Do you seriously believe the Language of the Right wing press that all Corbyn backers are 'Trots'? I know many who would baulk at that, including my local councillor who has been a member for 50 years. They just want a Labour Party that adopts a distinct and more leftist agenda. You have a lot of interesting stuff to say but adopting the terms the Mail would use to stereotype your opposition doesn't do you any favours imho.
Of course not. Maybe its a reaction to being called a "Blairite" by those of the Corbyinites who are Trots (and some others) for opposing Corbyn. That rankles especially with those of us like Southam and I who left the party in disillusionment at the fag end of the New Labour years.
But those pulling Corbyn and Momentum's strings are by and large Trots in that they would be perfectly at home in a far left fringe party as many have been in the past.
And JC himself decided for careerist reasons to stay out of his preferred Trotskyist groupuscule (the IMG) just as he chose to plough his "A" levels in order to pretend to be a horny-handed son of toil. The word you want to describe people like your member for 50 years is "dupe".
Class-based politics are only possible in countries which are both ethnically homogenous and where there is a strong sense of solidarity, e.g. just after winning a war.
Genuine “horny handed sons of toil”, by and large do NOT plough their A levels. They realise their importance.
Were A-levels important in those days? I dimly recall people easing up once they'd got an offer, sometimes unconditional. Did not even David Cameron take his foot off the A-level gas? Of course, by and large, horny handed sons of toil would have left school at 15 or 16.
The Extended Alternative Voting system requires voters to place outcomes in order of preference. Outcomes are the election of a candidate or the exclusion of a candidate. The election proceeds by looking at first preferences so that, for each candidate there will be a score – votes for minus votes against. The candidate with lowest score, which will in all probability be negative, is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated according to the outcomes they give as second preferences. This process continues until one candidate emerges.
This system reflects the reality of preference and opinion when selecting an individual. But then, whatever its merits or flaws, is there any electorate capable of understanding it?
I couldn't find anything on Extended Alternative Voting in a 2 minute google. From what you said it seems that voters put 1, 2,3.. in order of preference, so easy to understand from a voters point of view. It looks like the Single Transferable Vote but the counting must be different. What advantages does it have over STV?
Rod and I were of the same view on the issue. Horrible for Clinton but the fallout was more difficult to predict.
IPSOS tend to show bigger Clinton leads. Better Florida polls for Trump yesterday but all came from pollsters showing similar leads previously and with indifferent 538 ratings and some novel demographic crosstabs.
Presently Clinton holds solid leads in the swing states and a comfortable edge in national polling and it's hers to lose. I have the EC at 347/191
The emails story is too esoteric I think to have much effect. I must admit I thought "so what". I take the point about national security but given she is up against Trump (!) this is somewhat neutralised to say the very least!
The NEC voted to freeze the membership eligibility for the contest to January 12, ruling out at a stroke more than 130,000 new members. A short window for ‘registered supporters’, who paid a fee of £25, would open between 18-20 July.
Corbyn supporters countered with amendments of their own, proposing a June 24 cut-off date (the day after the Brexit vote) and a seven-day sign-up period for registered supporters. The plan to extend the sign-up period to a week was defeated by a show of hands with 16 votes to 10. The plan to change the freeze date to June 24 was tied, with 14 votes for and against, and as a result fell.
I think Corbyn could still lose because of this.
Jezza failed to attend the vote because he was celebrating downstairs ....
Titter ....
Heart Of (Ed)Stone
Yes that made me laugh too. Still think Corbyn will win though!
The NEC voted to freeze the membership eligibility for the contest to January 12, ruling out at a stroke more than 130,000 new members. A short window for ‘registered supporters’, who paid a fee of £25, would open between 18-20 July.
Corbyn supporters countered with amendments of their own, proposing a June 24 cut-off date (the day after the Brexit vote) and a seven-day sign-up period for registered supporters. The plan to extend the sign-up period to a week was defeated by a show of hands with 16 votes to 10. The plan to change the freeze date to June 24 was tied, with 14 votes for and against, and as a result fell.
I think Corbyn could still lose because of this.
Jezza failed to attend the vote because he was celebrating downstairs ....
Titter ....
Heart Of (Ed)Stone
Yes that made me laugh too. Still think Corbyn will win though!
Do you seriously believe the Language of the Right wing press that all Corbyn backers are 'Trots'? I know many who would baulk at that, including my local councillor who has been a member for 50 years. They just want a Labour Party that adopts a distinct and more leftist agenda. You have a lot of interesting stuff to say but adopting the terms the Mail would use to stereotype your opposition doesn't do you any favours imho.
Of course not. Maybe its a reaction to being called a "Blairite" by those of the Corbyinites who are Trots (and some others) for opposing Corbyn. That rankles especially with those of us like Southam and I who left the party in disillusionment at the fag end of the New Labour years.
But those pulling Corbyn and Momentum's strings are by and large Trots in that they would be perfectly at home in a far left fringe party as many have been in the past.
And JC himself decided for careerist reasons to stay out of his preferred Trotskyist groupuscule (the IMG) just as he chose to plough his "A" levels in order to pretend to be a horny-handed son of toil. The word you want to describe people like your member for 50 years is "dupe".
Class-based politics are only possible in countries which are both ethnically homogenous and where there is a strong sense of solidarity, e.g. just after winning a war.
Genuine “horny handed sons of toil”, by and large do NOT plough their A levels. They realise their importance.
Were A-levels important in those days? I dimly recall people easing up once they'd got an offer, sometimes unconditional. Did not even David Cameron take his foot off the A-level gas? Of course, by and large, horny handed sons of toil would have left school at 15 or 16.
Once you passed oxbridge entrance you eased up - hard work was done.... At my school a few people started working really hard come January once the oxbridge results were out to get to Durham....
The NEC voted to freeze the membership eligibility for the contest to January 12, ruling out at a stroke more than 130,000 new members. A short window for ‘registered supporters’, who paid a fee of £25, would open between 18-20 July.
Corbyn supporters countered with amendments of their own, proposing a June 24 cut-off date (the day after the Brexit vote) and a seven-day sign-up period for registered supporters. The plan to extend the sign-up period to a week was defeated by a show of hands with 16 votes to 10. The plan to change the freeze date to June 24 was tied, with 14 votes for and against, and as a result fell.
I think Corbyn could still lose because of this.
Jezza failed to attend the vote because he was celebrating downstairs ....
Titter ....
Heart Of (Ed)Stone
Yes that made me laugh too. Still think Corbyn will win though!
Yes, quite. Is there a book anywhere yet on the result of the ballot, as opposed to next leader of LP?
The Extended Alternative Voting system requires voters to place outcomes in order of preference. Outcomes are the election of a candidate or the exclusion of a candidate. The election proceeds by looking at first preferences so that, for each candidate there will be a score – votes for minus votes against. The candidate with lowest score, which will in all probability be negative, is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated according to the outcomes they give as second preferences. This process continues until one candidate emerges.
This system reflects the reality of preference and opinion when selecting an individual. But then, whatever its merits or flaws, is there any electorate capable of understanding it?
I couldn't find anything on Extended Alternative Voting in a 2 minute google. From what you said it seems that voters put 1, 2,3.. in order of preference, so easy to understand from a voters point of view. It looks like the Single Transferable Vote but the counting must be different. What advantages does it have over STV?
