Much as I'm no fan of Labour - let alone Corbyn - the Tories need a functioning opposition to keep them on their toes (and no, the 'one-trick-ponies' from the SNP don't count) - and whatever the result of the ballot, it looks like we're still some way from that.....
I remember talking to my Dad about that when I was a kid.
His business had only one major competitor which ran into trouble in the early 1990s following a change in management. I commented that I thought that was great - and was surprised when he disagreed strongly: he was worried about the risk of complacency setting in among his partners.
Many decades ago, my dad's business was owed a rather large sum by a competitor (yet, as is the nature of these things, they also worked together on some projects). The competitor was run by a young man, and he went bankrupt through a combination of trying to expand to fast and a little bad luck.
My dad decided he was not going to chase the money for various reasons.
The competitor started a new business, and when my dad retired years later, brought part of my dad's firm out. A cheque arrived with the correct amount for the deal. In another envelope came another cheque, with the sum owed from a couple of decades before, plus interest.
Tony Blair has been receiving an extraordinary pension of up to £80,000 a year since the day he quit Downing Street.
.......Currently aged 49, Mr Cameron will have to wait until he turns 65 to get the still-generous income of around £20,000.
He will also be entitled to a backbench MPs’ pension - still a gold-plated final salary settlement of around £26,000 a year that most workers can only dream of.
Presumably John Major got the higher pension, and Gordon Brown, like Cameron, must wait to claim the lower pension.
The modifications came in in 2013, I think.
So in addition to cutting his successor's salary just before he left, Mr Brown could also have taken the immediate "pension".
It would take an FOI to find out, but I would not be surprised given my subterranean opinion of Gordon Brown.
The Mail article quoted by CarlottaVance says not, describing Blair as the last Prime Minister to accept the extremely generous non-contributory package, equivalent to half his salary as premier. The figure is even higher as Gordon Brown and then David Cameron took significantly lower pay than the £196,000 Mr Blair was on.
Much as I'm no fan of Labour - let alone Corbyn - the Tories need a functioning opposition to keep them on their toes (and no, the 'one-trick-ponies' from the SNP don't count) - and whatever the result of the ballot, it looks like we're still some way from that.....
Ha Ha Ha , at least they have a trick , not just a bunch of donkeys running about knifing each other.
Malcolm, isn't that a bit harsh? In my experience donkeys are placid and amiable creatures and not given to fighting of any sort, certainly not with knives.
ydoethur, You are correct and I apologise to real donkeys everywhere. I shall use some suitable alternative in future.
I think in future we shall all be measuring the viciousness of gang warfare by how closely it resembles the Labour Party!
The benchmark for a gangland war is still the Tories. The heads of the other five mafia families all slain, whilst Capo May was sat in church, all innocent....
The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.
There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.
So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.
ie they are on the road to becoming like UKIP: a well-organised pressure group promoting a vision of the world that is on the whole deeply antithetical to the vast majority of voters, but which maintains a core non-trivial sized rump with which to harry the established parties.
Please please please please please Can Stephen Kinnock enter the race
That well known, millionaire man of the people, married to Danish politics aristocracy, son of leftwing political aristocracy, small welsh village representing lover of all things EU related? That's just what Labour need. You should be ashamed of yourself, putting your betting before the country!
Please please please please please Can Stephen Kinnock enter the race
That well known, millionaire man of the people, married to Danish politics aristocracy, son of leftwing political aristocracy, small welsh village representing lover of all things EU related? That's just what Labour need. You should be ashamed of yourself, putting your betting before the country!
Bolleaux. If millionaire champagne socialists were barred from the Labour Party the rump would fit round a table at the Eagle in Farringdon Road.
Listen to him he talks a lot of sense, in an authentic way.
I see it as a win for the Labour Party, the Country, and my pocket.
The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.
There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.
So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.
What I find so surprising/predictable is that the plotters don't have an alternative policy agenda. They were truly spanked last summer and have done sod all about coming up with an answer.
It's the most basic thing. If you're a politician - what are you trying to do bar keep your seat? None of them seem to have a thought of their own.
The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.
There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.
So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.
ie they are on the road to becoming like UKIP: a well-organised pressure group promoting a vision of the world that is on the whole deeply antithetical to the vast majority of voters, but which maintains a core non-trivial sized rump with which to harry the established parties.
Good luck to 'em.
I'd be grateful if you could outline that vision of the world that Ukip promote.
Chap on R4 just said that it was vital that CLPs meet so that they can decide how their members should vote.
@rosschawkins: 2 srcs say NEC suspended all CLP & branch meetings till new leader elected because of concern about harassment, intimidation and bullying
The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.
There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.
So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.
ie they are on the road to becoming like UKIP: a well-organised pressure group promoting a vision of the world that is on the whole deeply antithetical to the vast majority of voters, but which maintains a core non-trivial sized rump with which to harry the established parties.
Good luck to 'em.
I'd be grateful if you could outline that vision of the world that Ukip promote.
I genuinely thought it'd be the Tories who would be consumed by some sort of crisis after the EU Referendum. Instead, the tories seem to have steadied the ship, while Labour, who should really be hammering the tories by now, have gone buck wild. Shows what I know about politics!
I still think there's a potential for the Tories to go all Corn Laws over Brexit in the next few years.
