to be bought by Renault. Going into administration is just so that they get them cheap. Same trick pulled by Football clubs all the time.

JackW

Marr indicating via Tom Watson upcoming interview that the Corbyn PMQ vacancy option may still be a runner.

IMO Bercow and HoC procedure will say not.

alex.

Sandpit said:

LOL, Polly blaming the media for the bad headlines, then questioning why Corbyn didn't turn up himself to talk to Marr.

And Marr making some ridiculous excuse for him. It's hardly likely he booked himself in thinking he was going to appear after defeat! Maybe he just can't plan ahead more than a few days?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Alex, hope you're right. The engine news from Red Bull and Manor indicate you may well be.

malcolmg

Sandpit said:

malcolmg said:

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

On PB and other forums, many Labour supporters spent five years saying that Ed was not crap, and that he would lead the party to a win in 2015 over the hated Conservatives. However often people tried to explain why Ed had problems (e.g. Hodges), the more these people were certain about their convictions.

After the shock of May 5, many of these same people started saying that Ed was, indeed, crap; that he had been a terrible leader and that we would have been much better under his brother.

Many of those same people are now saying that Corbyn is not crap.

They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

If the Labour Party wants a decent leader, they should sub-contract the process out to the pb Tories. We know who we don't want to face - and who we do.

Quite.

I imagine that Kendall would have grown into the role, and surrounded herself with the likes of Jarvis, Bradshaw as well as a few old faces.

Parking Labour's tank firmly on Cameron's lawn would have been a nightmare for the PM and his successor, made the next election a genuine contest between the two parties. As it is now, I doubt if the No.10 party's finished yet, and the Champagne ban at Conference will probably be lifted!

LOL, she is totally and utterly useless, she could not run a bath.

Mr G maybe you're right, but she would have been a lot more concerning for the PM and Govt than the 1970s terrorist-appeasing trot that Labour just elected. Think seats like Broxtowe, Nuneaton, Corby - where the election is actually decided - rather than Islington and Liverpool.

Sandpit , I cannot agree , crazy or not at least Corbyn has a personal opinion , she is just a cardboard cutout who would flip flop with focus group opinions. Love him or hate him Corbyn at least gave opinions during the marathon event , Kendall showed she had no opinions, was useless and should never be allowed to run anything.

Pulpstar

The ideological battle for 2020 comes during ~ 2018 when the next Tory leader is chosen

TGOHF

Who's this commie on Marr ?

MikeK

OMG! A post elected Corbyn thread. Fancy that!

This below is more important FTM:

Love Europe, No2EU ‏@UKMarkTyrrell 3m3 minutes ago
Merkel 'expects Cameron to back EU army' in exchange for renegotiation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11861247/Merkel-expects-Cameron-to-back-EU-army-in-exchange-for-renegotiation.html …

malcolmg

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.

Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.

Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.

Yes in Scotland you also have the choice of the SNP Mafia style cronyism ...

Your point is, I thought David was talking about England. How do you conflate that to Scotland. Do you ever debate the topic rather than just spout your hatred.

ydoethur

The editor of the Morning Star is as delusional in his wishful thinking as might be expected and has been revealed by our resident Marxist in recent threads. I particularly enjoyed the gloriously unselfaware irony of a Communist complaining about 'an attack on democracy.'

TGOHF

JackW said:

Marr indicating via Tom Watson upcoming interview that the Corbyn PMQ vacancy option may still be a runner.

IMO Bercow and HoC procedure will say not.

Chicken Jezzfraidi on the menu.

Sandpit

alex. said:

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: application to put Lotus into administration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34232784

Hope not.

I despise Briatore and didn't like the team when he was in charge, but they've got some really good people working for them. Within enough finance, they could be winners again.

They're going to be bought by Renault. Going into administration is just so that they get them cheap. Same trick pulled by Football clubs all the time.

