politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Owen Smith’s big hope is with members who joined before GE2

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Owen Smith’s big hope is with members who joined before GE2015

The overnight HuffPost article linked to in the Tweet above suggests that the £25 sign-ups have been trimmed down by about 50k which means there’ll be about 130k-135k actual participants in the election. Of those it’s estimated that about 65% are for Corbyn which is markedly down on the 84% vote recorded for the winner in this segment last year.

Read the full story here

ToryJim

First?

old_labour

Second like oily Owen.

RobD

Glorious third!

dugarbandier

Finally an undisputable positive result of Brexit

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/brexit-has-scuppered-mrs-browns-boys-sequel-movie-111653182.html

SandyRentool

Will Blairites/Social Democrats bother to vote when the contest is between two candidates on the left of Labour?

Smith needs these votes, but other that being the not-Jez candidate, how does he appeal to them?

Kevin_McCandless

I belong to an affiliated union and voted last time (as well as least for the Ed election.) For this upcoming one, I had to go on-line and re-register as an affiliated supporter. Maybe that's jsut for the CWU. But it's a factor to consider as well.

tlg86

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

Scott_P

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/ninjaeconomics/status/760306246306136065

Scott_P

@LPDonovan: Gallup has Trump as the first nom on record whose convention actually made people less likely to support him (36/51) https://t.co/ySZEpOIPVG

Indigo

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

I can't take Smith seriously, he looks like he should be dating a Cheeky Girl.

JWisemann

Nice idiosyncratic use of the loaded phrase 'entryists' from Mike there (implying that everyone who has joined in the last year arent real labour supporters). Noone could accuse him of being an impartial observer, that's for sure.

IanB2

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.

david_herdson

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.

He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.

Indigo

JWisemann said:

Nice idiosyncratic use of the loaded phrase 'entryists' from Mike there (implying that everyone who has joined in the last year arent real labour supporters). Noone could accuse him of being an impartial observer, that's for sure.

This isnt exactly news.. especially for anyone remotely kipper inclined. Mike's ball, Mike's rules.

IanB2

JWisemann said:

Nice idiosyncratic use of the loaded phrase 'entryists' from Mike there (implying that everyone who has joined in the last year arent real labour supporters). Noone could accuse him of being an impartial observer, that's for sure.

It must be somewhat galling, having joined up at school and spent half a lifetime delivering leaflets, knocking on doors, and going to thinly attended branch meetings on cold November evenings year after year, to suddenly find yourself surrounded by thousands of noobs all bursting with zeal for JC who have done FA and got in for just £3. And who probably voted for the Green candidate, or didn't bother, last time. Where is your empathy, man?

Innocent_Abroad

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Put it another way. Labour is only electable when it offers wet Tory policies. Is that what you mean?

Freggles

Innocent_Abroad said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Put it another way. Labour is only electable when it offers wet Tory policies. Is that what you mean?

I think he means any political party is only electable when it has a leader who is willing to speak to the media, and has the confidence of many of their MPs

IanB2

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.

He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.

A bit unfair on Brown. He wasn't so far off it in 2010 despite having been in the chair during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Had he gone for election when he took office he would have been more electable than Cameron, despite being already a very familiar figure in politics.

OldKingCole

Scott_P said:

@LPDonovan: Gallup has Trump as the first nom on record whose convention actually made people less likely to support him (36/51) https://t.co/ySZEpOIPVG

I do like the idea from one of his team that it the polls don’t agree with the result, it’s the result that’s wrong!

Indigo

Innocent_Abroad said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Put it another way. Labour is only electable when it offers wet Tory policies. Is that what you mean?

To get a plurality, never mind a majority in the next parliament, 4 out of 5 of the voters Labour needs to bring on board voted Conservative in 2015, you work it out.

Scott_P

Indigo said:

To get a plurality, never mind a majority in the next parliament, 4 out of 5 of the voters Labour needs to bring on board voted Conservative in 2015, you work it out.

Did you not see Paul Mason?

He doesn't want anyone who ever voted Tory to vote for Corbyn.

He wants people who never vote instead...

JWisemann

Indigo - 76% of the electorate didnt vote tory so im not sure how that statistic can possibly be true.

david_herdson

On topic, if the above figures are right then my back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest that Corbyn remains about 100k votes ahead, given the size of the supporters, the influx of post-2015 members and the outflux of pre-2015 ones. Indeed, those members who resigned or let their membership lapse in response to seeing their party hijacked may well go a long way to explaining the much higher anti-Corbyn share among registered supporters this time.

100k is, however, a huge lead in a party election. It would translate to about a 60-40 result in percentage terms, which might sound close but that simply be because the anti-Corbyn faction has united on the least-worst option; his own share is actually pretty much a carbon copy of last year.

So with the caveat that the projection's built on somewhat shaky foundations, I'd be reasonably confident that Corbyn will win comfortably. I don't see how Smith wins over 50k of the Corbyn supporters. If they were happy with his performance up until July, what's changed since to force them to change their minds? Smith's policy pitch? His professionalism? The polls?

Well yes, all could have an effect. In theory, all play to his advantage but I suspect that Corbynites will regard the first as no improvement on the Dear Leader, the second as irrelevant, false, or playing to the wrong agenda, and the third as either biased or transient.

Maybe some day the far left will get bored, or sulk off in the light of a further 'betrayal', or split their forces over some dancing-on-a-pinhead disagreement - but not yet; not by a long way. And until they do, the Labour mainstream's cause is lost. The only question is whether it's lost irretrievably, in which case a split is the only option, or whether they can hang on inside to catch their chance when it presents itself.

Indigo

.

Scott_P said:

Indigo said:

To get a plurality, never mind a majority in the next parliament, 4 out of 5 of the voters Labour needs to bring on board voted Conservative in 2015, you work it out.

Did you not see Paul Mason?

He doesn't want anyone who ever voted Tory to vote for Corbyn.

He wants people who never vote instead...

He has been a political commentator for how many years and hasn't noticed that the thing about people that never vote is that they never vote. Corbyn's contempt for parliament is hardly going to be motivating people to vote even if they believe in him.

SquareRoot

JWisemann said:

Nice idiosyncratic use of the loaded phrase 'entryists' from Mike there (implying that everyone who has joined in the last year arent real labour supporters). Noone could accuse him of being an impartial observer, that's for sure.

So speaks someone who is blind to the reality of the situation.

SouthamObserver

david_herdson said:

On topic, if the above figures are right then my back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest that Corbyn remains about 100k votes ahead, given the size of the supporters, the influx of post-2015 members and the outflux of pre-2015 ones. Indeed, those members who resigned or let their membership lapse in response to seeing their party hijacked may well go a long way to explaining the much higher anti-Corbyn share among registered supporters this time.

100k is, however, a huge lead in a party election. It would translate to about a 60-40 result in percentage terms, which might sound close but that simply be because the anti-Corbyn faction has united on the least-worst option; his own share is actually pretty much a carbon copy of last year.