Tony Blair has been receiving an extraordinary pension of up to £80,000 a year since the day he quit Downing Street.
.......Currently aged 49, Mr Cameron will have to wait until he turns 65 to get the still-generous income of around £20,000.
He will also be entitled to a backbench MPs’ pension - still a gold-plated final salary settlement of around £26,000 a year that most workers can only dream of.
Presumably John Major got the higher pension, and Gordon Brown, like Cameron, must wait to claim the lower pension.
The modifications came in in 2013, I think.
So in addition to cutting his successor's salary just before he left, Mr Brown could also have taken the immediate "pension".
It would take an FOI to find out, but I would not be surprised given my subterranean opinion of Gordon Brown.
The Mail article quoted by CarlottaVance says not, describing Blair as the last Prime Minister to accept the extremely generous non-contributory package, equivalent to half his salary as premier. The figure is even higher as Gordon Brown and then David Cameron took significantly lower pay than the £196,000 Mr Blair was on.
The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.
There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.
So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.
What I find so surprising/predictable is that the plotters don't have an alternative policy agenda. They were truly spanked last summer and have done sod all about coming up with an answer.
It's the most basic thing. If you're a politician - what are you trying to do bar keep your seat? None of them seem to have a thought of their own.
For 4 years after getting elected you jockey for position hoping you pick the right "team" to support, you then spend a year trying to get re-elected. I spent some time with these people, they are even more ghastly than you can imagine.
I genuinely thought it'd be the Tories who would be consumed by some sort of crisis after the EU Referendum. Instead, the tories seem to have steadied the ship, while Labour, who should really be hammering the tories by now, have gone buck wild. Shows what I know about politics!
Those of us who said the Tory party would be just fine and dandy after the Referendum did used to get a bit of a kicking for suggesting such an outlandish notion...
The Tories have a focus - power. Labour? Who knows....
Much as I'm no fan of Labour - let alone Corbyn - the Tories need a functioning opposition to keep them on their toes (and no, the 'one-trick-ponies' from the SNP don't count) - and whatever the result of the ballot, it looks like we're still some way from that.....
Ha Ha Ha , at least they have a trick , not just a bunch of donkeys running about knifing each other.
Malcolm, isn't that a bit harsh? In my experience donkeys are placid and amiable creatures and not given to fighting of any sort, certainly not with knives.
ydoethur, You are correct and I apologise to real donkeys everywhere. I shall use some suitable alternative in future.
I think in future we shall all be measuring the viciousness of gang warfare by how closely it resembles the Labour Party!
The benchmark for a gangland war is still the Tories. The heads of the other five mafia families all slain, whilst Capo May was sat in church, all innocent....
'Tell Theresa it was only business. I always liked her.'
The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.
There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.
So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.
ie they are on the road to becoming like UKIP: a well-organised pressure group promoting a vision of the world that is on the whole deeply antithetical to the vast majority of voters, but which maintains a core non-trivial sized rump with which to harry the established parties.
Good luck to 'em.
I'd be grateful if you could outline that vision of the world that Ukip promote.
The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.
There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.
So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.
What I find so surprising/predictable is that the plotters don't have an alternative policy agenda. They were truly spanked last summer and have done sod all about coming up with an answer.
It's the most basic thing. If you're a politician - what are you trying to do bar keep your seat? None of them seem to have a thought of their own.
But the discontent is not about policy per se. It's about Corbyn the individual.
Chap on R4 just said that it was vital that CLPs meet so that they can decide how their members should vote.
@rosschawkins: 2 srcs say NEC suspended all CLP & branch meetings till new leader elected because of concern about harassment, intimidation and bullying
But mostly, because of deselection.
This doesn't stop all the plotting either - it just puts off the evil day when it springs into the light.
Given what Momentum did in Brighton & Hove earlier this week, it'll take formidable effort to keep control.
The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.
There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.
So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.
ie they are on the road to becoming like UKIP: a well-organised pressure group promoting a vision of the world that is on the whole deeply antithetical to the vast majority of voters, but which maintains a core non-trivial sized rump with which to harry the established parties.
Good luck to 'em.
I'd be grateful if you could outline that vision of the world that Ukip promote.
Well I'd say ordinary people get excited about a pay rise, or watching Beyonce, or going to a wedding, not the nomination of a non-descript politician.
Well I'd say ordinary people get excited about a pay rise, or watching Beyonce, or going to a wedding, not the nomination of a non-descript politician.
Whatever rocks your boat I guess.
There are several layers of irony in the fact that you posted that.
I genuinely thought it'd be the Tories who would be consumed by some sort of crisis after the EU Referendum. Instead, the tories seem to have steadied the ship, while Labour, who should really be hammering the tories by now, have gone buck wild. Shows what I know about politics!
I think the decision to publish Chillcott was intended to distract/place the focus on labour, after Dave won the referendum.
That was going to be the real crunch time for him - and he knew it.
Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.
Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.
I've seen this misconception about the process several times. Perhaps TSE can write a thread explaining the voting system used in the Labour leadership election and its merits.
Tony Blair has been receiving an extraordinary pension of up to £80,000 a year since the day he quit Downing Street.
.......Currently aged 49, Mr Cameron will have to wait until he turns 65 to get the still-generous income of around £20,000.