It looks to me as if the key difference is that, unlike any electoral system in use for national elections (I think)(other than variants of list systems with a crossing off option) you can actually use your vote as a negative against a particular candidate, as an alternative to voting for someone.
/edit and whilst this might superficially appear attractive, the weakness is that it allows majorities to exclude minority voices, which is the very opposite of what STV is designed to achieve.
The NEC voted to freeze the membership eligibility for the contest to January 12, ruling out at a stroke more than 130,000 new members. A short window for ‘registered supporters’, who paid a fee of £25, would open between 18-20 July.
Corbyn supporters countered with amendments of their own, proposing a June 24 cut-off date (the day after the Brexit vote) and a seven-day sign-up period for registered supporters. The plan to extend the sign-up period to a week was defeated by a show of hands with 16 votes to 10. The plan to change the freeze date to June 24 was tied, with 14 votes for and against, and as a result fell.
I think Corbyn could still lose because of this.
Jezza failed to attend the vote because he was celebrating downstairs ....
Titter ....
Heart Of (Ed)Stone
Yes that made me laugh too. Still think Corbyn will win though!
Yes, quite. Is there a book anywhere yet on the result of the ballot, as opposed to next leader of LP?
@Danny565, the final YouGov poll on the leadership contest was spot on IIRC. It was posted on PB not too long ago (the thread was reporting YG's finding on May versus the other Tory challengers).
As for the 'disenfranchisement' of members by the NEC. All the NEC changes really mean is that instead of having to pay £3, you have to pay now £25 within a two day period. It is hardly the end of the world, as some are implying. I would think that those who wanted to vote were totally and utterly excluded judging by the way some are going on, but there are a number of options (including a four-year scheme by Unite to join for £2 that some thought was actually conceived in response to the NEC) for those who want to participate. And given that, as others have said £25 is probably chicken feed to those who want to destroy the Labour party (£2 definitely is) you'll get the result you want anyway.
Come 2020 though, when Maomentum take their bullying antics to a GE campaign and feel they can intimidate actual voters into getting the result because 'Jeremy has a huge mandate' don't be upset.
The emails story is too esoteric I think to have much effect. I must admit I thought "so what". I take the point about national security but given she is up against Trump (!) this is somewhat neutralised to say the very least!
I disagree. The e-mail fiasco is and will continue to be damaging. However much of this damage was probably dialed in, save for the immediate hit.
The saving grace for Clinton is that in such a binary choice Trump is the worse option with negative ratings that would make Genghis Khan blush. Clinton wins by not being Donald Trump.
Do you seriously believe the Language of the Right wing press that all Corbyn backers are 'Trots'? I know many who would baulk at that, including my local councillor who has been a member for 50 years. They just want a Labour Party that adopts a distinct and more leftist agenda. You have a lot of interesting stuff to say but adopting the terms the Mail would use to stereotype your opposition doesn't do you any favours imho.
Of course not. Maybe its a reaction to being called a "Blairite" by those of the Corbyinites who are Trots (and some others) for opposing Corbyn. That rankles especially with those of us like Southam and I who left the party in disillusionment at the fag end of the New Labour years.
But those pulling Corbyn and Momentum's strings are by and large Trots in that they would be perfectly at home in a far left fringe party as many have been in the past.
And JC himself decided for careerist reasons to stay out of his preferred Trotskyist groupuscule (the IMG) just as he chose to plough his "A" levels in order to pretend to be a horny-handed son of toil. The word you want to describe people like your member for 50 years is "dupe".
Class-based politics are only possible in countries which are both ethnically homogenous and where there is a strong sense of solidarity, e.g. just after winning a war.
Genuine “horny handed sons of toil”, by and large do NOT plough their A levels. They realise their importance.
Were A-levels important in those days? I dimly recall people easing up once they'd got an offer, sometimes unconditional. Did not even David Cameron take his foot off the A-level gas? Of course, by and large, horny handed sons of toil would have left school at 15 or 16.
I don’t recall any reduction in effort on receipt of an offer at the grammar school I attended in the 50’s. And, of course, the HHSoT’s would often have had job opportunities at 15 which included apprenticeships ... which often needed at least one or two GCEs or equivalent ..... or jobs where they were following their fathers or uncles.
Presumably that was done late March/early April. If so, how does it compare with reality so far?
No, that was their survey done in the last two weeks, compared to the one done at the start of June.
So done while everyone is panicking before they notice that nothing has really changed.....
I agree its still bad but that -60% is way too high....
I'm just sharing it. This is Credit Suisse's survey of c. 6,000 firms investment decisions. It will be interesting to see what it says come September/October.
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
How wonderful this new Corbynite age is *rollseyes*.
The Extended Alternative Voting system requires voters to place outcomes in order of preference. Outcomes are the election of a candidate or the exclusion of a candidate. The election proceeds by looking at first preferences so that, for each candidate there will be a score – votes for minus votes against. The candidate with lowest score, which will in all probability be negative, is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated according to the outcomes they give as second preferences. This process continues until one candidate emerges.
This system reflects the reality of preference and opinion when selecting an individual. But then, whatever its merits or flaws, is there any electorate capable of understanding it?
I couldn't find anything on Extended Alternative Voting in a 2 minute google. From what you said it seems that voters put 1, 2,3.. in order of preference, so easy to understand from a voters point of view. It looks like the Single Transferable Vote but the counting must be different. What advantages does it have over STV?
AV is STV. The difference is simply the number of candidatesd to be elected - AV = 1, STV = 2+.
I wonder what colour Eagles feathers are when they will be truly plucked, as they will be, by Corbyns moamentum?
I can't get over Labour's default use of pink for women. Buses, signage, clothes, berets a la Eddie Izzard.
For a Party that jumps up and down about gender neutral children's toys - they use PINK
The imagery is like that from some pulp lunchtime fluff show. Great if you want to chill and get the goss at lunchtime, not so great if you want to present yourself as LOTO in waiting. All about time and place being right for the right image. This misses the point horribly,
The Extended Alternative Voting system requires voters to place outcomes in order of preference. Outcomes are the election of a candidate or the exclusion of a candidate. The election proceeds by looking at first preferences so that, for each candidate there will be a score – votes for minus votes against. The candidate with lowest score, which will in all probability be negative, is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated according to the outcomes they give as second preferences. This process continues until one candidate emerges.
This system reflects the reality of preference and opinion when selecting an individual. But then, whatever its merits or flaws, is there any electorate capable of understanding it?
I couldn't find anything on Extended Alternative Voting in a 2 minute google. From what you said it seems that voters put 1, 2,3.. in order of preference, so easy to understand from a voters point of view. It looks like the Single Transferable Vote but the counting must be different. What advantages does it have over STV?
AV is STV. The difference is simply the number of candidatesd to be elected - AV = 1, STV = 2+.
Presumably that was done late March/early April. If so, how does it compare with reality so far?
No, that was their survey done in the last two weeks, compared to the one done at the start of June.
So done while everyone is panicking before they notice that nothing has really changed.....
I agree its still bad but that -60% is way too high....
I'm just sharing it. This is Credit Suisse's survey of c. 6,000 firms investment decisions. It will be interesting to see what it says come September/October.
Indeed, I think the immediate shock after Brexit was always going to be bad because of the uncertainty, September and October will be interesting. If the PM can agree a position and get on with negotiating with the EU and it looks like we'll get full single market membership then those figures should look a lot better.