So with the caveat that the projection's built on somewhat shaky foundations, I'd be reasonably confident that Corbyn will win comfortably. I don't see how Smith wins over 50k of the Corbyn supporters. If they were happy with his performance up until July, what's changed since to force them to change their minds? Smith's policy pitch? His professionalism? The polls?

Well yes, all could have an effect. In theory, all play to his advantage but I suspect that Corbynites will regard the first as no improvement on the Dear Leader, the second as irrelevant, false, or playing to the wrong agenda, and the third as either biased or transient.

Maybe some day the far left will get bored, or sulk off in the light of a further 'betrayal', or split their forces over some dancing-on-a-pinhead disagreement - but not yet; not by a long way. And until they do, the Labour mainstream's cause is lost. The only question is whether it's lost irretrievably, in which case a split is the only option, or whether they can hang on inside to catch their chance when it presents itself.

As long as we have a FPTP voting system hanging on is the only option.

IanB2

david_herdson said:

On topic, if the above figures are right then my back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest that Corbyn remains about 100k votes ahead, given the size of the supporters, the influx of post-2015 members and the outflux of pre-2015 ones. Indeed, those members who resigned or let their membership lapse in response to seeing their party hijacked may well go a long way to explaining the much higher anti-Corbyn share among registered supporters this time.

100k is, however, a huge lead in a party election. It would translate to about a 60-40 result in percentage terms, which might sound close but that simply be because the anti-Corbyn faction has united on the least-worst option; his own share is actually pretty much a carbon copy of last year.

So with the caveat that the projection's built on somewhat shaky foundations, I'd be reasonably confident that Corbyn will win comfortably. I don't see how Smith wins over 50k of the Corbyn supporters. If they were happy with his performance up until July, what's changed since to force them to change their minds? Smith's policy pitch? His professionalism? The polls?

Well yes, all could have an effect. In theory, all play to his advantage but I suspect that Corbynites will regard the first as no improvement on the Dear Leader, the second as irrelevant, false, or playing to the wrong agenda, and the third as either biased or transient.

Maybe some day the far left will get bored, or sulk off in the light of a further 'betrayal', or split their forces over some dancing-on-a-pinhead disagreement - but not yet; not by a long way. And until they do, the Labour mainstream's cause is lost. The only question is whether it's lost irretrievably, in which case a split is the only option, or whether they can hang on inside to catch their chance when it presents itself.

Not all Labour members are off the scale, though, and my perception taking to Labour colleagues is that some of them at least are now aware of Corbyn's deficiencies as a reality, rather than just a hypothetical. The problem for Smith is that the MPs' manoeuvrings have been so blatant and manipulative that for many it has become a matter of democratic principle to snub them and re-elect Corbyn, whatever they think of his personal ability.

Indigo

JWisemann said:

Indigo - 76% of the electorate didnt vote tory so im not sure how that statistic can possibly be true.

Because of FPTP, the only votes that matter are swing voters in marginals.

OldKingCole

IanB2 said:

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.

He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.

A bit unfair on Brown. He wasn't so far off it in 2010 despite having been in the chair during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Had he gone for election when he took office he would have been more electable than Cameron, despite being already a very familiar figure in politics.

If Brown had been a bit more reasonable with the LD’s he might have been in a position to hang on in 2010 albeit with a minority government.

SouthamObserver

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

I'd say Smith could probably deliver a similar result to Miliband, but might boost the Labour vote in Wales. If the LDs can win a few seats back, under Smith there's the potential for a hung Parliament. Under Corbyn, of course, it's a big Tory majority. Not that the Corbyn cult cares about that.

SouthamObserver

Indigo said:

JWisemann said:

Indigo - 76% of the electorate didnt vote tory so im not sure how that statistic can possibly be true.

Because of FPTP, the only votes that matter are swing voters in marginals.

This is correct.

Casino_Royale

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Put it another way. Labour is only electable when it offers wet Tory policies. Is that what you mean?

To get a plurality, never mind a majority in the next parliament, 4 out of 5 of the voters Labour needs to bring on board voted Conservative in 2015, you work it out.

Labour would have a chance of victory if it talked about issues of interest to voters, and how its principles could help, rather than issues of interest to itself.

It needs to win c.100 seats in England for a comfortable win. That means appealing to the non unionised private sector; working and middle class swing voters.

A fair immigration and refugee system with international aid, state sponsored home building with home ownership for low income earners, a focus on adult education/training and job growth for lower-middle income earners, flexible family support, reassurance on economic competence and firm but fair on welfare into work, with perhaps less money on pensions and more on that, would all work. And to be comfortable with nationhood - having as much interest in Britain and national solidarity as they do elsewhere.

The trouble isn't that these are "Tory" policies, but that Labour let them be so. As long as they do so they will be out of office.

IanB2

Indigo said:

.

Scott_P said:

Indigo said:

To get a plurality, never mind a majority in the next parliament, 4 out of 5 of the voters Labour needs to bring on board voted Conservative in 2015, you work it out.

Did you not see Paul Mason?

He doesn't want anyone who ever voted Tory to vote for Corbyn.

He wants people who never vote instead...

He has been a political commentator for how many years and hasn't noticed that the thing about people that never vote is that they never vote. Corbyn's contempt for parliament is hardly going to be motivating people to vote even if they believe in him.

If he can work out what motivated the extra 6-7% to vote at Brexit who don't normally bother, it's a potential new constituency. Plus more of the non-voters and all the first time youngsters. If you read his book, Mr Mason likes nothing better than hanging out with young people across the world who are brand new to political activism. But you are right that it isn't the most solid of potential bases for a new political movement.

CarlottaVance

dugarbandier said:

Finally an undisputable positive result of Brexit

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/brexit-has-scuppered-mrs-browns-boys-sequel-movie-111653182.html

I'm calling horsefeathers - the TV series is shot in Glasgow, but they chose to shoot the first movie in Dublin - but if their box office is in GBP, perhaps they should shoot it the UK.....

david_herdson

SouthamObserver said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, if the above figures are right then my back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest that Corbyn remains about 100k votes ahead, given the size of the supporters, the influx of post-2015 members and the outflux of pre-2015 ones. Indeed, those members who resigned or let their membership lapse in response to seeing their party hijacked may well go a long way to explaining the much higher anti-Corbyn share among registered supporters this time.

100k is, however, a huge lead in a party election. It would translate to about a 60-40 result in percentage terms, which might sound close but that simply be because the anti-Corbyn faction has united on the least-worst option; his own share is actually pretty much a carbon copy of last year.

So with the caveat that the projection's built on somewhat shaky foundations, I'd be reasonably confident that Corbyn will win comfortably. I don't see how Smith wins over 50k of the Corbyn supporters. If they were happy with his performance up until July, what's changed since to force them to change their minds? Smith's policy pitch? His professionalism? The polls?