He will also be entitled to a backbench MPs’ pension - still a gold-plated final salary settlement of around £26,000 a year that most workers can only dream of.
Presumably John Major got the higher pension, and Gordon Brown, like Cameron, must wait to claim the lower pension.
The modifications came in in 2013, I think.
So in addition to cutting his successor's salary just before he left, Mr Brown could also have taken the immediate "pension".
It would take an FOI to find out, but I would not be surprised given my subterranean opinion of Gordon Brown.
The Mail article quoted by CarlottaVance says not, describing Blair as the last Prime Minister to accept the extremely generous non-contributory package, equivalent to half his salary as premier. The figure is even higher as Gordon Brown and then David Cameron took significantly lower pay than the £196,000 Mr Blair was on.
He cut it from 5 April 2010 - i.e. so he had lower pay for only 1 month. It was a spiteful thing to do.
Let's not forget the 50p tax rate that the Labour Party increased days before they were kicked out and constantly hammered the Tories for even when they reduced it to 45p and collected more tax as a result.
Labour opportunistic chancers and I am enjoying their demise. Hopefully this time it will be permanent
PS. I have never been out of work under a Tory administration but lost my job 3 times under a Labour admin. One of those times was with Union connivance. .
I only remember his walk away from Downing St with his family.
Different circumstances - he just lost an election so his last PMQs was before that. And he resigned as party leader the last day, rather than continue as LOTO for a few months as Major had (I always thought this was because he couldn't bear face Dave from the other side of the House).
Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.
Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.
One could still argue that having a single challenger makes it a simpler contest. TBH, I'd like Labour members to have a choice. Offering up a single candidate just encourages talk of What-If.
Also it is well know in preferential elections that there is a seepage of votes as each round takes place. There are always people who don't understand, or can't be bothered, to do more than mark a first preference. There are others who think making a first and second choice is enough. Or who give up after 1,2,3 etc. People who don't know enough about all the candidates and don't bother to find out once they have decided who to support.
So you never get a perfect transfer, even when to an informed observer it is obvious who the votes *ought* sensibly to transfer to. So, where there is one front-runner and a series of challengers, more challengers reduces all of their chances.
I only remember his walk away from Downing St with his family.
Different circumstances - he just lost an election so his last PMQs was before that. And he resigned as party leader the last day, rather than continue as LOTO for a few months as Major had (I always thought this was because he couldn't bear face Dave from the other side of the House).
Many thanks - I just recall the interregnum, speculation Gordon would try to hang on regardless. He disappeared for months afterwards and then made a very strange speech in the HoC.
Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.
Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.
In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not so sure, for two reasons.
Firstly, a first round result of 45/28/27 with the second and third votes then combining to win the run-off not only demonstrates very strong positive support for the defeated candidate who many will claim to have 'won' by conflating the FPTP implied result with the actual one as conducted under the rules, but will also - crucially - show the true weakness of the base of the final elected leader: they've been chosen not for who they are but for who they're not. Momentum would quickly latch on to the '72%' who didn't vote for whoever won and recite Churchill's comment about the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidate (without citation, presumably).
Secondly, the dynamic of the race itself would be different. Rather than it being mainstream vs Momentum, it would add an additional element of the intra-mainstream contest, where Smith and Eagle would have to fight each other, weakening their attacks on Corbyn, sustaining some intra-mainstream damage and enabling Momentum to try to divide and rule. If not only Corbyn but the other mainstream candidate makes both challengers look a bit useless - and there is that possibility - then there'll be some Labour loyalists who'll conclude that the case for change hasn't been proven and will give the benefit of the doubt to the leader.
I agree with Mr. Barasi that the rules (to this extent) help Eagle. However, it does seem odd that last time anyone signing up could vote, whereas now there's a cut-off from about six months ago.
Also, what of the mischievous Three Pounders? I suspect their numbers have been exaggerated, but they may well conclude that they've had their fun and having an actual Opposition is a good thing.
Smith standing, if he makes the ballot, is good for Corbyn. Some people will just vote once. There'll be far more Eagle-Smith switchers than Corbyn-Eagle or Corbyn-Smith, so voters effectively dropping out (if it gets to that stage) would benefit Corbyn.
Chap on R4 just said that it was vital that CLPs meet so that they can decide how their members should vote.
@rosschawkins: 2 srcs say NEC suspended all CLP & branch meetings till new leader elected because of concern about harassment, intimidation and bullying
But mostly, because of deselection.
This sums up Labour's problem. The only people who want to join the Party are those who want to destroy it. That is Blair's legacy - the recognition amongst left activists and would-be activists that Parliamentary democracy cannot produce any significantly greater degree of egalitarianism.
Also, what of the mischievous Three Pounders? I suspect their numbers have been exaggerated, but they may well conclude that they've had their fun and having an actual Opposition is a good thing.
I think the number of "mischievous £3" was actually quite low. The vast majority will be "Momentum".
Heard an anecdote yesterday at the local Lib Dem meeting - there was a social event full of mostly Labour supporters and after about an hour, the local Corbyn chief asked everyone to leave the room except "Momentum" members as they were having a meeting.
Not even a pretence of a Labour party meeting, a pure momentum plot and scheme.
Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.
Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.
In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not so sure, for two reasons.