"First, it should map out the established and developing industries that are of strategic value to our economy, so policy can be designed to promote those industries. We effectively do this on an ad hoc basis in trade negotiations and when we make tax changes – mostly for the financial services industry – but we should do it on a wider and more systematic basis, working with our best businesses in key sectors. That’s how we’ll improve our record in infrastructure, skills and training, and research and development.
Second, and building on this work, government should identify the training and skills capabilities we need, and tailor its policies accordingly. It could encourage the establishment of more technical schools. It could work with schools and business to get more young people studying science, technology, engineering and maths. It could fund deep discounts in tuition fees for students who want to study degrees like engineering, where we have a shortage of skilled workers. This kind of planning already takes place in the immigration system, with a shortage occupation list in key sectors, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t apply the sa me logic to our own workforce.
Third, government should identify geographical clusters of industry – like biotech in Cambridge, the semiconductor industry in the South West of England, or the Formula One corridor in Oxford, Warwick and Birmingham – so we can help develop these clusters further, put British businesses at the forefront of industrial innovation, and create thousands of new jobs.
Fourth, government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
The emails story is too esoteric I think to have much effect. I must admit I thought "so what". I take the point about national security but given she is up against Trump (!) this is somewhat neutralised to say the very least!
I disagree. The e-mail fiasco is and will continue to be damaging. However much of this damage was probably dialed in, save for the immediate hit.
The saving grace for Clinton is that in such a binary choice Trump is the worse option with negative ratings that would make Genghis Khan blush. Clinton wins by not being Donald Trump.
Yes that was the point I was trying to make really (you were more eloquent)
The NEC voted to freeze the membership eligibility for the contest to January 12, ruling out at a stroke more than 130,000 new members. A short window for ‘registered supporters’, who paid a fee of £25, would open between 18-20 July.
Corbyn supporters countered with amendments of their own, proposing a June 24 cut-off date (the day after the Brexit vote) and a seven-day sign-up period for registered supporters. The plan to extend the sign-up period to a week was defeated by a show of hands with 16 votes to 10. The plan to change the freeze date to June 24 was tied, with 14 votes for and against, and as a result fell.
I think Corbyn could still lose because of this.
Jezza failed to attend the vote because he was celebrating downstairs ....
Titter ....
Heart Of (Ed)Stone
Yes that made me laugh too. Still think Corbyn will win though!
Yes, quite. Is there a book anywhere yet on the result of the ballot, as opposed to next leader of LP?
Presumably that was done late March/early April. If so, how does it compare with reality so far?
No, that was their survey done in the last two weeks, compared to the one done at the start of June.
So done while everyone is panicking before they notice that nothing has really changed.....
I agree its still bad but that -60% is way too high....
The question is whether the lack of confidence becomes self-fulfilling. The Government should calm lthings down rapidly. It's business as usual and we won't move on Brexit until we are confident of getting a good deal. Problematically that message conflicts with the Brexit means Brexit and freedom of movement is off the table themes. Also the UK government isn't in control of the process. While other EU governments bang on about Article 50 there will be a lot of uncertainty. There's a tension. Do you play long and extend the period of uncertainty or do you force the issue and accelerate the collapse?
I suspect the first, although I am not quite sure about Theresa May. It was her inability to get immigration down that lost David Cameron his referendum. I think that's a pressing issue for her. Also it's not clear whether EU partners will play along.
Presumably that was done late March/early April. If so, how does it compare with reality so far?
No, that was their survey done in the last two weeks, compared to the one done at the start of June.
So done while everyone is panicking before they notice that nothing has really changed.....
I agree its still bad but that -60% is way too high....
I'm just sharing it. This is Credit Suisse's survey of c. 6,000 firms investment decisions. It will be interesting to see what it says come September/October.
In my opinion Leo has simply overdone the analysis. Looks to me as if Corbyn will easily win the first ballot. If he has 50.1% that is that. If not will Owen Smith be popular enough to get right wing votes, he is quite left.
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!
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 1h1 hour ago Some people a bit confused. Shortlist is what will be presented to the members. Will be either Corbyn/Smith or Corbyn/Eagle.
Rubbish. All 3 will be on the ballot paper. Then, 1,2,3 preference will be put down by the members.
We don't have figures I believe for last year as Corbyn won in round 1 but in 2010 wasn't there a significant proportion of voters who mark 1 only and don't put second and the order preferences? A fair proportion of voters don't bother with second and third preferences so get eliminated when their candidate is eliminated.
So multiple opponents can even under AV split the vote.
Good analysis. As things stand I think it's finely-balanced, and the evolution of the debates may be decisive.
If the left had been indulging in the maneouvres of the centre-right of the party in the recent days - trying to exclude the main opposition from the ballot, spinning out a meeting into the evening to get a vote to exclude 20% of the membership - I think we'd be hearing claims that these are typical Trot tactics. A criticism of Momentum is that they aren't experienced enough in this sort of thing - they think that weight of numbers will do it.
Off topic - just listened to an excellent item on the Brexit vote; Point of View Roger Scruton R4 0945. Well worth a catch-up for anyone interested, only 15 mins.
The Extended Alternative Voting system requires voters to place outcomes in order of preference. Outcomes are the election of a candidate or the exclusion of a candidate. The election proceeds by looking at first preferences so that, for each candidate there will be a score – votes for minus votes against. The candidate with lowest score, which will in all probability be negative, is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated according to the outcomes they give as second preferences. This process continues until one candidate emerges.
This system reflects the reality of preference and opinion when selecting an individual. But then, whatever its merits or flaws, is there any electorate capable of understanding it?
I couldn't find anything on Extended Alternative Voting in a 2 minute google. From what you said it seems that voters put 1, 2,3.. in order of preference, so easy to understand from a voters point of view. It looks like the Single Transferable Vote but the counting must be different. What advantages does it have over STV?
It looks to me as if the key difference is that, unlike any electoral system in use for national elections (I think)(other than variants of list systems with a crossing off option) you can actually use your vote as a negative against a particular candidate, as an alternative to voting for someone.
/edit and whilst this might superficially appear attractive, the weakness is that it allows majorities to exclude minority voices, which is the very opposite of what STV is designed to achieve.
In STV you vote against someone by putting everyone else above them. EAV seems to allow negative voting, how does that work?
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!
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 1h1 hour ago Some people a bit confused. Shortlist is what will be presented to the members. Will be either Corbyn/Smith or Corbyn/Eagle.
Rubbish. All 3 will be on the ballot paper. Then, 1,2,3 preference will be put down by the members.
We don't have figures I believe for last year as Corbyn won in round 1 but in 2010 wasn't there a significant proportion of voters who mark 1 only and don't put second and the order preferences? A fair proportion of voters don't bother with second and third preferences so get eliminated when their candidate is eliminated.
So multiple opponents can even under AV split the vote.
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!
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 1h1 hour ago Some people a bit confused. Shortlist is what will be presented to the members. Will be either Corbyn/Smith or Corbyn/Eagle.
Rubbish. All 3 will be on the ballot paper. Then, 1,2,3 preference will be put down by the members.
We don't have figures I believe for last year as Corbyn won in round 1 but in 2010 wasn't there a significant proportion of voters who mark 1 only and don't put second and the order preferences? A fair proportion of voters don't bother with second and third preferences so get eliminated when their candidate is eliminated.
So multiple opponents can even under AV split the vote.