Well yes, all could have an effect. In theory, all play to his advantage but I suspect that Corbynites will regard the first as no improvement on the Dear Leader, the second as irrelevant, false, or playing to the wrong agenda, and the third as either biased or transient.

Maybe some day the far left will get bored, or sulk off in the light of a further 'betrayal', or split their forces over some dancing-on-a-pinhead disagreement - but not yet; not by a long way. And until they do, the Labour mainstream's cause is lost. The only question is whether it's lost irretrievably, in which case a split is the only option, or whether they can hang on inside to catch their chance when it presents itself.

As long as we have a FPTP voting system hanging on is the only option.

It's an awful dilemma. But 'hanging on' only makes sense if there's a reasonable prospect of regaining control at some future point, and the longer Corbyn and his team hold the leadership, the more difficult that becomes:

1. The membership itself is changing, as per Mike's figures above. There's little reason to assume that won't continue.
2. The composition of the NEC is likely to move further to Corbyn's advantage over the remainder of the parliament.
3. Therefore, the rules of the game are likely to move to the left's advantage.
4. Which may well change the rules of future leadership elections - e.g. nominations from CLPs as well as (or even instead of?) MPs.
5. Boundary review could make for a clean way of purging 'disloyal' MPs (the irony here is profound).

But as you say, splitting under FPTP is a Samson act.

IanB2

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Put it another way. Labour is only electable when it offers wet Tory policies. Is that what you mean?

To get a plurality, never mind a majority in the next parliament, 4 out of 5 of the voters Labour needs to bring on board voted Conservative in 2015, you work it out.

I doubt that can be right, if you allow for five years' of electorate turnover? Particularly as the deaths will be disproportionately conservative.

david_herdson

IanB2 said:

Indigo said:

.

Scott_P said:

Indigo said:

To get a plurality, never mind a majority in the next parliament, 4 out of 5 of the voters Labour needs to bring on board voted Conservative in 2015, you work it out.

Did you not see Paul Mason?

He doesn't want anyone who ever voted Tory to vote for Corbyn.

He wants people who never vote instead...

He has been a political commentator for how many years and hasn't noticed that the thing about people that never vote is that they never vote. Corbyn's contempt for parliament is hardly going to be motivating people to vote even if they believe in him.

If he can work out what motivated the extra 6-7% to vote at Brexit who don't normally bother, it's a potential new constituency. Plus more of the non-voters and all the first time youngsters. If you read his book, Mr Mason likes nothing better than hanging out with young people across the world who are brand new to political activism. But you are right that it isn't the most solid of potential bases for a new political movement.

He needs to work out where they are first. Increasing Labour majorities in their own safe seats adds something to national 'mandate' but nothing in Westminster mathematics.

CarlottaVance

Indigo said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

I can't take Smith seriously, he looks like he should be dating a Cheeky Girl.

He looks a bit like Corbyn with added misogyny...

Casino_Royale

IanB2 said:

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.

He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.

A bit unfair on Brown. He wasn't so far off it in 2010 despite having been in the chair during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Had he gone for election when he took office he would have been more electable than Cameron, despite being already a very familiar figure in politics.

Brown showed some economic competence in 2008.

By 2010 he was in full electioneering and 'I hate the Tories' mode, pursuing a sorched earth fiscal policy of such recklessness that Alasdair Darling threatened to resign.

Indigo

IanB2 said:

Indigo said:

.

Scott_P said:

Indigo said:

To get a plurality, never mind a majority in the next parliament, 4 out of 5 of the voters Labour needs to bring on board voted Conservative in 2015, you work it out.

Did you not see Paul Mason?

He doesn't want anyone who ever voted Tory to vote for Corbyn.

He wants people who never vote instead...

He has been a political commentator for how many years and hasn't noticed that the thing about people that never vote is that they never vote. Corbyn's contempt for parliament is hardly going to be motivating people to vote even if they believe in him.

If he can work out what motivated the extra 6-7% to vote at Brexit who don't normally bother, it's a potential new constituency. Plus more of the non-voters and all the first time youngsters. If you read his book, Mr Mason likes nothing better than hanging out with young people across the world who are brand new to political activism. But you are right that it isn't the most solid of potential bases for a new political movement.

We saw lots of activism and noise in the BrExit campaign, on the face of it plenty of interest from the young, lots of campaigning from students etc. But when the crunch came the young still voted with less than half the vigor of the retired. For some reason they cannot understand that activism without at least the credible threat of parliamentary votes is worthless.

UKIP has been the most successful pressure group possibly ever, but a large part of that is because they were a credible threat to the Tories majority in parliament, they didn't need to win the seats, but they needed to look like they would win enough to be a problem if the government didn't follow a certain course of action.

IanB2

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.

He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.

A bit unfair on Brown. He wasn't so far off it in 2010 despite having been in the chair during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Had he gone for election when he took office he would have been more electable than Cameron, despite being already a very familiar figure in politics.

If Brown had been a bit more reasonable with the LD’s he might have been in a position to hang on in 2010 albeit with a minority government.

Not really. The numbers barely stretched to a workable government even with all the odds and sods as well as Labour and the LibDems, and at the very time Brown and co were closeted away with Clegg, senior Labour people like Reid were feeding the press 'over my dead body' commentary. And on electoral reform, despite its previous promises under Blair, there is almost as much deep opposition in Labour as the Tories (see how they whipped against a ten minute rule bill on PR just last week). Even the eventual AV referendum would never have carried the Commons.

/edit and, further, the LibDems wouldn't have done the deal without #Gordexit.

CD13

Mr B2,

"I doubt that can be right, if you allow for five years' of electorate turnover? Particularly as the deaths will be disproportionately conservative."

I volunteer to be the first to point out your erroneous assumption. People tend to become more conservative as they get older. If death was eradicated, eventually virtually everyone would be a Conservative or Ukip voter.

The only hope for Labour is to increase the mortality rate. For example, by banning H&S, nationalising the pharmaceutical industry, relaxing rules on smoking, and generally having less "progressive" policies

You see their problem?

OldKingCole

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.

He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.

A bit unfair on Brown. He wasn't so far off it in 2010 despite having been in the chair during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Had he gone for election when he took office he would have been more electable than Cameron, despite being already a very familiar figure in politics.

If Brown had been a bit more reasonable with the LD’s he might have been in a position to hang on in 2010 albeit with a minority government.

Not really. The numbers barely stretched to a workable government even with all the odds and sods as well as Labour and the LibDems, and at the very time Brown and co were closeted away with Clegg, senior Labour people like Reid were feeding the press 'over my dead body' commentary. And on electoral reform, despite its previous promises under Blair, there is almost as much deep opposition in Labour as the Tories. Even the eventual AV referendum would never have carried the Commons.

/edit and, further, the LibDems wouldn't have done the deal without #Gordexit.

