This wasn’t a great conference speech. In fact, judged technically, it was second-rate, or worse. It meandered, it had no real structure (at one point Corbyn even appeared to repeat himself), and it lacked an obvious punch. Oratory - even the low-grade stuff you get a British party conference - is about crafting messages in a form so that they resonate, and stir the heart, and lodge in the mind (at least for a weak or so). With this one, it was not even clear what the one over-riding message was.
Will Jezza last until Xmas? With the rate and speed the man is jettisoning his policies and core beliefs, there will be nothing left by the end of next week to throw overboard.
Unless, unless that is, it's all a big con and he'll have the Labour party and movement by the neck come December. Come to think of it, it's exactly the way the Taliban works.
The Guardian finally gets its snap verdict together and you can see why they took their time:
"Giving a political speech looks like a straightforward undertaking, but there’s an art and a craft to it and there is a reason why great conferences speeches succeeed. This wasn’t a great conference speech. In fact, judged technically, it was second-rate, or worse. It meandered, it had no real structure (at one point Corbyn even appeared to repeat himself), and it lacked an obvious punch. Oratory - even the low-grade stuff you get a British party conference - is about crafting messages in a form so that they resonate, and stir the heart, and lodge in the mind (at least for a week or so). With this one, it was not even clear what the one over-riding message was.
Yet that’s the old politics assessment, and the whole point about Corbyn is that he is different, and that he won a surprise election victory because people were fed up with that sort of conventional statecraft. Corbyn explained this well, and perhaps the best bits in the speech were those when he mocked media commentators. The passage about sports reporters dismissing a club with a growing fan base as a failure was particularly effective. To his credit, Corbyn did not allow himself to be tempted into saying anything inauthentic. Much of the speech reflect his long career in grassroots protesting, and even the passage about how he loved Britain because of its values (the one pushed by the spin doctors, anxious to counter the negative impact of anthem-gate) sounded genuine. A more plastic figure could easily have been enticed into phoney patriotism.
Everything he said was consistent with the campaign he ran during the leadership campaign. They wanted an ethical socialist antidote to spin, and that’s what they got this afternoon - even if it went on a bit longer than some of them may have wanted.
Other left/idealist types fed up with the status quo will be enticed as well. But Corbyn had little or nothing to say to people outside the “insurgency bubble” (to coin a phrase), people not stirred by quotes form Keir Hardie, people who may even have voted Conservative. He had a lot to say on housing (or too much - he repeated himself), but he had little to say on health or education and immigration, a key issue for many, was only discussed in terms of the refugee crisis. To return to the football club analogy, the club may have 160,000 new fans. But it lost it’s last big match, it’s been relegated and, on the basis of this speech, the captain/owner hasn’t given any thought at all to why.
It was a sincere speech, and it marked a departure. But it is hard to see how it advances Labour politically."
People who will be removed from the register unless they apply to register under the new system If you haven’t already applied individually to be on the electoral register, you’ll receive a letter asking you to register. If you don't register under the new system your name will be removed on the 1 December.
Except that the Tories have brought forward the cut-off date for doing so.
This is quite clearly so that the Boundary Commission will draw up the boundaries before people have got round to getting registered - in some places more than others.
The result will be an even larger gerrymandering of the boundaries in favour of the Tories than it otherwise would have been.
The Tories are very good at gerrymandering the boundaries to suit their own convenience. Everybody recognises this.
The electoral system has been stacked against the Conservatives for years. If the vote shares would have been swapped at the general election, Labour would have had a far bigger majority than we enjoy now. And that's before we even get to using the immigration system to shift the electorate or ghost voters.
Amongst GE2015 voters: biggest support for JC speech are from the Greens, then Lib Dem, Labour and followed by Did Not Vote. THe Kippers didn't like it.
Sadly, the Tories hated it.
Sounds like a slam dunk result for the Tories.
Tories stick with Dave, and some kippers vote Tory for fear of Jezza.
Meanwhile Greens and Lib Dems rack up for Jezza in safe Labour constituencies and DNV errm doesn't vote !
Yes, the Tories could end up with a 40-seat majority (even in a reduced HoC) on the same 7% lead. In practice the lead might be a fair bit bigger.
My rough estimate is that if you were to add the votes for Conservative and UKIP together in every constituency, and then add together the votes for Labour, Green, Lib Dem, SNP, TUSC, the Right would win c. 360 seats to c.270 for the Left. If you were to go back to two very broadly based parties of Right and Left, then a small lead in terms of votes would lead to a big lead in terms of seats, as in the 1950s and 1960s.
That suggests Alternative Vote would have been good for the Conservatives.
I think it would probably secure UKIP wins in Heywood & Middleton, Rother Valley, and Hartlepool, but I think it would help the Conservatives everywhere else. My analysis indicated that the Left bloc would be piling up massive leads in places where Labour were already strong, while the Right bloc would be taking a string of constituencies that were won by Labour in May, on 50-55% of the vote.
I note that Blairite Labour "supporters" are trying to set the local elections as a test.
Gains very unlikely since most were last competed in 2012 (Labs high point in the last Parliament)
I am hoping for a Lab mayor for London, improvements in the parties position in the Welsh Assembly and some signs of recovery in Scotland compared to GE2015.
Lab are likely to suffer a net loss in Council Elections compared to 2012 IMO.
Danczuk, Mann et alwill try to set an unachievable council gains target IMO
Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"
Says a disgruntled Blairite.
I've not seen the speech so won't comment on it directly. I will however note that those commentators and activists who criticised Miliband's speeches were on the money.
If Corbyn's speech was poor then it's hardly surprising. He's had little time to prepare and has had no training in this sort of thing. If he's lucky, he'll get some decent clips this evening and the news cycle will move on before it falls apart (which badly prepared speeches tend to). If he's not, then it just adds to the view that he's not up to the job.
Corbyn's speech was too long and rambling and not well presented but it had effective moments of passion that may be on the TV clips tonight. He is different from Milliband. He might be as ineffective but in a different way. Too early to say. The Betfair odds on a Labour majority of 5.3 when I last looked seem a bit short. I'm on NOM but a lot can happen.
