politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Smith’s leadership chances fall to a 6% chance on Betfair f

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Smith’s leadership chances fall to a 6% chance on Betfair following High Court ruling on who’ll be able to vote

It is very hard to come to a view about what will be the electoral impact of today’s judgement. There is so much overlap between the new members who can now vote and those who signed up under the £25 registered supporters scheme.

Read the full story here

Wulfrun_Phil

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

Sandpit

2nd like Smih?

Sandpit

FPT:

Scott_P said:

@MrTCHarris: A handy guide to those MPs who, in nominating Corbyn, are responsible for the death of the Labour party. https://t.co/taTUqxOTq7

Isn't there a documentary about them in the cinemas this week? Suicide Squad, I think it's called.

MaxPB

Labour = fucked. I'm not sure this is an optimal development for our democracy.

DanSmith

Smith will win the registered supporters vote now.

grabcocque

Live stream of the PLP hearing the news:

Scott_P

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

MaxPB

Rowing on today. Excellent.

Cyclefree

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Scott_P

Cyclefree said:

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/strictly-come-dancing-bbc-paying-2159601

MaxPB

Casino_Royale said:

FTSE100 boss pay up 10%. Nice work if you can get it.

Even I'm starting to get uncomfortable with this. And I'm quite dry.

It does feel wrong when profits rose by less and non-executive pay rose by just 2%. Shareholders need to start getting better value for money, I hope the new government will look into new remuneration rules for listed companies. It seems wrong that directors set the pay of other directors who set the pay of the remuneration committee.

Pulpstar

MaxPB said:

Labour = fucked. I'm not sure this is an optimal development for our democracy.

Back to Tories vs Whigs hopefully.

TheWhiteRabbit

Ladbrokes have moved their handicap to 5/6 over/under 60.5.

Pleased to have got on at over 59.5, I think a smidgen of value, risk to be assessed on a view of the book overall

Pulpstar

DanSmith said:

Smith will win the registered supporters vote now.

Yes he may well do !

John_M

OT I see Erdogan is upping the rhetoric since last week:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-eu-immigration-idUSKCN10J0XC?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=57a8675d04d301186e42c03a&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

edmundintokyo

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

I totally get the logic of this, but the problem is, how many of the current Labour MPs, were they to jump to the LibDems or a new party, would expect to hold their seats? If they can't do that, the obvious move seems to be to keep but ignore the whip, then give up at the next election.

david_herdson

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

"go[ing] as far as Bercow requires" will mean leaving Labour outright and forming a new party. They might be kicked out or they might jump but no other alternative will lead to them gaining the LotO post - and they'd need over a hundred to jump ship to outnumber continuity Labour.

However, in broad terms, I think you're right. I don't see how this doesn't end in a split, followed by some Lib Dem link-up.

John_M

edmundintokyo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

I totally get the logic of this, but the problem is, how many of the current Labour MPs, were they to jump to the LibDems or a new party, would expect to hold their seats? If they can't do that, the obvious move seems to be to keep but ignore the whip, then give up at the next election.

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

williamglenn

John_M said:

OT I see Erdogan is upping the rhetoric since last week:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-eu-immigration-idUSKCN10J0XC?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=57a8675d04d301186e42c03a&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

"The European Union is not behaving in a sincere manner with Turkey," Erdogan said in comments published by Le Monde.

And Turkey is not behaving in a sincere manner with the EU, notably their application for membership when they have no intention of meeting any of the entry criteria.

Slackbladder

John_M said:

edmundintokyo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

I totally get the logic of this, but the problem is, how many of the current Labour MPs, were they to jump to the LibDems or a new party, would expect to hold their seats? If they can't do that, the obvious move seems to be to keep but ignore the whip, then give up at the next election.

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Indeed. What it would mean is the lib dems merging and ceasing to exist in a larger SDP-type party.

edmundintokyo

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Labour = fucked. I'm not sure this is an optimal development for our democracy.

Back to Tories vs Whigs hopefully.

No more CAP, they get to do the whole Corn Laws thing again.

SandyRentool

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

ThreeQuidder

John_M said:

edmundintokyo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

I totally get the logic of this, but the problem is, how many of the current Labour MPs, were they to jump to the LibDems or a new party, would expect to hold their seats? If they can't do that, the obvious move seems to be to keep but ignore the whip, then give up at the next election.

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Relevance.

Slackbladder

ThreeQuidder said:

John_M said:

edmundintokyo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

I totally get the logic of this, but the problem is, how many of the current Labour MPs, were they to jump to the LibDems or a new party, would expect to hold their seats? If they can't do that, the obvious move seems to be to keep but ignore the whip, then give up at the next election.

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Relevance.

By being consumed by another larger party?

mwadams

Slackbladder said:

John_M said:

edmundintokyo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

I totally get the logic of this, but the problem is, how many of the current Labour MPs, were they to jump to the LibDems or a new party, would expect to hold their seats? If they can't do that, the obvious move seems to be to keep but ignore the whip, then give up at the next election.