Quite. “If" and |might” were the important words. I agree that in 2010 the only viable Government was a Tory/LD Coalition. It was a bit like Heath in Feb. 74. Whoever had won the election, it was pretty clear that the sitting PM had lost!

IanB2

CD13 said:

Mr B2,

"I doubt that can be right, if you allow for five years' of electorate turnover? Particularly as the deaths will be disproportionately conservative."

I volunteer to be the first to point out your erroneous assumption. People tend to become more conservative as they get older. If death was eradicated, eventually virtually everyone would be a Conservative or Ukip voter.

The only hope for Labour is to increase the mortality rate. For example, by banning H&S, nationalising the pharmaceutical industry, relaxing rules on smoking, and generally having less "progressive" policies

You see their problem?

Even if you are right (and there is some evidence that the 'older, more conservative' trend is partly due to people forming political views during late teenage and sticking with them through life), your point isn't relevant to my post, which was a challenge to the earlier assertion that 4 out of 5 people that Labour needs voted Tory in 2015. The earlier assertion forgot to allow for the fact that the 2020 electorate will not be the same people as in 2015, partly due to deaths/migration/people reaching 18, and partly because, as well as always-voters and never-voters, there are actually quite a lot of sometimes-voters.

DavidL

CD13 said:

Mr B2,

"I doubt that can be right, if you allow for five years' of electorate turnover? Particularly as the deaths will be disproportionately conservative."

I volunteer to be the first to point out your erroneous assumption. People tend to become more conservative as they get older. If death was eradicated, eventually virtually everyone would be a Conservative or Ukip voter.

The only hope for Labour is to increase the mortality rate. For example, by banning H&S, nationalising the pharmaceutical industry, relaxing rules on smoking, and generally having less "progressive" policies

You see their problem?

One of their favourite things is telling people what to do?

CarlottaVance

Interesting (and mildly encouraging) review of innovation across Europe:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/01/where-europe-is-most-and-where-it-is-least-innovative-in-one-map/?tid=sm_tw

Alistair

Scott_P said:

@LPDonovan: Gallup has Trump as the first nom on record whose convention actually made people less likely to support him (36/51) https://t.co/ySZEpOIPVG

All part of his master plan.

Trump is going for a 35% strategy.

ToryJim

I see Donald Trump is continuing his strategy of keeping a blizzard of controversy going by just introducing ever weirder stuff into the mix. One suspects he's just getting his excuses in early with his "it woz rigged" malarkey!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/donald-trump-calls-hillary-clinton-the-devil-and-fears-us-presid/

CarlottaVance

One to file under.....'Yeah, right....'

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co0xJd6WgAA3V3F.jpg:large

Doesn't everyone eat their KFC big bucket with a knife & fork on china ware on their private jet......?

Indigo

IanB2 said:

CD13 said:

Mr B2,

"I doubt that can be right, if you allow for five years' of electorate turnover? Particularly as the deaths will be disproportionately conservative."

I volunteer to be the first to point out your erroneous assumption. People tend to become more conservative as they get older. If death was eradicated, eventually virtually everyone would be a Conservative or Ukip voter.

The only hope for Labour is to increase the mortality rate. For example, by banning H&S, nationalising the pharmaceutical industry, relaxing rules on smoking, and generally having less "progressive" policies

You see their problem?

Even if you are right (and there is some evidence that the 'older, more conservative' trend is partly due to people forming political views during late teenage and sticking with them through life), your point isn't relevant to my post, which was a challenge to the earlier assertion that 4 out of 5 people that Labour needs voted Tory in 2015. The earlier assertion forgot to allow for the fact that the 2020 electorate will not be the same people as in 2015, partly due to deaths/migration/people reaching 18, and partly because, as well as always-voters and never-voters, there are actually quite a lot of sometimes-voters.

The voters of swing constituencies like Nuneaton will broadly have the same makeup in 2020 as they do now, a few oldies will have died, a few middle aged swing voters will have become more elderly conservative voters, and few of the youth will have lost their idealism/gullibility and become swing voters, and a few more idealistic kids will now be eligible to vote. It has to be broadly thus otherwise after one generation all voters will be voting for one party, and the history of the last hundred years show us that from time to time both Labour and Conservatives have held a majority.

IanB2

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting (and mildly encouraging) review of innovation across Europe:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/01/where-europe-is-most-and-where-it-is-least-innovative-in-one-map/?tid=sm_tw

Yes, it looks good for all of the U.K. and Eire, as well as Finland and the former DDR. Not so good for Norway and almost all of Italy, which is a little surprising.

Also I am surprised that Romania and Bulgaria stand out from the eastern bloc - if you had asked me which country was out in front I would have guessed Poland or Czechia.

DavidL

CarlottaVance said:

dugarbandier said:

Finally an undisputable positive result of Brexit

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/brexit-has-scuppered-mrs-browns-boys-sequel-movie-111653182.html

I'm calling horsefeathers - the TV series is shot in Glasgow, but they chose to shoot the first movie in Dublin - but if their box office is in GBP, perhaps they should shoot it the UK.....

Alternatively we could just shoot the cast....

IanB2

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

CD13 said:

Mr B2,

"I doubt that can be right, if you allow for five years' of electorate turnover? Particularly as the deaths will be disproportionately conservative."

I volunteer to be the first to point out your erroneous assumption. People tend to become more conservative as they get older. If death was eradicated, eventually virtually everyone would be a Conservative or Ukip voter.

The only hope for Labour is to increase the mortality rate. For example, by banning H&S, nationalising the pharmaceutical industry, relaxing rules on smoking, and generally having less "progressive" policies

You see their problem?

Even if you are right (and there is some evidence that the 'older, more conservative' trend is partly due to people forming political views during late teenage and sticking with them through life), your point isn't relevant to my post, which was a challenge to the earlier assertion that 4 out of 5 people that Labour needs voted Tory in 2015. The earlier assertion forgot to allow for the fact that the 2020 electorate will not be the same people as in 2015, partly due to deaths/migration/people reaching 18, and partly because, as well as always-voters and never-voters, there are actually quite a lot of sometimes-voters.

The voters of swing constituencies like Nuneaton will broadly have the same makeup in 2020 as they do now, a few oldies will have died, a few middle aged swing voters will have become more elderly conservative voters, and few of the youth will have lost their idealism/gullibility and become swing voters, and a few more idealistic kids will now be eligible to vote. It has to be broadly thus otherwise after one generation all voters will be voting for one party, and the history of the last hundred years show us that from time to time both Labour and Conservatives have held a majority.

With respect, saying that the demographic make up of an area changes only slowly is quite a different point from arguing that quite so many people who actually voted conservative last time will need to vote labour next time.

Casino_Royale

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

CD13 said:

Mr B2,

"I doubt that can be right, if you allow for five years' of electorate turnover? Particularly as the deaths will be disproportionately conservative."