Your points are well made.
As long as he gave a clench fist wave and its caught on camera I will be satisfied - did he?. I am (perhaps dangerously) assuming they still have the Red Flag at the and Corbyn will be seen belting it out.
Amongst GE2015 voters: biggest support for JC speech are from the Greens, then Lib Dem, Labour and followed by Did Not Vote. THe Kippers didn't like it.
Sadly, the Tories hated it.
Sounds like a slam dunk result for the Tories.
Tories stick with Dave, and some kippers vote Tory for fear of Jezza.
Meanwhile Greens and Lib Dems rack up for Jezza in safe Labour constituencies and DNV errm doesn't vote !
Yes, the Tories could end up with a 40-seat majority (even in a reduced HoC) on the same 7% lead. In practice the lead might be a fair bit bigger.
My rough estimate is that if you were to add the votes for Conservative and UKIP together in every constituency, and then add together the votes for Labour, Green, Lib Dem, SNP, TUSC, the Right would win c. 360 seats to c.270 for the Left. If you were to go back to two very broadly based parties of Right and Left, then a small lead in terms of votes would lead to a big lead in terms of seats, as in the 1950s and 1960s.
That suggests Alternative Vote would have been good for the Conservatives.
Some of us did point that out at the time.
It's true that there are plenty of UKIP voters who'd put Labour second but then there are plenty of 2015 Lib Dems who'd put the Tories second, so Sean's ballpark figures are probably near the mark. And that lead would be increased a touch further once you add NI in.
Sorry, this thread is long and I've been busy so didn't catch that! I've always thought it odd when people discuss globalisation (normally folk who are opposed to it) concentrate on its impact on some local aspect; the whole point about it is that it is changing the game on a global level.
Agreed. I am fully for globalization, but do get irritated when its principal cheerleaders ignore the local dislocations it causes and fail to find ways to help the losers move into the new jobs available in their locality.
I don't know if this speech sounded better on the radio, than the TV, but woman caller on LBS said "she has been a conservative voter for over 35 years and is now going to vote for Corbyn - WHAT.
I personally thought it was dire. He was all over the place. It was infuriating to watch the shadow front bench sat their like nodding dogs.
If I were a Labour party activist I would have loved that speech. But I'm not, so much of it passed me by - not least because it was poorly constructed and poorly delivered.
With a more credible leader some of the stuff about housing, the self-employed and not accepting that this is the way it has to be might be the start of something. But Corbyn framed it all wrong. I missed the start, but I did not hear anything aimed at anyone who is not living in poverty. Most people aren't and they need something from Labour too if Labour is going to ever be in a position to help the poorest.
All those who voted for Corbyn will be buzzing right now.
That is around 0.05% of the population.
There was some decent structural stuff on debt (public and household), manufacturing, house and asset price inflation. He then pledged more public housing (doesn't everyone at conference...?).
All well and good and if he had left it there, although by all means throw in rail nationalisation, Trident, and some battier policy bits (it's what he believes after all), and then somehow unveiled some kind of swords into ploughshares big idea, the whole lot coming in at 27mins, it would have been ok.
As it was it was rambling, repetitive, unfocused, repetitive, unintelligible, we're nice the Cons are monsters, Maya Angelou here, Ben Okri there, where's that knitting needle to stick in my eye....as you say talking to the Corbynistas.
Not 0.0001mm further on from May 6th, sadly. And of course we all know what happened on May 7th.
I note that Blairite Labour "supporters" are trying to set the local elections as a test.
Gains very unlikely since most were last competed in 2012 (Labs high point in the last Parliament)
I am hoping for a Lab mayor for London, improvements in the parties position in the Welsh Assembly and some signs of recovery in Scotland compared to GE2015.
Lab are likely to suffer a net loss in Council Elections compared to 2012 IMO.
Danczuk, Mann et alwill try to set an unachievable council gains target IMO
Why "very unlikely", unless there's an unexpected Lib Dem revival? Surely the big picture is pretty similar. Surely the benchmark should be near zero, implying something close to a 50/50 chance of gains or losses?
I don't know if this speech sounded better on the radio, than the TV, but woman caller on LBS said "she has been a conservative voter for over 35 years and is now going to vote for Corbyn - WHAT.
I personally thought it was dire. He was all over the place. It was infuriating to watch the shadow front bench sat their like nodding dogs.
Probably Phil 'Us Blues' Roberts in a dress and makeup.
"I'm a lady don't you know, and have been voting Tory as a lady, for over 35 years. From now on as a Tory lady..."
People who will be removed from the register unless they apply to register under the new system If you haven’t already applied individually to be on the electoral register, you’ll receive a letter asking you to register. If you don't register under the new system your name will be removed on the 1 December.
Except that the Tories have brought forward the cut-off date for doing so.
This is quite clearly so that the Boundary Commission will draw up the boundaries before people have got round to getting registered - in some places more than others.
The result will be an even larger gerrymandering of the boundaries in favour of the Tories than it otherwise would have been.
The Tories are very good at gerrymandering the boundaries to suit their own convenience. Everybody recognises this.
The electoral system has been stacked against the Conservatives for years. If the vote shares would have been swapped at the general election, Labour would have had a far bigger majority than we enjoy now. And that's before we even get to using the immigration system to shift the electorate or ghost voters.
First Past the Post is not a proportional system. Equalising constituency boundaries will go someway to change that. But only some way.
There are two other major reasons why it is not proportional:
1. Winner takes all constituencies are inherently not proportional. (Hence UKIP 13% and one seat, against the SNP with 56 seats on a third of the vote share.)
2. There is tactical voting against parties. (I would tactically vote against the Green Party, for example.)
While I'm in a humble apologetic mood; I was wrong about Corbyn. Wrong to judge him through a weird media kaleidoscope. He is remarkable.
Er. Isn't she Green Party?
"Remarkable" is not necessarily a compliment, although of course from this source in this context it was meant to be. Corbyn is 'remarkable', just not in a good way.
The Guardian critique seems pretty reasonable to me. A speech that activists will love and everyone else will ignore. The thing about credible leaders is that they get the parties they lead a hearing. Corbyn is not credible.