That's a valid choice. 'If my candidate doesn't win, I don't care who else does'. Silly, but valid.
The Extended Alternative Voting system requires voters to place outcomes in order of preference. Outcomes are the election of a candidate or the exclusion of a candidate. The election proceeds by looking at first preferences so that, for each candidate there will be a score – votes for minus votes against. The candidate with lowest score, which will in all probability be negative, is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated according to the outcomes they give as second preferences. This process continues until one candidate emerges.
This system reflects the reality of preference and opinion when selecting an individual. But then, whatever its merits or flaws, is there any electorate capable of understanding it?
I couldn't find anything on Extended Alternative Voting in a 2 minute google. From what you said it seems that voters put 1, 2,3.. in order of preference, so easy to understand from a voters point of view. It looks like the Single Transferable Vote but the counting must be different. What advantages does it have over STV?
It looks to me as if the key difference is that, unlike any electoral system in use for national elections (I think)(other than variants of list systems with a crossing off option) you can actually use your vote as a negative against a particular candidate, as an alternative to voting for someone.
/edit and whilst this might superficially appear attractive, the weakness is that it allows majorities to exclude minority voices, which is the very opposite of what STV is designed to achieve.
In STV you vote against someone by putting everyone else above them. EAV seems to allow negative voting, how does that work?
I have never come across it anywhere. But I imagine the easiest way would be to have the candidates listed as usual, with two columns of boxes, a "for" column and an "against" column. The voter is then free to make their preferences, from first choice down to whatever, across all the boxes on the paper. Votes in the "for" column are counted as +1 and in the negative column "-1". The lowest candidate is eliminated and their preferences, both positive and negative, moved to the second choice as normally under AV.
I think this variant could only work under AV, not STV, as it would be impossible to work out the quota, which is the key number needed to complete an STV count.
Edit/ a multiple-vacancy election would be possible with this method if the quota is ignored and candidates simply eliminated from the bottom until the appropriate number remained. But that isn't STV - the underlying principle of STV is to make sure that the minimum number of votes are wasted.
"First, it should map out the established and developing industries that are of strategic value to our economy, so policy can be designed to promote those industries. We effectively do this on an ad hoc basis in trade negotiations and when we make tax changes – mostly for the financial services industry – but we should do it on a wider and more systematic basis, working with our best businesses in key sectors. That’s how we’ll improve our record in infrastructure, skills and training, and research and development.
Second, and building on this work, government should identify the training and skills capabilities we need, and tailor its policies accordingly. It could encourage the establishment of more technical schools. It could work with schools and business to get more young people studying science, technology, engineering and maths. It could fund deep discounts in tuition fees for students who want to study degrees like engineering, where we have a shortage of skilled workers. This kind of planning already takes place in the immigration system, with a shortage occupation list in key sectors, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t apply the sa me logic to our own workforce.
Third, government should identify geographical clusters of industry – like biotech in Cambridge, the semiconductor industry in the South West of England, or the Formula One corridor in Oxford, Warwick and Birmingham – so we can help develop these clusters further, put British businesses at the forefront of industrial innovation, and create thousands of new jobs.
Fourth, government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
With the exception of reducing tuition fees for STEM students there are not many concrete proposals there and most of her general ambition is already done.
In my opinion Leo has simply overdone the analysis. Looks to me as if Corbyn will easily win the first ballot. If he has 50.1% that is that. If not will Owen Smith be popular enough to get right wing votes, he is quite left.
Presumably there's no danger (for Corbyn) in coming last?
In theory at least, Eagles takes the whole of the centre and right vote, the Momentum block votes for Corbyn and the Union / traditional left Labour block votes for Owen Smith as a genuine left-winger without the baggage?
Presumably that was done late March/early April. If so, how does it compare with reality so far?
No, that was their survey done in the last two weeks, compared to the one done at the start of June.
So done while everyone is panicking before they notice that nothing has really changed.....
I agree its still bad but that -60% is way too high....
The question is whether the lack of confidence becomes self-fulfilling. The Government should calm lthings down rapidly. It's business as usual and we won't move on Brexit until we are confident of getting a good deal. Problematically that message conflicts with the Brexit means Brexit and freedom of movement is off the table themes. Also the UK government isn't in control of the process. While other EU governments bang on about Article 50 there will be a lot of uncertainty. There's a tension. Do you play long and extend the period of uncertainty or do you force the issue and accelerate the collapse?
I suspect the first, although I am not quite sure about Theresa May. It was her inability to get immigration down that lost David Cameron his referendum. I think that's a pressing issue for her. Also it's not clear whether EU partners will play along.
May had no means to get immigration down..... She knew she was King Canute commanding the tide and probably spent longer working out how to not answer the question than trying to fix it.
Only now can she do anything about it and I will be curious as to what they do... We need big structural changes in our benefits system to solve anything...
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.
That was pure politics though - a friend of mine (working for HMG at the time) was in the Boardroom when it was discussed. Pfizer R&D wanted to keep Sandwich and cut costs by closing a couple of US sites. Board didn't think that was politically possible
Good analysis. As things stand I think it's finely-balanced, and the evolution of the debates may be decisive.
If the left had been indulging in the maneouvres of the centre-right of the party in the recent days - trying to exclude the main opposition from the ballot, spinning out a meeting into the evening to get a vote to exclude 20% of the membership - I think we'd be hearing claims that these are typical Trot tactics. A criticism of Momentum is that they aren't experienced enough in this sort of thing - they think that weight of numbers will do it.
Are you in the left, or the centre-right? Surely you can't realistically continue as both, if you say you believe that Blair made an honest mistake over Iraq then the left will disown you
Last year Owen Smith accepted the need for austerity:
“I don’t think it’s realistic to say that they [public spending cuts] are wholly unnecessary. There is a very serious point that we don’t know what would happen to a government that failed to tackle its debts in the long run.”
If this is the best that the non-Corbynite left can put forwards then they are in serious trouble.
The Extended Alternative Voting system requires voters to place outcomes in order of preference. Outcomes are the election of a candidate or the exclusion of a candidate. The election proceeds by looking at first preferences so that, for each candidate there will be a score – votes for minus votes against. The candidate with lowest score, which will in all probability be negative, is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated according to the outcomes they give as second preferences. This process continues until one candidate emerges.
This system reflects the reality of preference and opinion when selecting an individual. But then, whatever its merits or flaws, is there any electorate capable of understanding it?
It looks to me as if the key difference is that, unlike any electoral system in use for national elections (I think)(other than variants of list systems with a crossing off option) you can actually use your vote as a negative against a particular candidate, as an alternative to voting for someone.
/edit and whilst this might superficially appear attractive, the weakness is that it allows majorities to exclude minority voices, which is the very opposite of what STV is designed to achieve.
In STV you vote against someone by putting everyone else above them. EAV seems to allow negative voting, how does that work?
I have never come across it anywhere. But I imagine the easiest way would be to have the candidates listed as usual, with two columns of boxes, a "for" column and an "against" column. The voter is then free to make their preferences, from first choice down to whatever, across all the boxes on the paper. Votes in the "for" column are counted as +1 and in the negative column "-1". The lowest candidate is eliminated and their preferences, both positive and negative, moved to the second choice as normally under AV.
I think this variant could only work under AV, not STV, as it would be impossible to work out the quota, which is the key number needed to complete an STV count.