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Indeed. What it would mean is the lib dems merging and ceasing to exist in a larger SDP-type party.

Well, that has happened before, once or twice.

Scott_P

@corbynjokes: Why did the Labour Party cross the road?
To get to the high court.

Jonathan

Well Labour, this is going very well isn't it?

runnymede

John_M said:

edmundintokyo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

I totally get the logic of this, but the problem is, how many of the current Labour MPs, were they to jump to the LibDems or a new party, would expect to hold their seats? If they can't do that, the obvious move seems to be to keep but ignore the whip, then give up at the next election.

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Who are the Lib Dems?

david_herdson

John_M said:

edmundintokyo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

I totally get the logic of this, but the problem is, how many of the current Labour MPs, were they to jump to the LibDems or a new party, would expect to hold their seats? If they can't do that, the obvious move seems to be to keep but ignore the whip, then give up at the next election.

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

They survive and prosper.

At the moment, they are completely invisible because they've lost any legitimate claim to be a major party. 8 MPs and sub-10% vote shares is at best secondary party status and borderline minor party status. Boost MP numbers back into the 30s, 40s or beyond and they're suddenly back in the big time.

Of course there'd be a cost in terms of the further dilution of liberals by social democrats but the alternative is to risk a future of pure obscurity.

PClipp

mwadams said:

Slackbladder said:

John_M said:

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Indeed. What it would mean is the lib dems merging and ceasing to exist in a larger SDP-type party.

Well, that has happened before, once or twice.

When? Not in my lifetime.....

ToryJim

Mr Herdson tgetting an infusion of ex-Lab blood might assist the Lib Dems in surviving but they might have more of a problem with prospering.

John_M

ThreeQuidder said:

John_M said:

edmundintokyo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

I totally get the logic of this, but the problem is, how many of the current Labour MPs, were they to jump to the LibDems or a new party, would expect to hold their seats? If they can't do that, the obvious move seems to be to keep but ignore the whip, then give up at the next election.

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Relevance.

I'm terribly sorry, but I don't buy that argument at all. The Lib Dems may have a tough row to hoe, but they have a decent chunk of the electorate that should be open to persuasion. I'm not sure what Labour's retail offer is.

PClipp

runnymede said:

John_M said:

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Who are the Lib Dems?

Ho! Ho! very funny!

DecrepitJohnL

runnymede said:

John_M said:

edmundintokyo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Since the outcome of the leadership election is now nailed on, the question is what happens subsequently. There is now a complete disconnect between the Labour membership on the one hand and the Labour MPs and 2015 Labour voters on the other, and it seems only a matter of time before that becomes formalised at Westminster. I think that the MPs will go as far as Bercow requires, whatever that is, to ensure that Corbyn ceases to be recognised as Leader of the Opposition and is replaced by one of their own. I sense that Corbyn/McDonnell/Momentum et al are to their very core sectarian creatures of the far left, they have no interest in maintaining the broad church of the Labour movement and will offer no significant compromise that would allow any reconciliation. Once the break is made, attitudes will only harden however much the MPs might hope for a route back. So very few current Labour MPs will end up fighting the next general election as Labour candidates, and I think that some form of realignment involving at least a loose arrangement with the Lib Dems will be sought. How that realignment fares will determine whether there is party grouping capable of challenging Conservative hegemony by 2025, since the Labour Party will never again aspire to government.

That outcome will happen because:
1. Corbyn will be quite happy to be remembered as the person who delivered a parliamentary party of the far left with double-digit representation (beating the 2 seats the CPGB achieved in 1945). Even 20 or 30 seats for a far left party will be quite an achievement from a far left mindset.
2. The 170 Labour MPs will see absolutely no way back after a crushing Corbyn win and will be looking around for a viable alternative.
3. The Lib Dems are also at a low ebb and will likewise be looking for a way back.

I totally get the logic of this, but the problem is, how many of the current Labour MPs, were they to jump to the LibDems or a new party, would expect to hold their seats? If they can't do that, the obvious move seems to be to keep but ignore the whip, then give up at the next election.

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Who are the Lib Dems?

The LibDems are proto-Tories. We know this because they were in government with the Conservatives as recently as last year. The PLP moderates (or realists) cozying up to the LDs would just confirm everything the Corbynites say about them.

Carolus_Rex

Scott_P said:

@corbynjokes: Why did the Labour Party cross the road?
To get to the high court.

Perhaps they could relocate their HQ to the Strand.

mwadams

PClipp said:

mwadams said:

Slackbladder said:

John_M said:

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Indeed. What it would mean is the lib dems merging and ceasing to exist in a larger SDP-type party.

Well, that has happened before, once or twice.

When? Not in my lifetime.....