It's true that there are plenty of UKIP voters who'd put Labour second but then there are plenty of 2015 Lib Dems who'd put the Tories second, so Sean's ballpark figures are probably near the mark. And that lead would be increased a touch further once you add NI in.
The LDs would probably have saved another dozen seats or so, mostly from the Tories but also maybe a couple from Lab/SNP.
UKIP might end up being a useful halfway house for the Tories, in terms of converting familially-loyal Labour voters.
That would make a great deal of sense - I worked in Crawley during the 80s when it became the first town to have an official 0% unemployment rate. It was impossible to find anyone with skills or even basic reading/writing - wages went up and up sucking in thousands from elsewhere.
I don't know if this speech sounded better on the radio, than the TV, but woman caller on LBS said "she has been a conservative voter for over 35 years and is now going to vote for Corbyn - WHAT.
Arf - at the GE in Scotland they found a young couple who couldn't decide whether they wanted to be on the SNP or UKIP bandwagon in Inverness !
People who will be removed from the register unless they apply to register under the new system If you haven’t already applied individually to be on the electoral register, you’ll receive a letter asking you to register. If you don't register under the new system your name will be removed on the 1 December.
Except that the Tories have brought forward the cut-off date for doing so.
This is quite clearly so that the Boundary Commission will draw up the boundaries before people have got round to getting registered - in some places more than others.
The result will be an even larger gerrymandering of the boundaries in favour of the Tories than it otherwise would have been.
The Tories are very good at gerrymandering the boundaries to suit their own convenience. Everybody recognises this.
"Everybody" is this the same "everybody" who voted for JC?
Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"
Says a disgruntled Blairite.
I've not seen the speech so won't comment on it directly. I will however note that those commentators and activists who criticised Miliband's speeches were on the money.
If Corbyn's speech was poor then it's hardly surprising. He's had little time to prepare and has had no training in this sort of thing. If he's lucky, he'll get some decent clips this evening and the news cycle will move on before it falls apart (which badly prepared speeches tend to). If he's not, then it just adds to the view that he's not up to the job.
Corbyn's speech was too long and rambling and not well presented but it had effective moments of passion that may be on the TV clips tonight. He is different from Milliband. He might be as ineffective but in a different way. Too early to say. The Betfair odds on a Labour majority of 5.3 when I last looked seem a bit short. I'm on NOM but a lot can happen.
Will Jezza last until Xmas? With the rate and speed the man is jettisoning his policies and core beliefs, there will be nothing left by the end of next week to throw overboard.
Unless, unless that is, it's all a big con and he'll have the Labour party and movement by the neck come December. Come to think of it, it's exactly the way the Taliban works.
Exactly like the Taliban!
Best get Mrs K a burka for Christmas or as its soon to be known just another Allahday.
I thought his cadence and presentation was rather improved since the start of his time at the stump in the campaign. Direction of travel wasn't bad on this one.
If we are talking about presentation issues, rather than content, I actually thought the words of the speech were terrible - it sounded as if he was ad-libbing from his notes, for large parts. They were not word-smithed There were jarring bits, places where some sort of rhetorical device appeared to be raised and then forgotten about, repetition in the vocabulary when variety would've worked better, and generally very poor flow.
The thematic design sounded like something a team of speech-writers could have produced, but the words themselves didn't; like they were homespun on the spur of the moment, or just scripted by an amateur.
Corbyn is the most shocking shambolic, the shabbiest shaggiest shoddiest shiftiest leader in that shower that is the Labour Party's history. Prepare to be shafted shellacked and shitupon.
Amongst GE2015 voters: biggest support for JC speech are from the Greens, then Lib Dem, Labour and followed by Did Not Vote. THe Kippers didn't like it.
Sadly, the Tories hated it.
Sounds like a slam dunk result for the Tories.
Tories stick with Dave, and some kippers vote Tory for fear of Jezza.
Meanwhile Greens and Lib Dems rack up for Jezza in safe Labour constituencies and DNV errm doesn't vote !
Yes, the Tories could end up with a 40-seat majority (even in a reduced HoC) on the same 7% lead. In practice the lead might be a fair bit bigger.
My rough estimate is that if you were to add the votes for Conservative and UKIP together in every constituency, and then add together the votes for Labour, Green, Lib Dem, SNP, TUSC, the Right would win c. 360 seats to c.270 for the Left. If you were to go back to two very broadly based parties of Right and Left, then a small lead in terms of votes would lead to a big lead in terms of seats, as in the 1950s and 1960s.
Interesting calculation. You are nearly spot on.
Using my 2015 result spreadsheet I make it Right 357, Left 276.
However that assumes 100% of the UKIP vote is Right. But there is evidence that UKIP harmed Labour more than Tories as much of the Tory UKIP vote went home to Tory, but many of the WWC stayed with UKIP.
If you assume the UKIP vote is 50/50 Right and Left then the totals become Right 284, Left 348.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 11 mins11 minutes ago Dire, boring, trite, wrong, sanctimonious, wrong, patronising and wrong.
Atul Hatwal @atulh 11 mins11 minutes ago Poor speech. Rambling. No sense of Labour offer. Next week the Tories will fill in the blanks he left and really define him
Another disgruntled Blairite.
Tory comments on Corbyn just amuse me with their golf clubby battiness.
But the Blairite comments really irritate me.
Where is Dan Hodges ? We are eagerly waiting to hear how dreadful the speech was. But no doubt Plato will let us know when that idiot raises his head.
Who called the election more accurately, you or him? If he's an idiot it doesn't bode well for you does it?
You were less bitter while being smug before the election, you should chill out and think back to happier times before Ed utterly fecked Labour.
If I were a Labour party activist I would have loved that speech. But I'm not, so much of it passed me by - not least because it was poorly constructed and poorly delivered.
With a more credible leader some of the stuff about housing, the self-employed and not accepting that this is the way it has to be might be the start of something. But Corbyn framed it all wrong. I missed the start, but I did not hear anything aimed at anyone who is not living in poverty. Most people aren't and they need something from Labour too if Labour is going to ever be in a position to help the poorest.