Edit/ a multiple-vacancy election would be possible with this method if the quota is ignored and candidates simply eliminated from the bottom until the appropriate number remained. But that isn't STV - the underlying principle of STV is to make sure that the minimum number of votes are wasted.
Thanks. I'm still pro STV then. It's simple, fair, effective and tied to local areas. Also limits the power of the party hierarchy.
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.
?
.
You'd think she has been looking at the Tory rules recently!
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 1h1 hour ago Some people a bit confused. Shortlist is what will be presented to the members. Will be either Corbyn/Smith or Corbyn/Eagle.
Rubbish. All 3 will be on the ballot paper. Then, 1,2,3 preference will be put down by the members.
We don't have figures I believe for last year as Corbyn won in round 1 but in 2010 wasn't there a significant proportion of voters who mark 1 only and don't put second and the order preferences? A fair proportion of voters don't bother with second and third preferences so get eliminated when their candidate is eliminated.
So multiple opponents can even under AV split the vote.
That's a valid choice. 'If my candidate doesn't win, I don't care who else does'. Silly, but valid.
Liberal Democrat internal elections are done under STV and there can be thirty or forty candidates. Whilst I agree it is 'silly' to risk your vote being wasted, it does nevertheless take a heroic effort to number forty people in order from 1 to 40. In my experience the best approach is to work out who the top choices should be, and then the bottom choices working up from 40 (or whatever), and then complete the ones in the middle that you don't know more or less at random.
But I have also helped count these elections and occasionally seen the last place on a committee decided by someone's 35th preference.
The Extended Alternative Voting system requires voters to place outcomes in order of preference. Outcomes are the election of a candidate or the exclusion of a candidate. The election proceeds by looking at first preferences so that, for each candidate there will be a score – votes for minus votes against. The candidate with lowest score, which will in all probability be negative, is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated according to the outcomes they give as second preferences. This process continues until one candidate emerges.
This system reflects the reality of preference and opinion when selecting an individual. But then, whatever its merits or flaws, is there any electorate capable of understanding it?
I couldn't find anything on Extended Alternative Voting in a 2 minute google. From what you said it seems that voters put 1, 2,3.. in order of preference, so easy to understand from a voters point of view. It looks like the Single Transferable Vote but the counting must be different. What advantages does it have over STV?
It looks to me as if the key difference is that, unlike any electoral system in use for national elections (I think)(other than variants of list systems with a crossing off option) you can actually use your vote as a negative against a particular candidate, as an alternative to voting for someone.
/edit and whilst this might superficially appear attractive, the weakness is that it allows majorities to exclude minority voices, which is the very opposite of what STV is designed to achieve.
In STV you vote against someone by putting everyone else above them. EAV seems to allow negative voting, how does that work?
Hmph, just been watching some Owen Smith videos. Although he's not exactly overburdened with charisma, he is atleast quite "crisp" and firm in the way he speaks, and he does superficially atleast give off an air of competence - unlike the presentational disaster that is Ms Eagle.
I'll still have to see more from him before I'm convinced that he even slightly has a feel for Labour voters in the heartlands, though.
Do you seriously believe the Language of the Right wing press that all Corbyn backers are 'Trots'? I know many who would baulk at that, including my local councillor who has been a member for 50 years. They just want a Labour Party that adopts a distinct and more leftist agenda. You have a lot of interesting stuff to say but adopting the terms the Mail would use to stereotype your opposition doesn't do you any favours imho.
Of course not. Maybe its a reaction to being called a "Blairite" by those of the Corbyinites who are Trots (and some others) for opposing Corbyn. That rankles especially with those of us like Southam and I who left the party in disillusionment at the fag end of the New Labour years.
But those pulling Corbyn and Momentum's strings are by and large Trots in that they would be perfectly at home in a far left fringe party as many have been in the past.
Anyone who uses an affiliate loophole to vote for Corbyn is a Trot or a Tory with no interest in the Labour party except to destroy it as a Parliamentary party.
When we talk about entryism I think it's a good point to mention Tories as well as Trots. I think there were even some pb tories who voted for Jezza last time.
With the exception of reducing tuition fees for STEM students there are not many concrete proposals there and most of her general ambition is already done.
I think 4 is huge.
"government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
The NEC voted to freeze the membership eligibility for the contest to January 12, ruling out at a stroke more than 130,000 new members. A short window for ‘registered supporters’, who paid a fee of £25, would open between 18-20 July.
Corbyn supporters countered with amendments of their own, proposing a June 24 cut-off date (the day after the Brexit vote) and a seven-day sign-up period for registered supporters. The plan to extend the sign-up period to a week was defeated by a show of hands with 16 votes to 10. The plan to change the freeze date to June 24 was tied, with 14 votes for and against, and as a result fell.
I think Corbyn could still lose because of this.
Jezza failed to attend the vote because he was celebrating downstairs ....
Titter ....
Heart Of (Ed)Stone
Yes that made me laugh too. Still think Corbyn will win though!
Yes, quite. Is there a book anywhere yet on the result of the ballot, as opposed to next leader of LP?
Do you seriously believe the Language of the Right wing press that all Corbyn backers are 'Trots'? I know many who would baulk at that, including my local councillor who has been a member for 50 years. They just want a Labour Party that adopts a distinct and more leftist agenda. You have a lot of interesting stuff to say but adopting the terms the Mail would use to stereotype your opposition doesn't do you any favours imho.
Of course not. Maybe its a reaction to being called a "Blairite" by those of the Corbyinites who are Trots (and some others) for opposing Corbyn. That rankles especially with those of us like Southam and I who left the party in disillusionment at the fag end of the New Labour years.
But those pulling Corbyn and Momentum's strings are by and large Trots in that they would be perfectly at home in a far left fringe party as many have been in the past.
Anyone who uses an affiliate loophole to vote for Corbyn is a Trot or a Tory with no interest in the Labour party except to destroy it as a Parliamentary party.
When we talk about entryism I think it's a good point to mention Tories as well as Trots. I think there were even some pb tories who voted for Jezza last time.
Do you seriously believe the Language of the Right wing press that all Corbyn backers are 'Trots'? I know many who would baulk at that, including my local councillor who has been a member for 50 years. They just want a Labour Party that adopts a distinct and more leftist agenda. You have a lot of interesting stuff to say but adopting the terms the Mail would use to stereotype your opposition doesn't do you any favours imho.
Of course not. Maybe its a reaction to being called a "Blairite" by those of the Corbyinites who are Trots (and some others) for opposing Corbyn. That rankles especially with those of us like Southam and I who left the party in disillusionment at the fag end of the New Labour years.
But those pulling Corbyn and Momentum's strings are by and large Trots in that they would be perfectly at home in a far left fringe party as many have been in the past.
Anyone who uses an affiliate loophole to vote for Corbyn is a Trot or a Tory with no interest in the Labour party except to destroy it as a Parliamentary party.
When we talk about entryism I think it's a good point to mention Tories as well as Trots. I think there were even some pb tories who voted for Jezza last time.
With the exception of reducing tuition fees for STEM students there are not many concrete proposals there and most of her general ambition is already done.
I think 4 is huge.
"government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
We also need keep that in mind through out negotiations. The one thing we have been very bad in doing is rigging tenders so that British companies win in the way that France / Germany does.... They could always use language restrictions to rule us out, we don't have that advantage
Kevin Schofield I'm hearing that some Labour MPs who were among Angela Eagle's 51 nominations are already peeling away to back Owen Smith.
surely after they have signed up and those names have officially gone into the relevant office, it is too late for them to change their mind.