I volunteer to be the first to point out your erroneous assumption. People tend to become more conservative as they get older. If death was eradicated, eventually virtually everyone would be a Conservative or Ukip voter.

The only hope for Labour is to increase the mortality rate. For example, by banning H&S, nationalising the pharmaceutical industry, relaxing rules on smoking, and generally having less "progressive" policies

You see their problem?

Even if you are right (and there is some evidence that the 'older, more conservative' trend is partly due to people forming political views during late teenage and sticking with them through life), your point isn't relevant to my post, which was a challenge to the earlier assertion that 4 out of 5 people that Labour needs voted Tory in 2015. The earlier assertion forgot to allow for the fact that the 2020 electorate will not be the same people as in 2015, partly due to deaths/migration/people reaching 18, and partly because, as well as always-voters and never-voters, there are actually quite a lot of sometimes-voters.

The voters of swing constituencies like Nuneaton will broadly have the same makeup in 2020 as they do now, a few oldies will have died, a few middle aged swing voters will have become more elderly conservative voters, and few of the youth will have lost their idealism/gullibility and become swing voters, and a few more idealistic kids will now be eligible to vote. It has to be broadly thus otherwise after one generation all voters will be voting for one party, and the history of the last hundred years show us that from time to time both Labour and Conservatives have held a majority.

Yup. All 'summer of love' hippies are now 65+

Some of them will still be hippy-like (and certainly have slightly different social attitudes to their parents generation) but have very clearly shifted to the Right, and a majority vote Conservative.

CarlottaVance

When Sturgeon was crowned leader of the SNP in the weeks following her party’s defeat at the 2014 independence referendum, she took part in a nationwide tour at which she courageously accepted the devotion and cheers of the impressively large audiences that gathered to touch the hem of her garment (or grab a selfie). Only one word appeared on the stage behind her. Not “Scotland”, not the name of the party, but simply “Nicola”, bereft of a surname. But it’s not a cult, her followers say. In unison.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/01/voters-open-your-eyes-and-escape-these-political-cults/

HYUFD

If only pre 2015 Labour members had a vote Smith would probably win, it is the registered supporters who are most pro Corbyn and still fervently so on the whole and their support should be enough to produce a Corbyn victory. Until Corbyn/McDonnell lose a general election as far as I can see moderates within Labour have no chance of reclaiming the party and getting a leader with appeal beyond the hard left

IanB2

Casino_Royale said:

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

CD13 said:

Mr B2,

"I doubt that can be right, if you allow for five years' of electorate turnover? Particularly as the deaths will be disproportionately conservative."

I volunteer to be the first to point out your erroneous assumption. People tend to become more conservative as they get older. If death was eradicated, eventually virtually everyone would be a Conservative or Ukip voter.

The only hope for Labour is to increase the mortality rate. For example, by banning H&S, nationalising the pharmaceutical industry, relaxing rules on smoking, and generally having less "progressive" policies

You see their problem?

Even if you are right (and there is some evidence that the 'older, more conservative' trend is partly due to people forming political views during late teenage and sticking with them through life), your point isn't relevant to my post, which was a challenge to the earlier assertion that 4 out of 5 people that Labour needs voted Tory in 2015. The earlier assertion forgot to allow for the fact that the 2020 electorate will not be the same people as in 2015, partly due to deaths/migration/people reaching 18, and partly because, as well as always-voters and never-voters, there are actually quite a lot of sometimes-voters.

The voters of swing constituencies like Nuneaton will broadly have the same makeup in 2020 as they do now, a few oldies will have died, a few middle aged swing voters will have become more elderly conservative voters, and few of the youth will have lost their idealism/gullibility and become swing voters, and a few more idealistic kids will now be eligible to vote. It has to be broadly thus otherwise after one generation all voters will be voting for one party, and the history of the last hundred years show us that from time to time both Labour and Conservatives have held a majority.

Yup. All 'summer of love' hippies are now 65+

Some of them will still be hippy-like (and certainly have slightly different social attitudes to their parents generation) but have very clearly shifted to the Right, and a majority vote Conservative.

But painting everything as steady state is missing half the picture. There's migration and the changing ethnic mix, for a start, just as in the US. And the "I always vote Labour/Tory because my father did and grandfather did" folks are dying off and not being replaced by people who suddenly start saying the same in their own middle age. Today's youngsters are growing up in a very different environment from their parents and some of this will rub off on them for life. Hence for example the long run downtrend in people who only vote Labour or Tory.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Have they returned the £25 to those culled from the list?

This does seem like more gerrymandering to try and get Labour out of the hole its deranged rules and idiotic MPs have dug it into.

DavidL

I was speaking to a group of Labour members last night. No discernable enthusiasm for Smith and a general consensus that the MPs had behaved badly but they were all going to vote for Smith to get rid of Corbyn. Members of a certain age and class and by no means representative but the idea that this is a battle that will determine if Labour has a future is not some weird PB fixation (like AV, for example).

Fysics_Teacher

Innocent_Abroad said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Put it another way. Labour is only electable when it offers wet Tory policies. Is that what you mean?

That seems to be what the last 37 years of general elections shows.

foxinsoxuk

dugarbandier said:

Finally an undisputable positive result of Brexit

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/brexit-has-scuppered-mrs-browns-boys-sequel-movie-111653182.html

It makes it all worthwhile!

Indigo

IanB2 said:

With respect, saying that the demographic make up of an area changes only slowly is quite a different point from arguing that quite so many people who actually voted conservative last time will need to vote labour next time.

Its not really my argument, I am not remotely qualified to make so bold a claim, it comes from the analysis done for the Fabians

Around 4 out of 5 of the extra (net) votes Labour will need to gain in English and
Welsh marginals will have to come direct from Conservative voters (in 2015 this
figure was around 1 out of 5, because of the Lib Dem meltdown).

http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Mountain-to-Climb.pdf

Research for the LSE supports this view, and also suggests that gaining substantial new voters from "non voters" is probably fanciful

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/could-labour-win-an-election-by-mobilising-non-voters/

So each staunch Labour source with no particular centrist axe to grind think Labour is fecked if it can't appeal to people that voted Tory this time around.

Fysics_Teacher

DavidL said:

I was speaking to a group of Labour members last night. No discernable enthusiasm for Smith and a general consensus that the MPs had behaved badly but they were all going to vote for Smith to get rid of Corbyn. Members of a certain age and class and by no means representative but the idea that this is a battle that will determine if Labour has a future is not some weird PB fixation (like AV, for example).

I think Owen Jones' heartfelt article referenced on previous threads is also very strong evidence for this: if even he thinks there is a problem it's bad.

CD13

Mr B2,

Don't make the mistake of protesting too much. The broad trend of a slight rightward swing with age is well-established. It's a tide, and like a gentle tide the water may ebb and flow a little, and although it often meets eddies and swirls, it remains inexorable.