All those who voted for Corbyn will be buzzing right now.
That is around 0.05% of the population.
This was a speech aimed at green eyed lefties and he's already got them in his pocket
@TSEofPB: Good grief. I don't like UKIP (though they have improved the gaiety of the nation) but a sense of perspective needed http://t.co/nQcaEZQjN7
And the Left have the impertinence to claim the moral high ground.
Admittedly this Grintz chap seems to be a particularly unpleasant specimen. His Twitter description says: "Gay, Anti-racist, Anti-fascist, no borders. Labour party, UAF, Unite the Union, Artist, Sculptor. #Abbot4London #Corbyn4leader".
I wonder if the Labour Party and Unite the Union welcome his, err, support?
Amongst GE2015 voters: biggest support for JC speech are from the Greens, then Lib Dem, Labour and followed by Did Not Vote. THe Kippers didn't like it.
Sadly, the Tories hated it.
Sounds like a slam dunk result for the Tories.
Tories stick with Dave, and some kippers vote Tory for fear of Jezza.
Meanwhile Greens and Lib Dems rack up for Jezza in safe Labour constituencies and DNV errm doesn't vote !
Yes, the Tories could end up with a 40-seat majority (even in a reduced HoC) on the same 7% lead. In practice the lead might be a fair bit bigger.
My rough estimate is that if you were to add the votes for Conservative and UKIP together in every constituency, and then add together the votes for Labour, Green, Lib Dem, SNP, TUSC, the Right would win c. 360 seats to c.270 for the Left. If you were to go back to two very broadly based parties of Right and Left, then a small lead in terms of votes would lead to a big lead in terms of seats, as in the 1950s and 1960s.
Interesting calculation. You are nearly spot on.
Using my 2015 result spreadsheet I make it Right 357, Left 276.
However that assumes 100% of the UKIP vote is Right. But there is evidence that UKIP harmed Labour more than Tories as much of the Tory UKIP vote went home to Tory, but many of the WWC stayed with UKIP.
If you assume the UKIP vote is 50/50 Right and Left then the totals become Right 284, Left 348.
The fight for the UKIP vote is critical.
It's a crude calculation, because in practice, neither side would get 100% of the vote of its constituent parts. But, in practice, I think most of the UKIP vote would go to the Right (certainly if the Left was led by Corbyn).
I thought his cadence and presentation was rather improved since the start of his time at the stump in the campaign. Direction of travel wasn't bad on this one.
If we are talking about presentation issues, rather than content, I actually thought the words of the speech were terrible - it sounded as if he was ad-libbing from his notes, for large parts. They were not word-smithed There were jarring bits, places where some sort of rhetorical device appeared to be raised and then forgotten about, repetition in the vocabulary when variety would've worked better, and generally very poor flow.
The thematic design sounded like something a team of speech-writers could have produced, but the words themselves didn't; like they were homespun on the spur of the moment, or just scripted by an amateur.
Corbyn is the most shocking shambolic, the shabbiest shaggiest shoddiest shiftiest leader in that shower that is the Labour Party's history. Prepare to be shafted shellacked and shitupon.
I'm sure this has been gone into in previous years, but how does the convention that the party conferences are in this order (LibDem.Lab/Con) come about? Or am I utterly and completely wrong and this is in fact not a convention?
Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"
Says a disgruntled Blairite.
I've not seen the speech so won't comment on it directly. I will however note that those commentators and activists who criticised Miliband's speeches were on the money.
If Corbyn's speech was poor then it's hardly surprising. He's had little time to prepare and has had no training in this sort of thing. If he's lucky, he'll get some decent clips this evening and the news cycle will move on before it falls apart (which badly prepared speeches tend to). If he's not, then it just adds to the view that he's not up to the job.
Corbyn's speech was too long and rambling and not well presented but it had effective moments of passion that may be on the TV clips tonight. He is different from Milliband. He might be as ineffective but in a different way. Too early to say. The Betfair odds on a Labour majority of 5.3 when I last looked seem a bit short. I'm on NOM but a lot can happen.
Your points are well made.
how do you get a majority of 5.3?
:-) The odds are 5.3 on a Labour majority. I could have phrased it better.
Was this posted earlier? It's vitally important and might inform the timing of any coup attempt.
"there is now a narrow pro-Corbyn majority on the NEC, making rule changes significantly easier and quicker to pass, requiring just one Conference as opposed to the usual two to be enacted."
@TSEofPB: Good grief. I don't like UKIP (though they have improved the gaiety of the nation) but a sense of perspective needed http://t.co/nQcaEZQjN7
Judging by his output on twitter, Mr. Grintz is a jerk.
He's the living embodiment of Cameron's maxim about Twitter.
I think the police ought to take an interest in his Twitter account, for example:
Just been sent pre-pubescent Nazi @JoshyNatSoc's address Expect an #ANTIFA protest on your doorstep imminently fascist scum
Also he claims to be at the Labour Conference and organising a fringe event.
But I suppose his brand of hate-filled bile, prejudice and intimidation is cuddly, Labour, Corbynista, new-politics-style hate-filled bile, prejudice and intimidation, so it's OK.
"Admittedly this Grintz chap seems to be a particularly unpleasant specimen. His Twitter description says: "Gay, Anti-racist, Anti-fascist, no borders. Labour party........"
I don't know if this speech sounded better on the radio, than the TV, but woman caller on LBS said "she has been a conservative voter for over 35 years and is now going to vote for Corbyn - WHAT.
I personally thought it was dire. He was all over the place. It was infuriating to watch the shadow front bench sat their like nodding dogs.
I thought A Eagles looked very uncomfortable at times
"Admittedly this Grintz chap seems to be a particularly unpleasant specimen. His Twitter description says: "Gay, Anti-racist, Anti-fascist, no borders. Labour party........"
Yes. Sounds terrible doesn't he.
Well done, Roger.
Now actually read some of his tweets.
Or is your prejudice so overwhelming that you'd actually stoop to the level of not being disgusted by what he says?