They can campaign and vote for someone else afterwards - but once you have nominated, you have nominated
Nominations haven't formally opened yet. Any "nominations" that have happened so far are essentially just informal pledges, I think.
EDIT Wait, actually, that's how it works in a normal contest, but since this is a "challenger" contest then maybe not. Maybe Eagle's nominations have already been submitted, in order to trigger the contest happening in the first place.
Hmph, just been watching some Owen Smith videos. Although he's not exactly overburdened with charisma, he is atleast quite "crisp" and firm in the way he speaks, and he does superficially atleast give off an air of competence - unlike the presentational disaster that is Ms Eagle.
I'll still have to see more from him before I'm convinced that he even slightly has a feel for Labour voters in the heartlands, though.
He is still a complete unknown in terms of the wider public. He is not a big hitter who has made an impact beyond a very small bubble.
With the exception of reducing tuition fees for STEM students there are not many concrete proposals there and most of her general ambition is already done.
I think 4 is huge.
"government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
It has the potential to be huge, but it could also turn government contracts into an even bigger gravy train for British business.
With the exception of reducing tuition fees for STEM students there are not many concrete proposals there and most of her general ambition is already done.
I think 4 is huge.
"government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
You can already do that under EU purchasing regulations. Its an easy statement to make but putting together practical policies that make a difference is not easy.
Not only must Labour members be registered before January 2016, they must also still be members now.
Enthusiastic Corbyn supporters are more likely to have renewed membership in the last year than anti Corbyn members for whom it is now too late to renew and qualify to vote.
So the incidence of Corbyn supporters amongst members may have increased in the last year.
This whole John McDonnell 'fucking useless' thing is a storm in a teacup. He said a rude word (gasp!) but he didn't say anything offensive. Pathetic to see him having to repeatedly defend it. He was at a Labour event was he not? therefore a private function, so he is entitled to say what he likes. It was post-9pm so post-watershed.
Kevin Schofield I'm hearing that some Labour MPs who were among Angela Eagle's 51 nominations are already peeling away to back Owen Smith.
surely after they have signed up and those names have officially gone into the relevant office, it is too late for them to change their mind.
They can campaign and vote for someone else afterwards - but once you have nominated, you have nominated
Nominations haven't formally opened yet. Any "nominations" that have happened so far are essentially just informal pledges, I think.
EDIT Wait, actually, that's how it works in a normal contest, but since this is a "challenger" contest then maybe not. Maybe Eagle's nominations have already been submitted, in order to trigger the contest happening in the first place.
Are you sure? I thought the rule book required actual nominations to start the process, and all the media reporting suggested the process had started.
Hmph, just been watching some Owen Smith videos. Although he's not exactly overburdened with charisma, he is atleast quite "crisp" and firm in the way he speaks, and he does superficially atleast give off an air of competence - unlike the presentational disaster that is Ms Eagle.
I'll still have to see more from him before I'm convinced that he even slightly has a feel for Labour voters in the heartlands, though.
At the moment, I have no other choice but to vote for him. I couldn't vote for the Wet Lettuce.
I wish Yvette will throw her hat in the ring. If Jeremy does not get 48% in the first round, he's a goner !
Yes EAV (that's what I call it, not my invention, it arose from idle chat at work 30 years ago, but cannot be original) has two boxes for each candidate - for and against. The idea is that voters more concerned to ensure that someone isn't elected that someone is, have a way to express this. It doesn't extend to multiple STV, and hardly needs to.
Presumably that was done late March/early April. If so, how does it compare with reality so far?
No, that was their survey done in the last two weeks, compared to the one done at the start of June.
So done while everyone is panicking before they notice that nothing has really changed.....
I agree its still bad but that -60% is way too high....
The question is whether the lack of confidence becomes self-fulfilling. The Government should calm lthings down rapidly. It's business as usual and we won't move on Brexit until we are confident of getting a good deal. Problematically that message conflicts with the Brexit means Brexit and freedom of movement is off the table themes. Also the UK government isn't in control of the process. While other EU governments bang on about Article 50 there will be a lot of uncertainty. There's a tension. Do you play long and extend the period of uncertainty or do you force the issue and accelerate the collapse?
I suspect the first, although I am not quite sure about Theresa May. It was her inability to get immigration down that lost David Cameron his referendum. I think that's a pressing issue for her. Also it's not clear whether EU partners will play along.
May had no means to get immigration down..... She knew she was King Canute commanding the tide and probably spent longer working out how to not answer the question than trying to fix it.
Only now can she do anything about it and I will be curious as to what they do... We need big structural changes in our benefits system to solve anything...
It depends whether May takes a minimalist approach. Least change while formally leaving the EU, as is required by the referendum result. Or whether she sees a need to recast our relationship with the EU in particular directions. That route is highly uncertain and is more likely than not to get bogged down. Even committed Bexiteers have to be conscious of the economy, unemployment levels and so on. She isn't in full control of the situation either. The EU and member countries are involved. Beyond avoiding a basket case on its periphery, they don't care too much about what happens to Britain, which is now out of the picture as far as they are concerned.
Not only must Labour members be registered before January 2016, they must also still be members now.
Enthusiastic Corbyn supporters are more likely to have renewed membership in the last year than anti Corbyn members for whom it is now too late to renew and qualify to vote.
So the incidence of Corbyn supporters amongst members may have increased in the last year.
Look when the NEC chose Jan 13th, they had done their homework before. The Huff Post resume makes it quite clear, all parties knew what they were doing or saying.
Kevin Schofield I'm hearing that some Labour MPs who were among Angela Eagle's 51 nominations are already peeling away to back Owen Smith.
surely after they have signed up and those names have officially gone into the relevant office, it is too late for them to change their mind.
They can campaign and vote for someone else afterwards - but once you have nominated, you have nominated
Nominations haven't formally opened yet. Any "nominations" that have happened so far are essentially just informal pledges, I think.
EDIT Wait, actually, that's how it works in a normal contest, but since this is a "challenger" contest then maybe not. Maybe Eagle's nominations have already been submitted, in order to trigger the contest happening in the first place.
Are you sure? I thought the rule book required actual nominations to start the process, and all the media reporting suggested the process had started.
The NEC would not have had an emergency meeting unless the challenge process had been properly started - which must have shown Eagle present 51 valid names to kick things off. Otherwise there is no challenge.
With the exception of reducing tuition fees for STEM students there are not many concrete proposals there and most of her general ambition is already done.
I think 4 is huge.
"government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
We also need keep that in mind through out negotiations. The one thing we have been very bad in doing is rigging tenders so that British companies win in the way that France / Germany does.... They could always use language restrictions to rule us out, we don't have that advantage
The United States does it by claiming a national security aspect to almost everything (and it also gives massive subsidies, often as R&D grants).
But there is also a local aspect. We should be wary of the trend to centralise purchasing in the name of efficiency. It helps support local economies if the Met Police buys pencils in London, and the Lancashire force in Lancashire, and so on.
This whole John McDonnell 'fucking useless' thing is a storm in a teacup. He said a rude word (gasp!) but he didn't say anything offensive. Pathetic to see him having to repeatedly defend it. He was at a Labour event was he not? therefore a private function, so he is entitled to say what he likes. It was post-9pm so post-watershed.