Firstly, a first round result of 45/28/27 with the second and third votes then combining to win the run-off not only demonstrates very strong positive support for the defeated candidate who many will claim to have 'won' by conflating the FPTP implied result with the actual one as conducted under the rules, but will also - crucially - show the true weakness of the base of the final elected leader: they've been chosen not for who they are but for who they're not. Momentum would quickly latch on to the '72%' who didn't vote for whoever won and recite Churchill's comment about the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidate (without citation, presumably).
Secondly, the dynamic of the race itself would be different. Rather than it being mainstream vs Momentum, it would add an additional element of the intra-mainstream contest, where Smith and Eagle would have to fight each other, weakening their attacks on Corbyn, sustaining some intra-mainstream damage and enabling Momentum to try to divide and rule. If not only Corbyn but the other mainstream candidate makes both challengers look a bit useless - and there is that possibility - then there'll be some Labour loyalists who'll conclude that the case for change hasn't been proven and will give the benefit of the doubt to the leader.
The battle has to be the PLP (via one representative) vs Corbyn - with the focus on do you want to ever govern again or just want to be a protest party. Anything else means fighting amongst the candidates as Corbyn sneaks down the left flank and wins (as shown last year)
The question is can Angela remove herself from the election now she's been nominated. If not and Owen is also on the ballot the PLP loses....
I half expect them to lose anyway (I don't think the stitch up helps the PLP as much as they think it does) but if its 2 vs 1 they have lost...
Also, what of the mischievous Three Pounders? I suspect their numbers have been exaggerated, but they may well conclude that they've had their fun and having an actual Opposition is a good thing.
I think the number of "mischievous £3" was actually quite low.
Mischievous £3 has become a cheeky £25. Inflation is running out of control after Brexit.
Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.
Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.
In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not so sure, for two reasons.
Firstly, a first round result of 45/28/27 with the second and third votes then combining to win the run-off not only demonstrates very strong positive support for the defeated candidate who many will claim to have 'won' by conflating the FPTP implied result with the actual one as conducted under the rules, but will also - crucially - show the true weakness of the base of the final elected leader: they've been chosen not for who they are but for who they're not. Momentum would quickly latch on to the '72%' who didn't vote for whoever won and recite Churchill's comment about the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidate (without citation, presumably).
Secondly, the dynamic of the race itself would be different. Rather than it being mainstream vs Momentum, it would add an additional element of the intra-mainstream contest, where Smith and Eagle would have to fight each other, weakening their attacks on Corbyn, sustaining some intra-mainstream damage and enabling Momentum to try to divide and rule. If not only Corbyn but the other mainstream candidate makes both challengers look a bit useless - and there is that possibility - then there'll be some Labour loyalists who'll conclude that the case for change hasn't been proven and will give the benefit of the doubt to the leader.
The battle has to be the PLP (via one representative) vs Corbyn - with the focus on do you want to ever govern again or just want to be a protest party. Anything else means fighting amongst the candidates as Corbyn sneaks down the left flank and wins (as shown last year)
Labour's membership doesn't want to govern again. Ever.
Also, what of the mischievous Three Pounders? I suspect their numbers have been exaggerated, but they may well conclude that they've had their fun and having an actual Opposition is a good thing.
I think the number of "mischievous £3" was actually quite low.
Mischievous £3 has become a cheeky £25. Inflation is running out of control after Brexit.
Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.
Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.
In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not so sure, for two reasons.
Firstly, a first round result of 45/28/27 with the second and third votes then combining to win the run-off not only demonstrates very strong positive support for the defeated candidate who many will claim to have 'won' by conflating the FPTP implied result with the actual one as conducted under the rules, but will also - crucially - show the true weakness of the base of the final elected leader: they've been chosen not for who they are but for who they're not. Momentum would quickly latch on to the '72%' who didn't vote for whoever won and recite Churchill's comment about the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidate (without citation, presumably).
Secondly, the dynamic of the race itself would be different. Rather than it being mainstream vs Momentum, it would add an additional element of the intra-mainstream contest, where Smith and Eagle would have to fight each other, weakening their attacks on Corbyn, sustaining some intra-mainstream damage and enabling Momentum to try to divide and rule. If not only Corbyn but the other mainstream candidate makes both challengers look a bit useless - and there is that possibility - then there'll be some Labour loyalists who'll conclude that the case for change hasn't been proven and will give the benefit of the doubt to the leader.
The battle has to be the PLP (via one representative) vs Corbyn - with the focus on do you want to ever govern again or just want to be a protest party. Anything else means fighting amongst the candidates as Corbyn sneaks down the left flank and wins (as shown last year)
It also invites the challenger candidates to repeat the error of last time - i.e. being scared of alienating the Wrong Sort of Voter. Bar Kendall, they tip-toed around the whole thing and ended up saying nothing.
Tony Blair has been receiving an extraordinary pension of up to £80,000 a year since the day he quit Downing Street.
.......Currently aged 49, Mr Cameron will have to wait until he turns 65 to get the still-generous income of around £20,000.
He will also be entitled to a backbench MPs’ pension - still a gold-plated final salary settlement of around £26,000 a year that most workers can only dream of.
Presumably John Major got the higher pension, and Gordon Brown, like Cameron, must wait to claim the lower pension.
The modifications came in in 2013, I think.