Amongst GE2015 voters: biggest support for JC speech are from the Greens, then Lib Dem, Labour and followed by Did Not Vote. THe Kippers didn't like it.
Sadly, the Tories hated it.
Sounds like a slam dunk result for the Tories.
Tories stick with Dave, and some kippers vote Tory for fear of Jezza.
Meanwhile Greens and Lib Dems rack up for Jezza in safe Labour constituencies and DNV errm doesn't vote !
Yes, the Tories could end up with a 40-seat majority (even in a reduced HoC) on the same 7% lead. In practice the lead might be a fair bit bigger.
My rough estimate is that if you were to add the votes for Conservative and UKIP together in every constituency, and then add together the votes for Labour, Green, Lib Dem, SNP, TUSC, the Right would win c. 360 seats to c.270 for the Left. If you were to go back to two very broadly based parties of Right and Left, then a small lead in terms of votes would lead to a big lead in terms of seats, as in the 1950s and 1960s.
Interesting calculation. You are nearly spot on.
Using my 2015 result spreadsheet I make it Right 357, Left 276.
However that assumes 100% of the UKIP vote is Right. But there is evidence that UKIP harmed Labour more than Tories as much of the Tory UKIP vote went home to Tory, but many of the WWC stayed with UKIP.
If you assume the UKIP vote is 50/50 Right and Left then the totals become Right 284, Left 348.
The fight for the UKIP vote is critical.
It's a crude calculation, because in practice, neither side would get 100% of the vote of its constituent parts. But, in practice, I think most of the UKIP vote would go to the Right (certainly if the Left was led by Corbyn).
Someone did a poll about a year or so ago, asking people how they'd vote if the election was under AV. I remember being very amused that the LibDems received 20% or so of UKIP second preferences (although not vice-versa).
Mr. Jessop, it shouldn't be so. People should be treated equally under the law.
I thought the convention in English law is that conviction is based on the facts of the crime and sentencing on the (mitigating and other) circumstances. Thus the welfare of a child might be taken into account. However, the welfare of the child might be best served by being far away from a mother.
The figure of £55m came, I believe, from a Labour Party document where they had lumped donations from anyone vaguely connected with any financial institution as 'donations from hedge funds'. But feel free to research it if you think the £55m is right.
It wasn't me who accused someone of lying. I genuinely don't know whether £55m is correct or not. Just wondered how you were so sure it was a lie.
Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"
Says a disgruntled Blairite.
I've not seen the speech so won't comment on it directly. I will however note that those commentators and activists who criticised Miliband's speeches were on the money.
If Corbyn's speech was poor then it's hardly surprising. He's had little time to prepare and has had no training in this sort of thing. If he's lucky, he'll get some decent clips this evening and the news cycle will move on before it falls apart (which badly prepared speeches tend to). If he's not, then it just adds to the view that he's not up to the job.
Corbyn's speech was too long and rambling and not well presented but it had effective moments of passion that may be on the TV clips tonight. He is different from Milliband. He might be as ineffective but in a different way. Too early to say. The Betfair odds on a Labour majority of 5.3 when I last looked seem a bit short. I'm on NOM but a lot can happen.
Your points are well made.
how do you get a majority of 5.3?
:-) The odds are 5.3 on a Labour majority. I could have phrased it better.
Labour majority at GE2020 depends more on how the LD and the SNP does rather than Labour / Conservative.
We must not forget in the "disastrous" GE2015 election, there was actually a swing to Labour from GE2010. In fact , some of that swing to Labour cost the LDs a few seats.
Arithmetically, a Labour majority is daunting. Though depriving the Tories a majority is not.
"Admittedly this Grintz chap seems to be a particularly unpleasant specimen. His Twitter description says: "Gay, Anti-racist, Anti-fascist, no borders. Labour party........"
Yes. Sounds terrible doesn't he.
Did you read his comment before making your snide remark? Or perhaps you agree with him ...
Amongst GE2015 voters: biggest support for JC speech are from the Greens, then Lib Dem, Labour and followed by Did Not Vote. THe Kippers didn't like it.
Sadly, the Tories hated it.
Sounds like a slam dunk result for the Tories.
Tories stick with Dave, and some kippers vote Tory for fear of Jezza.
Meanwhile Greens and Lib Dems rack up for Jezza in safe Labour constituencies and DNV errm doesn't vote !
Yes, the Tories could end up with a 40-seat majority (even in a reduced HoC) on the same 7% lead. In practice the lead might be a fair bit bigger.
My rough estimate is that if you were to add the votes for Conservative and UKIP together in every constituency, and then add together the votes for Labour, Green, Lib Dem, SNP, TUSC, the Right would win c. 360 seats to c.270 for the Left. If you were to go back to two very broadly based parties of Right and Left, then a small lead in terms of votes would lead to a big lead in terms of seats, as in the 1950s and 1960s.
Interesting calculation. You are nearly spot on.
Using my 2015 result spreadsheet I make it Right 357, Left 276.
However that assumes 100% of the UKIP vote is Right. But there is evidence that UKIP harmed Labour more than Tories as much of the Tory UKIP vote went home to Tory, but many of the WWC stayed with UKIP.
If you assume the UKIP vote is 50/50 Right and Left then the totals become Right 284, Left 348.
The fight for the UKIP vote is critical.
It's a crude calculation, because in practice, neither side would get 100% of the vote of its constituent parts. But, in practice, I think most of the UKIP vote would go to the Right (certainly if the Left was led by Corbyn).
I agree it is crude but it is quite illuminating and shows how important the UKIP vote is.
The breakeven % that leaves right and left on 316 seats each is 77% of UKIP go right, 23% go left.
The UKIP voters who are anti-immigration and anti-Europe I don't expect to be attracted to Corbyn. But I suspect some UKIP voters are ex-Labour who just feel left behind and ignored by the cosy elites in Westminster and might be attracted to Corbyn. No idea how it will play out. Fascinating.
His opponents need to decide if they're going to axe him or roll over. Or adopt the Brown/Miliband approach of wibbling about regicide and then fluffing it at every opportunity.