His words also possessed the virtue of being succinctly and verifiably accurate.
Last year Owen Smith accepted the need for austerity:
“I don’t think it’s realistic to say that they [public spending cuts] are wholly unnecessary. There is a very serious point that we don’t know what would happen to a government that failed to tackle its debts in the long run.”
If this is the best that the non-Corbynite left can put forwards then they are in serious trouble.
Not only must Labour members be registered before January 2016, they must also still be members now.
Enthusiastic Corbyn supporters are more likely to have renewed membership in the last year than anti Corbyn members for whom it is now too late to renew and qualify to vote.
So the incidence of Corbyn supporters amongst members may have increased in the last year.
Isn't there a grace period for full lapsed members? I feel we're all going to become much more informed about Labour membership rules than we'd ever expected...
With the exception of reducing tuition fees for STEM students there are not many concrete proposals there and most of her general ambition is already done.
I think 4 is huge.
"government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
We also need keep that in mind through out negotiations. The one thing we have been very bad in doing is rigging tenders so that British companies win in the way that France / Germany does.... They could always use language restrictions to rule us out, we don't have that advantage
The United States does it by claiming a national security aspect to almost everything (and it also gives massive subsidies, often as R&D grants).
But there is also a local aspect. We should be wary of the trend to centralise purchasing in the name of efficiency. It helps support local economies if the Met Police buys pencils in London, and the Lancashire force in Lancashire, and so on.
To an extent. What we need to do there is to provide a centralised typical price paid database so you know how much a pencil in Lancashire costs so that you know you aren't paying well over the odds....
Off topic - just listened to an excellent item on the Brexit vote; Point of View Roger Scruton R4 0945. Well worth a catch-up for anyone interested, only 15 mins.
Hmph, just been watching some Owen Smith videos. Although he's not exactly overburdened with charisma, he is atleast quite "crisp" and firm in the way he speaks, and he does superficially atleast give off an air of competence - unlike the presentational disaster that is Ms Eagle.
I'll still have to see more from him before I'm convinced that he even slightly has a feel for Labour voters in the heartlands, though.
I suspect that Owen Smith is a Welsh politician rather in the mould of Neil Kinnock.
That is, I think he is a reasonably good & passionate speaker, and though superficially on the left, he will tack rightwards in office. His manner remains me a little of Ed Balls, in that he can be abrupt and shouty.
He comes from a very middle class background (son of a University Professor), but one imbued with the Labour tradition.
His seat of Pontypridd will certainly change with the boundary review, and could get less safe (if it is merged with parts of Cardiff W), although he is probably a better match to the University-strong electorate of Cardiff W than Pontypridd.
I believe he has already signalled that there is a progressive case for abandoning Freedom of Movement.
He is certainly a better bet for Labour than the Angela Dead Aardvark.
This whole John McDonnell 'fucking useless' thing is a storm in a teacup. He said a rude word (gasp!) but he didn't say anything offensive. Pathetic to see him having to repeatedly defend it. He was at a Labour event was he not? therefore a private function, so he is entitled to say what he likes. It was post-9pm so post-watershed.
Incidentally, the two day £25 buy a vote window seems bloody weird to me, especially whilst excluding members who joined half a year ago. But there we are.
So done while everyone is panicking before they notice that nothing has really changed.....
I agree its still bad but that -60% is way too high....
The question is whether the lack of confidence becomes self-fulfilling. The Government should calm lthings down rapidly. It's business as usual and we won't move on Brexit until we are confident of getting a good deal. Problematically that message conflicts with the Brexit means Brexit and freedom of movement is off the table themes. Also the UK government isn't in control of the process. While other EU governments bang on about Article 50 there will be a lot of uncertainty. There's a tension. Do you play long and extend the period of uncertainty or do you force the issue and accelerate the collapse?
I suspect the first, although I am not quite sure about Theresa May. It was her inability to get immigration down that lost David Cameron his referendum. I think that's a pressing issue for her. Also it's not clear whether EU partners will play along.
May had no means to get immigration down..... She knew she was King Canute commanding the tide and probably spent longer working out how to not answer the question than trying to fix it.
Only now can she do anything about it and I will be curious as to what they do... We need big structural changes in our benefits system to solve anything...
It depends whether May takes a minimalist approach. Least change while formally leaving the EU, as is required by the referendum result. Or whether she sees a need to recast our relationship with the EU in particular directions. That route is highly uncertain and is more likely than not to get bogged down. Even committed Bexiteers have to be conscious of the economy, unemployment levels and so on. She isn't in full control of the situation either. The EU and member countries are involved. Beyond avoiding a basket case on its periphery, they don't care too much about what happens to Britain, which is now out of the picture as far as they are concerned.
Well the Eastern Europeans want the money flowing back from the people who have emigrated here. Germany wants to still sell cars and other things to us.. The French are the french and I don't have a clue what Spain and Italy will want out of things...
But unless we do that benefit reform immigration ain't going to change and that's a problem
It's interesting to compare Theresa May with Gordon Brown.
Both dour leaders following telegenic charismatic ones. Both have a reputation for being uncollegiate and secretive. Both the children of religious ministers. Both faced with the challenge of needing their own mandate. Both go quiet when it suit them (Theresa was McCavity during the referendum).
That's not to say that Theresa will be Brown mark II - I'd be amazed if she had all is character flaws! But isn't it curious how after Cameron dubbed himself the heir to Blair, we have someone a little like Brown.
This is all most entertaining. What will we do once it's all over? UKIP's will surely be the final hurrah for leadership elections.
I must mug up on their election schedule. All I know so far is that any contender requires 5yrs membership. That excludes Evans [suspended], Reckless and Carswell.
This whole John McDonnell 'fucking useless' thing is a storm in a teacup. He said a rude word (gasp!) but he didn't say anything offensive. Pathetic to see him having to repeatedly defend it. He was at a Labour event was he not? therefore a private function, so he is entitled to say what he likes. It was post-9pm so post-watershed.
Your bar for "offensive" is set quite high.
It isn't the end of the world, but it does make him look like a potty-mouthed lightweight. Fine if that is how he wants to look.
Not only must Labour members be registered before January 2016, they must also still be members now.
Enthusiastic Corbyn supporters are more likely to have renewed membership in the last year than anti Corbyn members for whom it is now too late to renew and qualify to vote.
So the incidence of Corbyn supporters amongst members may have increased in the last year.
Isn't there a grace period for full lapsed members? I feel we're all going to become much more informed about Labour membership rules than we'd ever expected...
Comments
Yes that made me laugh too. Still think Corbyn will win though!
I wonder what colour Eagles feathers are when they will be truly plucked, as they will be, by Corbyns moamentum?
For a Party that jumps up and down about gender neutral children's toys - they use PINK
/edit and whilst this might superficially appear attractive, the weakness is that it allows majorities to exclude minority voices, which is the very opposite of what STV is designed to achieve.
As for the 'disenfranchisement' of members by the NEC. All the NEC changes really mean is that instead of having to pay £3, you have to pay now £25 within a two day period. It is hardly the end of the world, as some are implying. I would think that those who wanted to vote were totally and utterly excluded judging by the way some are going on, but there are a number of options (including a four-year scheme by Unite to join for £2 that some thought was actually conceived in response to the NEC) for those who want to participate. And given that, as others have said £25 is probably chicken feed to those who want to destroy the Labour party (£2 definitely is) you'll get the result you want anyway.