I was a teenager in the sixties, and I've seen this trend in action. The ageing hippy may still remain, but he or she is lone piece of rock sticking up above the sea - eventually to be swallowed by the tide.

Edit: Jezza, of course, has an ossified brain and remains impervious.

BannedInParis

IanB2 said:

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

tlg86 said:

The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election

I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.

He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.

Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.

He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.

A bit unfair on Brown. He wasn't so far off it in 2010 despite having been in the chair during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Had he gone for election when he took office he would have been more electable than Cameron, despite being already a very familiar figure in politics.

Incidentally I actually think recessions tend to help the incumbent. Have a look back -

2008-09 - Labour do much better than expected, enough to stop a Tory majority
1990-1991 - Major wins a massive mandate
19 80-1981 - Thatcher wins in 83
1974-1975 - election in the middle of it.
1961 - Tories did enough in 64 to reduce Labour expected landslide to 4 seat majority
1956 - nearest election in 1959 saw the Tories increase the number of seats that they had.

Obviously, other events might intervene but the one clear case was where there was an election in the middle of a recession. Everything else? Not so much.

ToryJim

Perhaps Labour needs to study its history the last time they replaced a quixotic and dangerous hard left leader with a slightly less left Welshman it didn't exactly prevent them being in opposition!

DavidL

Fysics_Teacher said:

DavidL said:

I was speaking to a group of Labour members last night. No discernable enthusiasm for Smith and a general consensus that the MPs had behaved badly but they were all going to vote for Smith to get rid of Corbyn. Members of a certain age and class and by no means representative but the idea that this is a battle that will determine if Labour has a future is not some weird PB fixation (like AV, for example).

I think Owen Jones' heartfelt article referenced on previous threads is also very strong evidence for this: if even he thinks there is a problem it's bad.

For me the most telling thing have been the reports by those who were in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and genuinely did try to work with him but found their position impossible as they were undermined by a leader who just goes his own way, says whatever has crossed that desert of a mind at that particular point in time and has no sense of teamwork, responsibility, media messaging or anything else that an eccentric and disloyal backbench MP did not really need for the last 30 years.

HYUFD

ToryJim said:

Perhaps Labour needs to study its history the last time they replaced a quixotic and dangerous hard left leader with a slightly less left Welshman it didn't exactly prevent them being in opposition!

Yes but Kinnock took Labour from the 27% Foot got in 1983 i.e. about what Corbyn is now polling to 30% in 1987 and 34% in 1992

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, what happens if Corbyn loses?

He and Mao might still be noisy on the backbenches, corralling thousands of supporters in a madleft direction.

Still better for Labour than having him in charge, of course.

IanB2

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

With respect, saying that the demographic make up of an area changes only slowly is quite a different point from arguing that quite so many people who actually voted conservative last time will need to vote labour next time.

Its not really my argument, I am not remotely qualified to make so bold a claim, it comes from the analysis done for the Fabians

Around 4 out of 5 of the extra (net) votes Labour will need to gain in English and
Welsh marginals will have to come direct from Conservative voters (in 2015 this
figure was around 1 out of 5, because of the Lib Dem meltdown).

http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Mountain-to-Climb.pdf

Research for the LSE supports this view, and also suggests that gaining substantial new voters from "non voters" is probably fanciful

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/could-labour-win-an-election-by-mobilising-non-voters/

So each staunch Labour source with no particular centrist axe to grind think Labour is fecked if it can't appeal to people that voted Tory this time around.

OK, whilst I don't accept that the figurework would support the literal claims being made here, the political point that Labour needs to appeal to centre voters is clearly well founded. Labour's central problem is that, having denied the country the benefit of moving to PR when it was in office, it is now behaving like a party in a PR system.

foxinsoxuk

CD13 said:

Mr B2,

Don't make the mistake of protesting too much. The broad trend of a slight rightward swing with age is well-established. It's a tide, and like a gentle tide the water may ebb and flow a little, and although it often meets eddies and swirls, it remains inexorable.

I was a teenager in the sixties, and I've seen this trend in action. The ageing hippy may still remain, but he or she is lone piece rock sticking up above the sea - eventually to be swallowed by the tide.

Edit: Jezza, of course, has an ossified brain and remains impervious.

I think the Sixties generation are reasonably socially liberal as they age, and less bought into the collective ideals of class or country than previous generations. They are individulistic with money too so not so keen on taxes and welfare.

It is worth noting that the Sixties of much of Britain in the Sixties was very different to Carnaby St and swinging London. My dad describes the Sixties as depressing: "everyone was trying to emigrate" He was thirty in 1965. A lot of social attitudes did not change until the eighties or nineties.

MarqueeMark

HYUFD said:

Until Corbyn/McDonnell lose a general election as far as I can see moderates within Labour have no chance of reclaiming the party and getting a leader with appeal beyond the hard left

But by then, Labour's deck will be stacked massively in favour of the hard left. The candidates on offer to the voters in 2025 will be unrecognisable to those on offer in 2015, through removal and retirement.

Nobody has convinced me that after another election defeat, Momentum is just going to admit "You know what - we got it so wrong. We need another Harold Wilson - or another Tony Blair..."

eek

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

Until Corbyn/McDonnell lose a general election as far as I can see moderates within Labour have no chance of reclaiming the party and getting a leader with appeal beyond the hard left

But by then, Labour's deck will be stacked massively in favour of the hard left. The candidates on offer to the voters in 2025 will be unrecognisable to those on offer in 2015, through removal and retirement.

Nobody has convinced me that after another election defeat, Momentum is just going to admit "You know what - we got it so wrong. We need another Harold Wilson - or another Tony Blair..."

You don't even need to worry about 2025... Given the boundary changes a lot of Labour candidates will be untested hard left at the next election.... If you want to grab control of a party starting just before major structural changes is the perfect time as you can grab control during the power grab as the structure changes...

DavidL

foxinsoxuk said:

CD13 said:

Mr B2,

Don't make the mistake of protesting too much. The broad trend of a slight rightward swing with age is well-established. It's a tide, and like a gentle tide the water may ebb and flow a little, and although it often meets eddies and swirls, it remains inexorable.

I was a teenager in the sixties, and I've seen this trend in action. The ageing hippy may still remain, but he or she is lone piece rock sticking up above the sea - eventually to be swallowed by the tide.

Edit: Jezza, of course, has an ossified brain and remains impervious.

I think the Sixties generation are reasonably socially liberal as they age, and less bought into the collective ideals of class or country than previous generations. They are individulistic with money too so not so keen on taxes and welfare.

It is worth noting that the Sixties of much of Britain in the Sixties was very different to Carnaby St and swinging London. My dad describes the Sixties as depressing: "everyone was trying to emigrate" He was thirty in 1965. A lot of social attitudes did not change until the eighties or nineties.