Josh Day Keith Vaz responds to "poetic" Jeremy Corbyn speech: “It wasn’t so much a speech as a date. I felt I was on a date with Jeremy.” #Lab15
Pass the sick bag. I was a bit amused to see Vaz with belly dancers at the Labour "Diversity night". Reminded me of a night in north London at a lesbian club with belly dancers. My best man never forgot it and brought it up in his wedding speech........
His opponents need to decide if they're going to axe him or roll over. Or adopt the Brown/Miliband approach of wibbling about regicide and then fluffing it at every opportunity.
The last person to organise a coup within Labour was Watto, and I don't think he wants to give up his deputy leader job any time soon
Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"
Says a disgruntled Blairite.
I've not seen the speech so won't comment on it directly. I will however note that those commentators and activists who criticised Miliband's speeches were on the money.
If Corbyn's speech was poor then it's hardly surprising. He's had little time to prepare and has had no training in this sort of thing. If he's lucky, he'll get some decent clips this evening and the news cycle will move on before it falls apart (which badly prepared speeches tend to). If he's not, then it just adds to the view that he's not up to the job.
Corbyn's speech was too long and rambling and not well presented but it had effective moments of passion that may be on the TV clips tonight. He is different from Milliband. He might be as ineffective but in a different way. Too early to say. The Betfair odds on a Labour majority of 5.3 when I last looked seem a bit short. I'm on NOM but a lot can happen.
Your points are well made.
how do you get a majority of 5.3?
:-) The odds are 5.3 on a Labour majority. I could have phrased it better.
no offence was intended and I'm glad none was taken
But what was the headline? And more importantly, what was the clip? Remember, the next election won’t be decided in the pages of the New Statesman. It’ll be the five-second clips between bits of music on the radio, the pictures on Sky News that play in Wetherspoon’s, and the soundbite on the evening news. With the exception of the final line about not "taking what's given", this speech lacked anything that will make those five second clips.
"For instance, included in Labour’s numbers is James Lupton, a former Barings banker who is a trustee of the British Museum; Martyn Arbib, best known for setting up mutual fund firm Perpetual Investment; private equity entrepreneur Adrian Beecroft; and Edmund Truell, chairman of the London Pension Fund Authority."
Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"
Says a disgruntled Blairite.
I've not seen the speech so won't comment on it directly. I will however note that those commentators and activists who criticised Miliband's speeches were on the money.
If Corbyn's speech was poor then it's hardly surprising. He's had little time to prepare and has had no training in this sort of thing. If he's lucky, he'll get some decent clips this evening and the news cycle will move on before it falls apart (which badly prepared speeches tend to). If he's not, then it just adds to the view that he's not up to the job.
Corbyn's speech was too long and rambling and not well presented but it had effective moments of passion that may be on the TV clips tonight. He is different from Milliband. He might be as ineffective but in a different way. Too early to say. The Betfair odds on a Labour majority of 5.3 when I last looked seem a bit short. I'm on NOM but a lot can happen.
Your points are well made.
how do you get a majority of 5.3?
:-) The odds are 5.3 on a Labour majority. I could have phrased it better.
Labour majority at GE2020 depends more on how the LD and the SNP does rather than Labour / Conservative.
We must not forget in the "disastrous" GE2015 election, there was actually a swing to Labour from GE2010. In fact , some of that swing to Labour cost the LDs a few seats.
Arithmetically, a Labour majority is daunting. Though depriving the Tories a majority is not.
You see, you can make a good argument without using unnecessary language
Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"
Says a disgruntled Blairite.
I've not seen the speech so won't comment on it directly. I will however note that those commentators and activists who criticised Miliband's speeches were on the money.
If Corbyn's speech was poor then it's hardly surprising. He's had little time to prepare and has had no training in this sort of thing. If he's lucky, he'll get some decent clips this evening and the news cycle will move on before it falls apart (which badly prepared speeches tend to). If he's not, then it just adds to the view that he's not up to the job.
Corbyn's speech was too long and rambling and not well presented but it had effective moments of passion that may be on the TV clips tonight. He is different from Milliband. He might be as ineffective but in a different way. Too early to say. The Betfair odds on a Labour majority of 5.3 when I last looked seem a bit short. I'm on NOM but a lot can happen.
Your points are well made.
how do you get a majority of 5.3?
:-) The odds are 5.3 on a Labour majority. I could have phrased it better.
Labour majority at GE2020 depends more on how the LD and the SNP does rather than Labour / Conservative.
We must not forget in the "disastrous" GE2015 election, there was actually a swing to Labour from GE2010. In fact , some of that swing to Labour cost the LDs a few seats.
Arithmetically, a Labour majority is daunting. Though depriving the Tories a majority is not.
Quite. That is why I'm on NOM at 2.74 rather than Labour majority on 5.6. But it's a heck of a long time to invest your cash. There's only a £1000 invested on Betfair. Mine is a token amount just to get some money on the table.
Corbyn's speech seems to have gone down an absolute storm on Twitter amongst his supporters.
He's keeping his job till 2020, you heard it here first.
That is very good news that all Conservatives will welcome.
Not all. Some would prefer a good opposition to keep the Tories honest and to avert any temptation into complacency which could result in catastrophe and JC as PM.
The figure of £55m came, I believe, from a Labour Party document where they had lumped donations from anyone vaguely connected with any financial institution as 'donations from hedge funds'. But feel free to research it if you think the £55m is right.
It wasn't me who accused someone of lying. I genuinely don't know whether £55m is correct or not. Just wondered how you were so sure it was a lie.
Off topic Now that our politics have returned to the 1980s I have bought tickets for Icicle Works tomorrow night. One for the Labour party? "We are, we are, we are but your children Finding our way around indecision We are, we are, we are rather helpless Take us forever, a whisper to a scream"
Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"
Says a disgruntled Blairite.
I've not seen the speech so won't comment on it directly. I will however note that those commentators and activists who criticised Miliband's speeches were on the money.
If Corbyn's speech was poor then it's hardly surprising. He's had little time to prepare and has had no training in this sort of thing. If he's lucky, he'll get some decent clips this evening and the news cycle will move on before it falls apart (which badly prepared speeches tend to). If he's not, then it just adds to the view that he's not up to the job.