So in addition to cutting his successor's salary just before he left, Mr Brown could also have taken the immediate "pension".
It would take an FOI to find out, but I would not be surprised given my subterranean opinion of Gordon Brown.
The Mail article quoted by CarlottaVance says not, describing Blair as the last Prime Minister to accept the extremely generous non-contributory package, equivalent to half his salary as premier. The figure is even higher as Gordon Brown and then David Cameron took significantly lower pay than the £196,000 Mr Blair was on.
He cut it from 5 April 2010 - i.e. so he had lower pay for only 1 month. It was a spiteful thing to do.
Let's not forget the 50p tax rate that the Labour Party increased days before they were kicked out and constantly hammered the Tories for even when they reduced it to 45p and collected more tax as a result.
Which of course is proof that Osbornes Punishment Budget threatening to put it back up to fill a Brexit revenue gap was a bigger whopper than anything the Brexiteers managed.
Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.
Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.
In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not so sure, for two reasons.
Firstly, a first round result of 45/28/27 with the second and third votes then combining to win the run-off not only demonstrates very strong positive support for the defeated candidate who many will claim to have 'won' by conflating the FPTP implied result with the actual one as conducted under the rules, but will also - crucially - show the true weakness of the base of the final elected leader: they've been chosen not for who they are but for who they're not. Momentum would quickly latch on to the '72%' who didn't vote for whoever won and recite Churchill's comment about the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidate (without citation, presumably).
Secondly, the dynamic of the race itself would be different. Rather than it being mainstream vs Momentum, it would add an additional element of the intra-mainstream contest, where Smith and Eagle would have to fight each other, weakening their attacks on Corbyn, sustaining some intra-mainstream damage and enabling Momentum to try to divide and rule. If not only Corbyn but the other mainstream candidate makes both challengers look a bit useless - and there is that possibility - then there'll be some Labour loyalists who'll conclude that the case for change hasn't been proven and will give the benefit of the doubt to the leader.
The battle has to be the PLP (via one representative) vs Corbyn - with the focus on do you want to ever govern again or just want to be a protest party. Anything else means fighting amongst the candidates as Corbyn sneaks down the left flank and wins (as shown last year)
Labour's membership doesn't want to govern again. Ever.
But at least if they vote and decide that, the part of the PLP who do want to govern again can stand up on mass and leave in good heart. The party will have left them, they will just be leaving a party that isn't theirs anymore...
Now Owen Smith is in the race he may have a better chance than Eagle. The former Work and Pensions Secretary is anti austerity and never voted for the Iraq War and originally nominated Corbyn so is ideologically close to Corbyn and could pick up some Corbyn defectors and then if he knocks out Eagle win through her supporters second preferences
Much as I'm no fan of Labour - let alone Corbyn - the Tories need a functioning opposition to keep them on their toes (and no, the 'one-trick-ponies' from the SNP don't count) - and whatever the result of the ballot, it looks like we're still some way from that.....
I remember talking to my Dad about that when I was a kid.
His business had only one major competitor which ran into trouble in the early 1990s following a change in management. I commented that I thought that was great - and was surprised when he disagreed strongly: he was worried about the risk of complacency setting in among his partners.
Definitely the right approach. No competition makes you lazy. Then when competition does appear you are buggered. Owners of strong, market-dominating patents often end up in terrible trouble once the patent term expires for that reason. See Xerox and photocopiers, for example.
Also, what of the mischievous Three Pounders? I suspect their numbers have been exaggerated, but they may well conclude that they've had their fun and having an actual Opposition is a good thing.
I think the number of "mischievous £3" was actually quite low.
Mischievous £3 has become a cheeky £25. Inflation is running out of control after Brexit.
Actually, it's become Join Unite For Free as an associate member - or splash out and pay £2 for a month and become a Unite Community member. Both give you a vote. You don't even need to be in work/in the sectors they operate in to join Unite.
Please please please please please Can Stephen Kinnock enter the race
That well known, millionaire man of the people, married to Danish politics aristocracy, son of leftwing political aristocracy, small welsh village representing lover of all things EU related? That's just what Labour need. You should be ashamed of yourself, putting your betting before the country!
Bolleaux. If millionaire champagne socialists were barred from the Labour Party the rump would fit round a table at the Eagle in Farringdon Road.
Listen to him he talks a lot of sense, in an authentic way.
I see it as a win for the Labour Party, the Country, and my pocket.
Point of order. The Eagle is in the City Road (see nursery rhyme passim).
Farringdon Road has Karl Marx's watering hole, the Betsy Trotwood which is appropriate on so many levels....
Also, what of the mischievous Three Pounders? I suspect their numbers have been exaggerated, but they may well conclude that they've had their fun and having an actual Opposition is a good thing.
I think the number of "mischievous £3" was actually quite low.
Mischievous £3 has become a cheeky £25. Inflation is running out of control after Brexit.
Actually, it's become Join Unite For Free as an associate member - or splash out and pay £2 for a month and become a Unite Community member. Both give you a vote. You don't even need to be in work/in the sectors they operate in to join Unite.
Serious Q - are such routes still subject to the 'check' that you support labour values and aren't a member of another party - as (supposedly) were the £3'ers?
The Trots are parasites who have been given time to infect the body. Now Labour's immune system is failing. The Corbynoma will metastasis further and only surgery (a complete split) or a wonder drug (Angela doesn't fit the bill) will prevent premature death.