My dad said much the same. I was born in 61 and my brother in 63. He always told me that times were very tough and it was not easy bringing up a young family in the 60s with poor housing and no money to spare. Not a lot of hippies about. Mind you he was in the army!

DavidL

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. L, what happens if Corbyn loses?

He and Mao might still be noisy on the backbenches, corralling thousands of supporters in a madleft direction.

Still better for Labour than having him in charge, of course.

Its a good point. Even if he loses a lot of MPs are going to face the threat of deselection from disaffected Corbynites.

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

One to file under.....'Yeah, right....'

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co0xJd6WgAA3V3F.jpg:large

Doesn't everyone eat their KFC big bucket with a knife & fork on china ware on their private jet......?

Paper plate, surely? And cleverly, it is harking back to that golden era, where you were allowed to have metal cutlery in an airplane.... That is what Trump offers. A land where you no longer need to eat with plastic knives and forks.

MaxPB

It looks as though the ECB QE programme is beginning to lose its effectiveness in holding down the Euro. Two days of gains vs Sterling and USD. If it is the start of a pattern then the wheels might come off the Eurozone recovery, I'm not sure they can deal with the deflation and loss of competitiveness that the weak currency has given them over the last couple of years.

DavidL

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

One to file under.....'Yeah, right....'

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co0xJd6WgAA3V3F.jpg:large

Doesn't everyone eat their KFC big bucket with a knife & fork on china ware on their private jet......?

Paper plate, surely? And cleverly, it is harking back to that golden era, where you were allowed to have metal cutlery in an airplane.... That is what Trump offers. A land where you no longer need to eat with plastic knives and forks.

He eats KFC? He's even madder than I thought.

PlatoSaid

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

One to file under.....'Yeah, right....'

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co0xJd6WgAA3V3F.jpg:large

Doesn't everyone eat their KFC big bucket with a knife & fork on china ware on their private jet......?

Paper plate, surely? And cleverly, it is harking back to that golden era, where you were allowed to have metal cutlery in an airplane.... That is what Trump offers. A land where you no longer need to eat with plastic knives and forks.

I'd love to eat KFC on a flight. Would pay extra to avoid the universally awful quality of unidentifiable Mechanically Reclaimed Meat product...

Jobabob

DavidL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. L, what happens if Corbyn loses?

He and Mao might still be noisy on the backbenches, corralling thousands of supporters in a madleft direction.

Still better for Labour than having him in charge, of course.

Its a good point. Even if he loses a lot of MPs are going to face the threat of deselection from disaffected Corbynites.

If he loses, the anti-Corbyn bulk of the PLP will move in and change the rules PDQ to ensure that no fringe candidate from the far left can ever again take hold of the party, and no such deselections will be forthcoming.

But Corbyn will win, so this is all academic.

MaxPB

DavidL said:

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

One to file under.....'Yeah, right....'

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co0xJd6WgAA3V3F.jpg:large

Doesn't everyone eat their KFC big bucket with a knife & fork on china ware on their private jet......?

Paper plate, surely? And cleverly, it is harking back to that golden era, where you were allowed to have metal cutlery in an airplane.... That is what Trump offers. A land where you no longer need to eat with plastic knives and forks.

He eats KFC? He's even madder than I thought.

Indeed, he should have gone to Popeye's chicken!

eek

PlatoSaid said:

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

One to file under.....'Yeah, right....'

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co0xJd6WgAA3V3F.jpg:large

Doesn't everyone eat their KFC big bucket with a knife & fork on china ware on their private jet......?

Paper plate, surely? And cleverly, it is harking back to that golden era, where you were allowed to have metal cutlery in an airplane.... That is what Trump offers. A land where you no longer need to eat with plastic knives and forks.

I'd love to eat KFC on a flight. Would pay extra to avoid the universally awful quality of unidentifiable Mechanically Reclaimed Meat product...

I was booking a flight last night with fly2 (Yorkshire EasyJet). It got to the bit asking if I want a meal during the 4 hour flight..... - Plastic tasteless food was the one pay for option I'm very happy to skip....

Yes I know but it goes to where we want to go without the hassle of getting to Gatwick first...

IanB2

Deleted

Jobabob

DavidL said:

I was speaking to a group of Labour members last night. No discernable enthusiasm for Smith and a general consensus that the MPs had behaved badly but they were all going to vote for Smith to get rid of Corbyn. Members of a certain age and class and by no means representative but the idea that this is a battle that will determine if Labour has a future is not some weird PB fixation (like AV, for example).

Yes, Smith is the only game in town for anyone vaguely sane in the party. But there are not enough such people.

BannedInParis

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

Until Corbyn/McDonnell lose a general election as far as I can see moderates within Labour have no chance of reclaiming the party and getting a leader with appeal beyond the hard left

But by then, Labour's deck will be stacked massively in favour of the hard left. The candidates on offer to the voters in 2025 will be unrecognisable to those on offer in 2015, through removal and retirement.

Nobody has convinced me that after another election defeat, Momentum is just going to admit "You know what - we got it so wrong. We need another Harold Wilson - or another Tony Blair..."

They will find an excuse and argue for even harder left wing policies.

I know that.
You know that.
There's a remote tribe up the Orinoco that knows that.

Jobabob

ToryJim said:

I see Donald Trump is continuing his strategy of keeping a blizzard of controversy going by just introducing ever weirder stuff into the mix. One suspects he's just getting his excuses in early with his "it woz rigged" malarkey!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/donald-trump-calls-hillary-clinton-the-devil-and-fears-us-presid/

Trump is ever more bizarre.

He is trying to lose.

PeterC

Jobabob said:

DavidL said:

I was speaking to a group of Labour members last night. No discernable enthusiasm for Smith and a general consensus that the MPs had behaved badly but they were all going to vote for Smith to get rid of Corbyn. Members of a certain age and class and by no means representative but the idea that this is a battle that will determine if Labour has a future is not some weird PB fixation (like AV, for example).

Yes, Smith is the only game in town for anyone vaguely sane in the party. But there are not enough such people.

So what happens next? Hope for a sub 175 seat GE outcome after which Corbyn might just resign?

CarlottaVance

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

One to file under.....'Yeah, right....'

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co0xJd6WgAA3V3F.jpg:large

Doesn't everyone eat their KFC big bucket with a knife & fork on china ware on their private jet......?

Paper plate, surely? And cleverly, it is harking back to that golden era, where you were allowed to have metal cutlery in an airplane.... That is what Trump offers. A land where you no longer need to eat with plastic knives and forks.

Was there ever a land where people ate KFC with cutlery?

To prissy by three quarters.....

HYUFD

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

Until Corbyn/McDonnell lose a general election as far as I can see moderates within Labour have no chance of reclaiming the party and getting a leader with appeal beyond the hard left

But by then, Labour's deck will be stacked massively in favour of the hard left. The candidates on offer to the voters in 2025 will be unrecognisable to those on offer in 2015, through removal and retirement.