That's a bad stunt to pull, and as you say it looks like Renault are trying to get rid of the debts and buy the team on the cheap. It should be that a team entering bankruptcy loses its championship entry, which is the real asset that a purchaser requires to race in F1. The problem is Bernie and his scheming and secrecy, I wouldn't put anything past him.

alex.

JackW said:

Marr indicating via Tom Watson upcoming interview that the Corbyn PMQ vacancy option may still be a runner.

IMO Bercow and HoC procedure will say not.

Bercow should just patiently explain that the rules of the HOC are largely based on convention and that if Corbyn refuses to follow convention that he can't do much to stop him. However he should also explain that he is under no obligation to give his replacement 6 questions since that is also basically a convention.

BTW even if he did find a way to do this, the idea that he would put in a replacement FOR HIS FIRST PLANNED APPEARANCE would make him a total laughing stock. You at least have to establish that you can do it and aren't scared of it, before sharing it around to others!

malcolmg

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

That assumes that left-wing voters will stay loyal. The Tories did not "waste time and energy bickering about the EU" half a generation ago - they were protecting their flank against UKIP. Labour have to protect theirs against the Greens.

I don't agree. When the Tories under Cameron stopped trying the impossible of appeasing the UKIP supporters in their ranks and let them go off they thrived. In 2015 the Tories lost 5-6% to UKIP and gained 6-7% from the centre (mainly ex Lib Dems) in exchange. That 6-7% was also much more usefully located than the UKIP supporters tended to be.

Labour are the same. Under Blair many of the more extreme left felt disillusioned and didn't vote. Since they live in safe Labour seats this didn't matter at all. Ed appealed to them more, hence the charts in the thread header. It did Labour no good whatsoever. Corbyn will no doubt appeal to them even more but this will simply drive Labour backwards. Labour need to come back to the centre or die. It is that simple.

Labour does have the special problem of Scotland, where it's been outflanked to the left. I could see Corbyn regaining some ground in and around Glasgow, but nowhere else in the UK.

The Scottish situation is complicated but it is simplistic to say that the SNP have outflanked Labour to the left. They have enthusiastically adopted the Labour hatred of Tories and the SNP certainly appeal to many of the hard left who see more hope of their nirvana in a small socialist country than in the UK but the SNP now represent almost all of rural Scotland. They are a broad church.

Scottish Labour died of complacency and arrogance. For as long as people did not have a choice not being Tory was supposedly enough. And then a choice arose. English Labour need to think very carefully about that.

Where is the choice in England though, lying Libdems or useless Tory UKIP. Hardly a choice.

You speak of choice yet vote for a one party state.

Have a turnip !

Morning Alan, I was merely pointing out to David that his fabled choice in England did not in fact exist other than Tory , Tory fruitcakes , liars or labour. Hardly a choice if you are not right wing.

MikeK

Oh almost forgot; I wish all Jewish PBers a Happy New Year (Rosh Hashana).

Plato_Says

We had all this Tories Are Worried/Scared nonsense from those who pretended EdM was some political colossus. Some even said on here that Tories were heaping criticisms on EdM because they feared him. Nope, we know a dud when we see one.

I've seen it many times from Corbynites on Twitter - what total delusional rubbish. Tories4Corbyn weren't converts

Sean_F said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Brooke, is that a response to a statement by Burnham, or merely an observation of reality?

Edited extra bit: I can't remember who posted it, but no paper had a headline as good as 'A Bad Case of the Trots'.

The Sun went with "In the Corbyn", the rest none too complimentary either
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/642805850499887106

"The Tories are terrified" was one comment.

In a way, Yes. You're terrified when you see someone standing on a window ledge, saying they're going to jump. You're terrified for them, not terrified for yourself.

John_M

JackW said:

Meanwhile .... Sturgeon to put another "once in a generation" independence referendum proposal in the SNP 2016 election manifesto.

Chortle ....

Christ I knew life expectancy was lower north of the border, but I didn't realise it was _that_ low.

alex.

Marr: "great privilege to have a guest from the Morning Star"