Prepare the funeral rites.
Edit: I also like the Tories Mafia analogy. Tonight, Andrea Leadsom sleeps with the fishes.
Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?
If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.
As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.
Also, what of the mischievous Three Pounders? I suspect their numbers have been exaggerated, but they may well conclude that they've had their fun and having an actual Opposition is a good thing.
I think the number of "mischievous £3" was actually quite low.
Mischievous £3 has become a cheeky £25. Inflation is running out of control after Brexit.
Actually, it's become Join Unite For Free as an associate member - or splash out and pay £2 for a month and become a Unite Community member. Both give you a vote. You don't even need to be in work/in the sectors they operate in to join Unite.
Serious Q - are such routes still subject to the 'check' that you support labour values and aren't a member of another party - as (supposedly) were the £3'ers?
I've not read the Unite site - I linked to it earlier - otherwise Google Unite Community.
IIRC Labour's small Compliance Unit/local parties weeded out the obvious mischief makers - Tory MPs, candidates that stood against Labour in elections/big wigs in other Parties.
There was very little central help - I recall Barry Sheerman complaining that he'd been handed over 300 new members to check himself with about two weeks to go.
Much as I'm no fan of Labour - let alone Corbyn - the Tories need a functioning opposition to keep them on their toes (and no, the 'one-trick-ponies' from the SNP don't count) - and whatever the result of the ballot, it looks like we're still some way from that.....
Ha Ha Ha , at least they have a trick , not just a bunch of donkeys running about knifing each other.
I think your metaphors are in need of unmixing......
Cameron's last full day as Pm included visiting one of the 300 free schools his government created. Apparently he was to spend the next 2 months before bowing out talking about "life chances" and publishing a paper on it. Telegraph: "It meant more to him than Europe ever did."
Why doesn't May make Dave Education Secretary?
Or am I being silly?
I think Cameron would make a good cabinet member. But despite his talk of serving I imagine Cameron will be raking it easy until a GE is called and won't stand for reelection, so not looking for such responsibility, plus May will probably not want to offer him a Rome even if he were willing, clean break and all that.
Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.
Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.
One could still argue that having a single challenger makes it a simpler contest. TBH, I'd like Labour members to have a choice. Offering up a single candidate just encourages talk of What-If.
Also it is well know in preferential elections that there is a seepage of votes as each round takes place. There are always people who don't understand, or can't be bothered, to do more than mark a first preference. There are others who think making a first and second choice is enough. Or who give up after 1,2,3 etc. People who don't know enough about all the candidates and don't bother to find out once they have decided who to support.
So you never get a perfect transfer, even when to an informed observer it is obvious who the votes *ought* sensibly to transfer to. So, where there is one front-runner and a series of challengers, more challengers reduces all of their chances.
Do we know what proportion of ballots are paper? Last time the electronic ballot held the voter's hand through the preference process, with each preference expressed on a different screen from a reducing list.
Casting my eye ahead to the next general election, I wondered if there was a book on how many seats seats Labour could be reduced to .. 150-180 seems a good guess right now.
That assumes a staggering recovery somehow as right now I think they'd struggle to get to 100. In terms of a 2020 election I'd be looking in the 140-160 range at the moment.
I'd happily bet they will do better than that despite their problems, but I'm not tying more eye up for so long.
Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?
If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.
As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.
Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?
If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.
As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.
Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?
If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.
As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.
A 3rd candidate changes the entire election from the future of the party to best possible leader...
If 51 people nominate Owen the PLP is voting for its own destruction and deserves what it gets... This vote needs to be a referendum on do you want to Govern in future or not...
It's leader after Corbyn though. I think the market is assuming that Jezza will defeat Eagle
Won't Owen Smith and Eagle run in the same leadership election?
I've also had a nibble on Rachel Reeves at 220-1 as a long-term prospect.
Ray
I don't think so; It's now or never for Eagle in my opinion, but Smith can run again and win in the future
The party may not hold together long enough for Smith to do so.
Assuming Labour follows a similar timetable to last summer - the result will be announced around conference.
Are you in favour of a single challenger or a choice?
I think there's some merit in what Margaret Hodge said on the Radio this morning - of those that are nominated, the PLP has a vote which is effectively their assessment of who is best placed and there is heavy pressure on all other declared candidates to then stand down and back them, possibly with people withdrawing their nominations to make it happen.
Why am I not alarmed at the prospect of Theresa May becoming prime minister this week without a contested leadership election, let alone a general election, when Gordon Brown’s similar “coronation” in 2007 left me full of foreboding?
Two reasons stand out. The most important is that the British state faces an existential crisis by virtue of 23 June’s slender majority to withdraw from the EU. It desperately needed to fill the power vacuum created by David Cameron’s refusal to stick around and sweep up the broken glass from his reckless referendum gamble.
May’s “Keep Calm” claims were thus enhanced by the fact that she kept her nerve and dignity. Commentators have piled in – here’s Gaby Hinsliff’s excellent piece – to explain her, but Theresa walks by herself, as many successful leaders do.
Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?
If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.
As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.
Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?
If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.
As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.
If Smith knocks out Eagle though he can win
It remains the case, however, that a greater proportion of otherwise Argclu voters would vote for Smith in a straight contest, if she didn't stand, than would transfer to him from her if there are multiple candidates.