Corbyn's speech was too long and rambling and not well presented but it had effective moments of passion that may be on the TV clips tonight. He is different from Milliband. He might be as ineffective but in a different way. Too early to say. The Betfair odds on a Labour majority of 5.3 when I last looked seem a bit short. I'm on NOM but a lot can happen.
Your points are well made.
how do you get a majority of 5.3?
:-) The odds are 5.3 on a Labour majority. I could have phrased it better.
Labour majority at GE2020 depends more on how the LD and the SNP does rather than Labour / Conservative.
We must not forget in the "disastrous" GE2015 election, there was actually a swing to Labour from GE2010. In fact , some of that swing to Labour cost the LDs a few seats.
Arithmetically, a Labour majority is daunting. Though depriving the Tories a majority is not.
Quite. That is why I'm on NOM at 2.74 rather than Labour majority on 5.6. But it's a heck of a long time to invest your cash. There's only a £1000 invested on Betfair. Mine is a token amount just to get some money on the table.
I think you're forgetting that it was only the LIB-LAB swing that resulted in a swing to Labour. Also - there must be a fair number of people who are going to be put off by Labour's current platform. Labour have positioned themselves well to the left of the Bell Curve, where there are by definition fewer voters and some Blairites may flirt with the Lib Dems. There is also the Boundary commission who presumably are going to have their recommendations applied. And the fact that Labour could (incredibly compared to their position a year ago) pick up lots of votes in Scotland without gaining seats. The odds against NOM must be much more than 2.74 (at the moment). (Not that I am a betting man, I come here for the thoughts)
People who will be removed from the register unless they apply to register under the new system If you haven’t already applied individually to be on the electoral register, you’ll receive a letter asking you to register. If you don't register under the new system your name will be removed on the 1 December.
Except that the Tories have brought forward the cut-off date for doing so.
This is quite clearly so that the Boundary Commission will draw up the boundaries before people have got round to getting registered - in some places more than others.
The result will be an even larger gerrymandering of the boundaries in favour of the Tories than it otherwise would have been.
The Tories are very good at gerrymandering the boundaries to suit their own convenience. Everybody recognises this.
"Everybody" is this the same "everybody" who voted for JC?
No it is them + all the bitter LDs who got shafted in May
Corbyn's speech seems to have gone down an absolute storm on Twitter amongst his supporters.
He's keeping his job till 2020, you heard it here first.
That is very good news that all Conservatives will welcome.
Not all. Some would prefer a good opposition to keep the Tories honest and to avert any temptation into complacency which could result in catastrophe and JC as PM.
An interesting theory. But the problems of adam barsteward tory mps mainly arose in the period when they had a tiny majority and a resurgent Labour party (92-97).
At lunchtime I was at a fringe meeting where the Daily Mail was blamed for the fact that the public support welfare reform. Now, that newspaper is bought by just 3 per cent of the population – which, to put it into perspective, is even smaller than the number who support the Liberal Democrats. So why do 60 per cent of the public support welfare reform? Is each edition of the Daily Mail being passed around 20 times?
Comments
I wonder if this actually is a sign of the tightening of the labour market - companies making virtue out of necessity.
Unless, unless that is, it's all a big con and he'll have the Labour party and movement by the neck come December. Come to think of it, it's exactly the way the Taliban works.
"Giving a political speech looks like a straightforward undertaking, but there’s an art and a craft to it and there is a reason why great conferences speeches succeeed. This wasn’t a great conference speech. In fact, judged technically, it was second-rate, or worse. It meandered, it had no real structure (at one point Corbyn even appeared to repeat himself), and it lacked an obvious punch. Oratory - even the low-grade stuff you get a British party conference - is about crafting messages in a form so that they resonate, and stir the heart, and lodge in the mind (at least for a week or so). With this one, it was not even clear what the one over-riding message was.
Yet that’s the old politics assessment, and the whole point about Corbyn is that he is different, and that he won a surprise election victory because people were fed up with that sort of conventional statecraft. Corbyn explained this well, and perhaps the best bits in the speech were those when he mocked media commentators. The passage about sports reporters dismissing a club with a growing fan base as a failure was particularly effective. To his credit, Corbyn did not allow himself to be tempted into saying anything inauthentic. Much of the speech reflect his long career in grassroots protesting, and even the passage about how he loved Britain because of its values (the one pushed by the spin doctors, anxious to counter the negative impact of anthem-gate) sounded genuine. A more plastic figure could easily have been enticed into phoney patriotism.
Everything he said was consistent with the campaign he ran during the leadership campaign. They wanted an ethical socialist antidote to spin, and that’s what they got this afternoon - even if it went on a bit longer than some of them may have wanted.
Other left/idealist types fed up with the status quo will be enticed as well. But Corbyn had little or nothing to say to people outside the “insurgency bubble” (to coin a phrase), people not stirred by quotes form Keir Hardie, people who may even have voted Conservative. He had a lot to say on housing (or too much - he repeated himself), but he had little to say on health or education and immigration, a key issue for many, was only discussed in terms of the refugee crisis. To return to the football club analogy, the club may have 160,000 new fans. But it lost it’s last big match, it’s been relegated and, on the basis of this speech, the captain/owner hasn’t given any thought at all to why.
It was a sincere speech, and it marked a departure. But it is hard to see how it advances Labour politically."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live#img-1
Death by a thousand hashtags would have been unpalatable for the newspaper of record of the left, so they've had their cake and eaten it.
Thrasher NEV of ~ 8% looks the target for me to have a change of Gov't - which means beating 2012 results by ~ 2%.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/29/morrisons-supermarket-shop-floor-staff-national-living-wage-george-osborne
It's true that there are plenty of UKIP voters who'd put Labour second but then there are plenty of 2015 Lib Dems who'd put the Tories second, so Sean's ballpark figures are probably near the mark. And that lead would be increased a touch further once you add NI in.
I personally thought it was dire. He was all over the place. It was infuriating to watch the shadow front bench sat their like nodding dogs.