Come 2020 though, when Maomentum take their bullying antics to a GE campaign and feel they can intimidate actual voters into getting the result because 'Jeremy has a huge mandate' don't be upset.
The saving grace for Clinton is that in such a binary choice Trump is the worse option with negative ratings that would make Genghis Khan blush. Clinton wins by not being Donald Trump.
And, of course, the HHSoT’s would often have had job opportunities at 15 which included apprenticeships ... which often needed at least one or two GCEs or equivalent ..... or jobs where they were following their fathers or uncles.
Still though, surely the best chance of overthrowing JC is to have one alternative candidate the non-JC wing of the party can rally around?
"First, it should map out the established and developing industries that are of strategic value to our economy, so policy can be designed to promote those industries. We effectively do this on an ad hoc basis in trade negotiations and when we make tax changes – mostly for the financial services industry – but we should do it on a wider and more systematic basis, working with our best businesses in key sectors. That’s how we’ll improve our record in infrastructure, skills and training, and research and development.
Second, and building on this work, government should identify the training and skills capabilities we need, and tailor its policies accordingly. It could encourage the establishment of more technical schools. It could work with schools and business to get more young people studying science, technology, engineering and maths. It could fund deep discounts in tuition fees for students who want to study degrees like engineering, where we have a shortage of skilled workers. This kind of planning already takes place in the immigration system, with a shortage occupation list in key sectors, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t apply the sa
me logic to our own workforce.
Third, government should identify geographical clusters of industry – like biotech in Cambridge, the semiconductor industry in the South West of England, or the Formula One corridor in Oxford, Warwick and Birmingham – so we can help develop these clusters further, put British businesses at the forefront of industrial innovation, and create thousands of new jobs.
Fourth, government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/full-text-of-theresa-mays-speech-we-will-win-by-being-the-party-for-all.html
Personally I'd vote anyone that advocated sound money, but that option doesn't seem to be available!
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/753133945429061632
I suspect the first, although I am not quite sure about Theresa May. It was her inability to get immigration down that lost David Cameron his referendum. I think that's a pressing issue for her. Also it's not clear whether EU partners will play along.
So multiple opponents can even under AV split the vote.
If the left had been indulging in the maneouvres of the centre-right of the party in the recent days - trying to exclude the main opposition from the ballot, spinning out a meeting into the evening to get a vote to exclude 20% of the membership - I think we'd be hearing claims that these are typical Trot tactics. A criticism of Momentum is that they aren't experienced enough in this sort of thing - they think that weight of numbers will do it.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/camerons-dire-problems-are-not-going-away-3bz9hlcl0
She doesn't repay favours or do deals. She takes concessions - and that's it. Well that's one way to do things.
Silly, but valid.
Paging @Shadsy
I think this variant could only work under AV, not STV, as it would be impossible to work out the quota, which is the key number needed to complete an STV count.
Edit/ a multiple-vacancy election would be possible with this method if the quota is ignored and candidates simply eliminated from the bottom until the appropriate number remained. But that isn't STV - the underlying principle of STV is to make sure that the minimum number of votes are wasted.
In theory at least, Eagles takes the whole of the centre and right vote, the Momentum block votes for Corbyn and the Union / traditional left Labour block votes for Owen Smith as a genuine left-winger without the baggage?
https://twitter.com/thoughtland/status/753139295062491137
And Paul Mason has gone all David Icke on us.
I'm not a massive Twitter-head but when I go on there I find it remarkable how crazed and relentless some people are.
Only now can she do anything about it and I will be curious as to what they do... We need big structural changes in our benefits system to solve anything...
http://order-order.com/2016/07/13/241581/
Last year Owen Smith accepted the need for austerity:
“I don’t think it’s realistic to say that they [public spending cuts] are wholly unnecessary. There is a very serious point that we don’t know what would happen to a government that failed to tackle its debts in the long run.”
If this is the best that the non-Corbynite left can put forwards then they are in serious trouble.
But I have also helped count these elections and occasionally seen the last place on a committee decided by someone's 35th preference.
https://twitter.com/JohnMannMP/status/752952812783431680
I'm hearing that some Labour MPs who were among Angela Eagle's 51 nominations are already peeling away to back Owen Smith.
I'll still have to see more from him before I'm convinced that he even slightly has a feel for Labour voters in the heartlands, though.
"government should change its approach to public procurement, so we can strike a better balance between short-term value for the taxpayer and long-term benefits to the economy. I don’t mean we should always award contracts to British companies, regardless of price or quality, but we could produce a clear framework that explicitly takes into account the effect of procurement on British jobs, skills and the long-term capacity of our economy."
They can campaign and vote for someone else afterwards - but once you have nominated, you have nominated
EDIT Wait, actually, that's how it works in a normal contest, but since this is a "challenger" contest then maybe not. Maybe Eagle's nominations have already been submitted, in order to trigger the contest happening in the first place.
The presumably 102 names will be made public so we know who 102 of the 172 are. And more importantly so will the Labour membership.
I don't see he has any significant appeal.
Where is the Labour talent?
Mason was telling everyone to vote for Corbyn last night - unless they read The Sun. I still can't quite reconcile that one.
Enthusiastic Corbyn supporters are more likely to have renewed membership in the last year than anti Corbyn members for whom it is now too late to renew and qualify to vote.
So the incidence of Corbyn supporters amongst members may have increased in the last year.
I wish Yvette will throw her hat in the ring. If Jeremy does not get 48% in the first round, he's a goner !
Last time, amongst full members, he got 49%.
McDonnell confirmed as a plotter
Why we haven't seen those names is another matter
But there is also a local aspect. We should be wary of the trend to centralise purchasing in the name of efficiency. It helps support local economies if the Met Police buys pencils in London, and the Lancashire force in Lancashire, and so on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ldrbk
That is, I think he is a reasonably good & passionate speaker, and though superficially on the left, he will tack rightwards in office. His manner remains me a little of Ed Balls, in that he can be abrupt and shouty.
He comes from a very middle class background (son of a University Professor), but one imbued with the Labour tradition.
His seat of Pontypridd will certainly change with the boundary review, and could get less safe (if it is merged with parts of Cardiff W), although he is probably a better match to the University-strong electorate of Cardiff W than Pontypridd.
I believe he has already signalled that there is a progressive case for abandoning Freedom of Movement.
He is certainly a better bet for Labour than the Angela Dead Aardvark.
Maybe Labour members can also register as supporters (at a different address?) and have two votes. Not suggesting this of course - innocent face.
Germany wants to still sell cars and other things to us..
The French are the french and I don't have a clue what Spain and Italy will want out of things...
But unless we do that benefit reform immigration ain't going to change and that's a problem
Both dour leaders following telegenic charismatic ones.
Both have a reputation for being uncollegiate and secretive.
Both the children of religious ministers.
Both faced with the challenge of needing their own mandate.
Both go quiet when it suit them (Theresa was McCavity during the referendum).
That's not to say that Theresa will be Brown mark II - I'd be amazed if she had all is character flaws! But isn't it curious how after Cameron dubbed himself the heir to Blair, we have someone a little like Brown.
I must mug up on their election schedule. All I know so far is that any contender requires 5yrs membership. That excludes Evans [suspended], Reckless and Carswell.
What about Hamilton? James?
It isn't the end of the world, but it does make him look like a potty-mouthed lightweight. Fine if that is how he wants to look.