Cameron's last full day as Pm included visiting one of the 300 free schools his government created. Apparently he was to spend the next 2 months before bowing out talking about "life chances" and publishing a paper on it. Telegraph: "It meant more to him than Europe ever did."
Why doesn't May make Dave Education Secretary?
Or am I being silly?
I think Cameron would make a good cabinet member. But despite his talk of serving I imagine Cameron will be raking it easy until a GE is called and won't stand for reelection, so not looking for such responsibility, plus May will probably not want to offer him a Rome even if he were willing, clean break and all that.
I gather he wants to set up a Big Society foundation or some-such. His advisers were tasked with this until his G20 swan song was cut short.
O Smith: 5-2 J McDonnell: 5-1 A Eagle: 6-1 C Lewis: 10-1
Someone else 3-1
Something like that
I think id only be interested in a "who will labour leader be on nov 1st" type market. If corbyns leader for years your money is tied up all that time and much can change. Altho if its a betfair trading position thats another option
It's leader after Corbyn though. I think the market is assuming that Jezza will defeat Eagle
Won't Owen Smith and Eagle run in the same leadership election?
I've also had a nibble on Rachel Reeves at 220-1 as a long-term prospect.
Ray
I don't think so; It's now or never for Eagle in my opinion, but Smith can run again and win in the future
The party may not hold together long enough for Smith to do so.
Assuming Labour follows a similar timetable to last summer - the result will be announced around conference.
Are you in favour of a single challenger or a choice?
I think there's some merit in what Margaret Hodge said on the Radio this morning - of those that are nominated, the PLP has a vote which is effectively their assessment of who is best placed and there is heavy pressure on all other declared candidates to then stand down and back them, possibly with people withdrawing their nominations to make it happen.
You'd think she has been looking at the Tory rules recently!
Much as I'm no fan of Labour - let alone Corbyn - the Tories need a functioning opposition to keep them on their toes (and no, the 'one-trick-ponies' from the SNP don't count) - and whatever the result of the ballot, it looks like we're still some way from that.....
I remember talking to my Dad about that when I was a kid.
His business had only one major competitor which ran into trouble in the early 1990s following a change in management. I commented that I thought that was great - and was surprised when he disagreed strongly: he was worried about the risk of complacency setting in among his partners.
Definitely the right approach. No competition makes you lazy. Then when competition does appear you are buggered. Owners of strong, market-dominating patents often end up in terrible trouble once the patent term expires for that reason. See Xerox and photocopiers, for example.
Pfizer and viagra is another example, the Sandwich plant was decimated.
Tony Blair has been receiving an extraordinary pension of up to £80,000 a year since the day he quit Downing Street.
.......Currently aged 49, Mr Cameron will have to wait until he turns 65 to get the still-generous income of around £20,000.
He will also be entitled to a backbench MPs’ pension - still a gold-plated final salary settlement of around £26,000 a year that most workers can only dream of.
Presumably John Major got the higher pension, and Gordon Brown, like Cameron, must wait to claim the lower pension.
The modifications came in in 2013, I think.
So in addition to cutting his successor's salary just before he left, Mr Brown could also have taken the immediate "pension".
It would take an FOI to find out, but I would not be surprised given my subterranean opinion of Gordon Brown.
The Mail article quoted by CarlottaVance says not, describing Blair as the last Prime Minister to accept the extremely generous non-contributory package, equivalent to half his salary as premier. The figure is even higher as Gordon Brown and then David Cameron took significantly lower pay than the £196,000 Mr Blair was on.
He cut it from 5 April 2010 - i.e. so he had lower pay for only 1 month. It was a spiteful thing to do.
Let's not forget the 50p tax rate that the Labour Party increased days before they were kicked out and constantly hammered the Tories for even when they reduced it to 45p and collected more tax as a result.
a bigger whopper than anything the Brexiteers managed.
But not as memorable as '£350million a week for the NHS'
I have never been out of work under a Tory administration but lost my job 3 times under a Labour admin.
Bad luck! Presumably you'll sympathise with the statistically larger amount of people who lost jobs under Conservative governments of the last 40 years, and feel similarly negative towards that party.
O Smith: 5-2 J McDonnell: 5-1 A Eagle: 6-1 C Lewis: 10-1
Someone else 3-1
Something like that
I think id only be interested in a "who will labour leader be on nov 1st" type market. If corbyns leader for years your money is tied up all that time and much can change. Altho if its a betfair trading position thats another option
Once there is an election, there must be such a market, surely? Otherwise how can people bet for or against Corbyn being re-elected?
Owen Smith on Sky sounding sensible - his specs made me smile, they've a pale bit next to the lens - it looks like they've been fixed with an elastoplast.
Comments
My dad decided he was not going to chase the money for various reasons.
The competitor started a new business, and when my dad retired years later, brought part of my dad's firm out. A cheque arrived with the correct amount for the deal. In another envelope came another cheque, with the sum owed from a couple of decades before, plus interest.
He cut it from 5 April 2010 - i.e. so he had lower pay for only 1 month. It was a spiteful thing to do.
Good luck to 'em.
You should be ashamed of yourself, putting your betting before the country!
Listen to him he talks a lot of sense, in an authentic way.