Nobody has convinced me that after another election defeat, Momentum is just going to admit "You know what - we got it so wrong. We need another Harold Wilson - or another Tony Blair..."

If Corbyn and McDonnell are heavily defeated in 2020 at the general election and they or another hard left figure are reelected to the Labour leadership then obviously the remaining moderate Labour MPs will have no choice but to defect en masse to the LDs and form a new centre left party

Jobabob

PeterC said:

Jobabob said:

DavidL said:

I was speaking to a group of Labour members last night. No discernable enthusiasm for Smith and a general consensus that the MPs had behaved badly but they were all going to vote for Smith to get rid of Corbyn. Members of a certain age and class and by no means representative but the idea that this is a battle that will determine if Labour has a future is not some weird PB fixation (like AV, for example).

Yes, Smith is the only game in town for anyone vaguely sane in the party. But there are not enough such people.

So what happens next? Hope for a sub 175 seat GE outcome after which Corbyn might just resign?

There is no solution. The party is screwed.

Morris_Dancer

I could be wrong, but I'm wondering whether Smith might win. May check the odds.

ThreeQuidder

Morris_Dancer said:

I could be wrong, but I'm wondering whether Smith might win. May check the odds.

Best available at the moment: 13/2 with the publicity-shy Paddy Power. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/labour-leadership-election

logical_song

IanB2 said:

Indigo said:

IanB2 said:

With respect, saying that the demographic make up of an area changes only slowly is quite a different point from arguing that quite so many people who actually voted conservative last time will need to vote labour next time.

Its not really my argument, I am not remotely qualified to make so bold a claim, it comes from the analysis done for the Fabians

Around 4 out of 5 of the extra (net) votes Labour will need to gain in English and
Welsh marginals will have to come direct from Conservative voters (in 2015 this
figure was around 1 out of 5, because of the Lib Dem meltdown).

http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Mountain-to-Climb.pdf

Research for the LSE supports this view, and also suggests that gaining substantial new voters from "non voters" is probably fanciful

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/could-labour-win-an-election-by-mobilising-non-voters/

So each staunch Labour source with no particular centrist axe to grind think Labour is fecked if it can't appeal to people that voted Tory this time around.

OK, whilst I don't accept that the figurework would support the literal claims being made here, the political point that Labour needs to appeal to centre voters is clearly well founded. Labour's central problem is that, having denied the country the benefit of moving to PR when it was in office, it is now behaving like a party in a PR system.

STV in multi-member constituencies would solve Labour's problem, just put up two varieties of Labour and let the people choose.

PeterC

Jobabob said:

PeterC said:

Jobabob said:

DavidL said:

I was speaking to a group of Labour members last night. No discernable enthusiasm for Smith and a general consensus that the MPs had behaved badly but they were all going to vote for Smith to get rid of Corbyn. Members of a certain age and class and by no means representative but the idea that this is a battle that will determine if Labour has a future is not some weird PB fixation (like AV, for example).

Yes, Smith is the only game in town for anyone vaguely sane in the party. But there are not enough such people.

So what happens next? Hope for a sub 175 seat GE outcome after which Corbyn might just resign?

There is no solution. The party is screwed.

Maybe not. The problem is the foolish decision to allow Corbyn onto the ballot in 2015. That won't happen again with any other hard left candidate. A landslide GE election defeat could be followed by a leadership contest with some half decent candidates. It is Corbyn personally who is the problem and who guarantees hard left control.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Quidder, alas, only got Betfair and Ladbrokes accounts.

Hmm. He's 7.2 on the exchange. I've put on a tiny sum.

SquareRoot

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

Until Corbyn/McDonnell lose a general election as far as I can see moderates within Labour have no chance of reclaiming the party and getting a leader with appeal beyond the hard left

But by then, Labour's deck will be stacked massively in favour of the hard left. The candidates on offer to the voters in 2025 will be unrecognisable to those on offer in 2015, through removal and retirement.

Nobody has convinced me that after another election defeat, Momentum is just going to admit "You know what - we got it so wrong. We need another Harold Wilson - or another Tony Blair..."

If Corbyn and McDonnell are heavily defeated in 2020 at the general election and they or another hard left figure are reelected to the Labour leadership then obviously the remaining moderate Labour MPs will have no choice but to defect en masse to the LDs and form a new centre left party

They might not be there.. there could be deselections and hard left replacements

SandyRentool

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

One to file under.....'Yeah, right....'

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co0xJd6WgAA3V3F.jpg:large

Doesn't everyone eat their KFC big bucket with a knife & fork on china ware on their private jet......?

Paper plate, surely? And cleverly, it is harking back to that golden era, where you were allowed to have metal cutlery in an airplane.... That is what Trump offers. A land where you no longer need to eat with plastic knives and forks.

You do still get metal cutlery, but the knife blades are short and stubby - same as in the airside eateries at the airport.

Philip_Thompson

PeterC said:

Jobabob said:

PeterC said:

Jobabob said:

DavidL said:

I was speaking to a group of Labour members last night. No discernable enthusiasm for Smith and a general consensus that the MPs had behaved badly but they were all going to vote for Smith to get rid of Corbyn. Members of a certain age and class and by no means representative but the idea that this is a battle that will determine if Labour has a future is not some weird PB fixation (like AV, for example).

Yes, Smith is the only game in town for anyone vaguely sane in the party. But there are not enough such people.

So what happens next? Hope for a sub 175 seat GE outcome after which Corbyn might just resign?

There is no solution. The party is screwed.

Maybe not. The problem is the foolish decision to allow Corbyn onto the ballot in 2015. That won't happen again with any other hard left candidate. A landslide GE election defeat could be followed by a leadership contest with some half decent candidates. It is Corbyn personally who is the problem and who guarantees hard left control.

Surely the priority for the hard left if they win this battle is to ensure enough hard left candidates get into safe seats and elected in 2020 thus removing the need to "borrow" votes in the future?

SandyRentool

PeterC said:

Jobabob said:

PeterC said:

Jobabob said:

DavidL said:

I was speaking to a group of Labour members last night. No discernable enthusiasm for Smith and a general consensus that the MPs had behaved badly but they were all going to vote for Smith to get rid of Corbyn. Members of a certain age and class and by no means representative but the idea that this is a battle that will determine if Labour has a future is not some weird PB fixation (like AV, for example).

Yes, Smith is the only game in town for anyone vaguely sane in the party. But there are not enough such people.

So what happens next? Hope for a sub 175 seat GE outcome after which Corbyn might just resign?

There is no solution. The party is screwed.

Maybe not. The problem is the foolish decision to allow Corbyn onto the ballot in 2015. That won't happen again with any other hard left candidate. A landslide GE election defeat could be followed by a leadership contest with some half decent candidates. It is Corbyn personally who is the problem and who guarantees hard left control.

You don't consider Owen Smith to be a 'hard left' candidate then?