All well and good and if he had left it there, although by all means throw in rail nationalisation, Trident, and some battier policy bits (it's what he believes after all), and then somehow unveiled some kind of swords into ploughshares big idea, the whole lot coming in at 27mins, it would have been ok.
As it was it was rambling, repetitive, unfocused, repetitive, unintelligible, we're nice the Cons are monsters, Maya Angelou here, Ben Okri there, where's that knitting needle to stick in my eye....as you say talking to the Corbynistas.
Not 0.0001mm further on from May 6th, sadly. And of course we all know what happened on May 7th.
"I'm a lady don't you know, and have been voting Tory as a lady, for over 35 years. From now on as a Tory lady..."
Complacency beware.
So much promise at the start..
There are two other major reasons why it is not proportional:
1. Winner takes all constituencies are inherently not proportional. (Hence UKIP 13% and one seat, against the SNP with 56 seats on a third of the vote share.)
2. There is tactical voting against parties. (I would tactically vote against the Green Party, for example.)
Sometimes a first relegation is followed by another. Especially when the club thinks it is too big to go down again.
UKIP might end up being a useful halfway house for the Tories, in terms of converting familially-loyal Labour voters.
If I hadn't lived it - I wouldn't believe it.
Best get Mrs K a burka for Christmas or as its soon to be known just another Allahday.
FFS get a grip.
Prepare to be shafted shellacked and shitupon.
Using my 2015 result spreadsheet I make it Right 357, Left 276.
However that assumes 100% of the UKIP vote is Right. But there is evidence that UKIP harmed Labour more than Tories as much of the Tory UKIP vote went home to Tory, but many of the WWC stayed with UKIP.
If you assume the UKIP vote is 50/50 Right and Left then the totals become Right 284, Left 348.
The fight for the UKIP vote is critical.
You were less bitter while being smug before the election, you should chill out and think back to happier times before Ed utterly fecked Labour.
Admittedly this Grintz chap seems to be a particularly unpleasant specimen. His Twitter description says: "Gay, Anti-racist, Anti-fascist, no borders. Labour party, UAF, Unite the Union, Artist, Sculptor. #Abbot4London #Corbyn4leader".
I wonder if the Labour Party and Unite the Union welcome his, err, support?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34390935
Would a 'single father' get treated similarly?
Until then, a tune.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W747FdqeFpA
I'm sure this has been gone into in previous years, but how does the convention that the party conferences are in this order (LibDem.Lab/Con) come about? Or am I utterly and completely wrong and this is in fact not a convention?
"there is now a narrow pro-Corbyn majority on the NEC, making rule changes significantly easier and quicker to pass, requiring just one Conference as opposed to the usual two to be enacted."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-secures-his-first-big-victory-labour-party-conference
Just been sent pre-pubescent Nazi @JoshyNatSoc's address
Also he claims to be at the Labour Conference and organising a fringe event.
But I suppose his brand of hate-filled bile, prejudice and intimidation is cuddly, Labour, Corbynista, new-politics-style hate-filled bile, prejudice and intimidation, so it's OK.
"Admittedly this Grintz chap seems to be a particularly unpleasant specimen. His Twitter description says: "Gay, Anti-racist, Anti-fascist, no borders. Labour party........"
Yes. Sounds terrible doesn't he.
He's keeping his job till 2020, you heard it here first.
Now actually read some of his tweets.
Or is your prejudice so overwhelming that you'd actually stoop to the level of not being disgusted by what he says?
0.0
Keith Vaz responds to "poetic" Jeremy Corbyn speech: “It wasn’t so much a speech as a date. I felt I was on a date with Jeremy.” #Lab15
We must not forget in the "disastrous" GE2015 election, there was actually a swing to Labour from GE2010. In fact , some of that swing to Labour cost the LDs a few seats.
Arithmetically, a Labour majority is daunting. Though depriving the Tories a majority is not.
The breakeven % that leaves right and left on 316 seats each is 77% of UKIP go right, 23% go left.
The UKIP voters who are anti-immigration and anti-Europe I don't expect to be attracted to Corbyn. But I suspect some UKIP voters are ex-Labour who just feel left behind and ignored by the cosy elites in Westminster and might be attracted to Corbyn. No idea how it will play out. Fascinating.
His opponents need to decide if they're going to axe him or roll over. Or adopt the Brown/Miliband approach of wibbling about regicide and then fluffing it at every opportunity.
Jezzas balls are so big he has to carry them in a massive brown holdall.
I was a bit amused to see Vaz with belly dancers at the Labour "Diversity night".
Reminded me of a night in north London at a lesbian club with belly dancers. My best man never forgot it and brought it up in his wedding speech........
Labour included a whole bunch of people who are nothing to do with Hedge Funds in their figures. See here:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/hedge-funds-other-tory-donors-123600812.html
"For instance, included in Labour’s numbers is James Lupton, a former Barings banker who is a trustee of the British Museum; Martyn Arbib, best known for setting up mutual fund firm Perpetual Investment; private equity entrepreneur Adrian Beecroft; and Edmund Truell, chairman of the London Pension Fund Authority."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34395540
EU called in by Force India and Sauber, who accuse the sport of being unlawfully run:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34388544
4/6
Still available with Victor.
Had a little topup.
Politics Home
Downing Street: "It’s not clear what Jeremy Corbyn is suggesting the Government do to help workers in Redcar." #BBCNEWS
@adamboultonSKY
COMMENT Corbyn's speech managed to give both the Labour Conf and the Tories everything they were hoping for
I would add that it's pretty unscientific.
Now that our politics have returned to the 1980s I have bought tickets for Icicle Works tomorrow night. One for the Labour party?
"We are, we are, we are but your children
Finding our way around indecision
We are, we are, we are rather helpless
Take us forever, a whisper to a scream"
Whisper To A Scream
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 11m11 minutes ago
I liked the speech. But that's because he only mentioned 3 buzzwordbingo options. Well done Jez.
Austerity 1-3
Poverty 1-10
Food banks 1-5
Migrants and trident avoided at 1-3; and all bigger priced words dodged too.
Luckily I steered clear of this one.