I see it as a win for the Labour Party, the Country, and my pocket.
It's the most basic thing. If you're a politician - what are you trying to do bar keep your seat? None of them seem to have a thought of their own.
As the dust settles, the NEC has made its decision, what exactly has Tom Watson achieved?
But mostly, because of deselection.
The Tories have a focus - power. Labour? Who knows....
Given what Momentum did in Brighton & Hove earlier this week, it'll take formidable effort to keep control.
http://brightonandhoveindependent.co.uk/corbyn-supporters-take-control-brighton-hoves-labour-party/
Whatever rocks your boat I guess.
Next Lab Leader should be (NOT offers)
O Smith: 5-2
J McDonnell: 5-1
A Eagle: 6-1
C Lewis: 10-1
Someone else 3-1
Something like that
That was going to be the real crunch time for him - and he knew it.
Labour opportunistic chancers and I am enjoying their demise. Hopefully this time it will be permanent
PS. I have never been out of work under a Tory administration but lost my job 3 times under a Labour admin. One of those times was with Union connivance. .
Did he get applause like Tony?
I only remember his walk away from Downing St with his family.
So you never get a perfect transfer, even when to an informed observer it is obvious who the votes *ought* sensibly to transfer to. So, where there is one front-runner and a series of challengers, more challengers reduces all of their chances.
A most peculiar fellow.
Firstly, a first round result of 45/28/27 with the second and third votes then combining to win the run-off not only demonstrates very strong positive support for the defeated candidate who many will claim to have 'won' by conflating the FPTP implied result with the actual one as conducted under the rules, but will also - crucially - show the true weakness of the base of the final elected leader: they've been chosen not for who they are but for who they're not. Momentum would quickly latch on to the '72%' who didn't vote for whoever won and recite Churchill's comment about the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidate (without citation, presumably).
Secondly, the dynamic of the race itself would be different. Rather than it being mainstream vs Momentum, it would add an additional element of the intra-mainstream contest, where Smith and Eagle would have to fight each other, weakening their attacks on Corbyn, sustaining some intra-mainstream damage and enabling Momentum to try to divide and rule. If not only Corbyn but the other mainstream candidate makes both challengers look a bit useless - and there is that possibility - then there'll be some Labour loyalists who'll conclude that the case for change hasn't been proven and will give the benefit of the doubt to the leader.
I agree with Mr. Barasi that the rules (to this extent) help Eagle. However, it does seem odd that last time anyone signing up could vote, whereas now there's a cut-off from about six months ago.
Also, what of the mischievous Three Pounders? I suspect their numbers have been exaggerated, but they may well conclude that they've had their fun and having an actual Opposition is a good thing.
Smith standing, if he makes the ballot, is good for Corbyn. Some people will just vote once. There'll be far more Eagle-Smith switchers than Corbyn-Eagle or Corbyn-Smith, so voters effectively dropping out (if it gets to that stage) would benefit Corbyn.
Heard an anecdote yesterday at the local Lib Dem meeting - there was a social event full of mostly Labour supporters and after about an hour, the local Corbyn chief asked everyone to leave the room except "Momentum" members as they were having a meeting.
Not even a pretence of a Labour party meeting, a pure momentum plot and scheme.
The question is can Angela remove herself from the election now she's been nominated. If not and Owen is also on the ballot the PLP loses....
I half expect them to lose anyway (I don't think the stitch up helps the PLP as much as they think it does) but if its 2 vs 1 they have lost...
EXCLUSIVE: Outrage as BBC4 trainspotting live showed class 66 goods train that was really filmed five months ago.
Rail Enthusiasts could teach Militant Tendency a thing or two about infiltration of organisations lol.
Labour. The gift that keeps on giving....
Farringdon Road has Karl Marx's watering hole, the Betsy Trotwood which is appropriate on so many levels....
This gives Owen Smith a big problem.
Prepare the funeral rites.
Edit: I also like the Tories Mafia analogy. Tonight, Andrea Leadsom sleeps with the fishes.
Are you in favour of a single challenger or a choice?
Who is the MP for Barrow in Furness I think he's about the only person who can come out of that OK
If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.
As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.
IIRC Labour's small Compliance Unit/local parties weeded out the obvious mischief makers - Tory MPs, candidates that stood against Labour in elections/big wigs in other Parties.
There was very little central help - I recall Barry Sheerman complaining that he'd been handed over 300 new members to check himself with about two weeks to go.
Clinton 41 .. Trump 29
http://www.rabaresearch.com/documents/RABA-National-Survey-July-2016.pdf
If 51 people nominate Owen the PLP is voting for its own destruction and deserves what it gets... This vote needs to be a referendum on do you want to Govern in future or not...
The latest example is on the West Somerset Railway: http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2016/peace-breaks-out-at-west-somerset-railway/
Clinton 45 .. Trump 38
http://harperpolling.com/polls/colorado-general-election-poll#PresidentialBallot
https://twitter.com/richardbourne49/status/753129443548393472
Nor painted on the side of a bus.....
Presumably you'll sympathise with the statistically larger amount of people who lost jobs under Conservative governments of the last 40 years, and feel similarly negative towards that party.
Have I missed much since midnight? Seems Owen Smith will run. Any news of anyone else?
Do parents still do that to their kids glasses?