It depends how you judge the split of the 25.4% of votes the Alliance got in 1983; although Liberal MPs outnumbered SDP MPs as it all shook out before the formal merger, the SDP probably won more votes. I suspect that you might see similar patterns of voting in a "new" Social Democratic Labour / LibDem alliance, to similar net effect.

rottenborough

Dan Hodges seems to have taken it very badly. He's now debating on twitter how to spend the tax cut he will get as Labour will not be elected in 2020. Talking about champagne.

Rather an over reaction. For start a tax cut in November might be a very good idea to help aggregate demand and help the economy overcome Brexit jitters.

MarqueeMark

Anybody had any cold-calling yet, asking "Were you mis-sold a Labour Party membership?"

RepublicanTory

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

The choice of Eds partner will be very "interesting"!!

Joking aside I think it is a good move for him. It is all part of the detoxing of the Ed Balls brand.
PLP leader in 2020??

PClipp

mwadams said:

PClipp said:

mwadams said:

Slackbladder said:

John_M said:

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Indeed. What it would mean is the lib dems merging and ceasing to exist in a larger SDP-type party.

Well, that has happened before, once or twice.

When? Not in my lifetime.....

It depends how you judge the split of the 25.4% of votes the Alliance got in 1983; although Liberal MPs outnumbered SDP MPs as it all shook out before the formal merger, the SDP probably won more votes. I suspect that you might see similar patterns of voting in a "new" Social Democratic Labour / LibDem alliance, to similar net effect.

In the 1983 there were Liberal candidates and SDP candidates, all fighting under the Alliance banner, so you don´t need to "judge the split", Mr Adams. You can work it out properly. I wouldn´t choose to do so myself - not worth the time.

On what grounds do you "expect" that the "SDP" (ci-devant Labour) would get more votes than Liberal Democrat candidates? They have no big names to lead them - certainly not of the stature of Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams who led the SDP breakaway.

John_M

RepublicanTory said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

The choice of Eds partner will be very "interesting"!!

Joking aside I think it is a good move for him. It is all part of the detoxing of the Ed Balls brand.
PLP leader in 2020??

Don't see it. Labour have painted themselves into a corner with their leadership rules. Hence Hodges throwing a Meeks on Twitter.

MarqueeMark

RepublicanTory said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

The choice of Eds partner will be very "interesting"!!

Joking aside I think it is a good move for him. It is all part of the detoxing of the Ed Balls brand.
PLP leader in 2020??

So Ed Balls would rather do Dad-dancing on the telly, rather than make himself available to the Labour Party in its time of greatest crisis? And you think he still has a political future? Yeah, right.....

grabcocque

John_M said:

RepublicanTory said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

The choice of Eds partner will be very "interesting"!!

Joking aside I think it is a good move for him. It is all part of the detoxing of the Ed Balls brand.
PLP leader in 2020??

Don't see it. Labour have painted themselves into a corner with their leadership rules. Hence Hodges throwing a Meeks on Twitter.

Why does he care? He's not a party member. Or is he? Yes/No/Yes/No/Yes/No

Scott_P

HA!

@GeneralBoles: Cameron and Osborne in the front row doing the flatlining hand gesture as Ed's Paso Doble falls apart

HYUFD

Obituary. The Labour Party 1900-September 2016.

Memorial to be held at Methodist Centrall Hall. Donations to be sent to The Peoples' Socialist Party care of Jeremy Corbyn or the Progressive Party care of Chuka Umunna dependent on preferences

grabcocque

There's no point for the PLP to carry on their doomed farce against Corbyn. End the leadership election, fork the party.

John_M

grabcocque said:

There's no point for the PLP to carry on their doomed farce against Corbyn. End the leadership election, fork the party.

Labour should have remembered that vampires can't enter unless you invite them in. Now all they can do is float outside the electorate's bedroom window and scare the shit out of them.

HYUFD

MarqueeMark said:

RepublicanTory said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

The choice of Eds partner will be very "interesting"!!

Joking aside I think it is a good move for him. It is all part of the detoxing of the Ed Balls brand.
PLP leader in 2020??

So Ed Balls would rather do Dad-dancing on the telly, rather than make himself available to the Labour Party in its time of greatest crisis? And you think he still has a political future? Yeah, right.....

Ed Balls is far too right-wing for the Corbynistas who now form a majority of Labour members and supporters

david_herdson

RepublicanTory said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

The choice of Eds partner will be very "interesting"!!

Joking aside I think it is a good move for him. It is all part of the detoxing of the Ed Balls brand.
PLP leader in 2020??

Tipped here as next Labour leader, at 100/1:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/26/might-balls-be-labours-answer-at-1001/

Obviously, the Batley & Spen route to this year's leadership is closed but if Corbyn does hold on to 2020 and if Balls were to return at that election, the bet would still be valid.

Speedy

I'm against changing the rules mid game.

Using the courts to either kick Corbyn out or de-facto Smith out, is not the proper way.

Anyway, Smith is now at proper levels in the betting markets.

As for those who think the Labour moderates have any chance of survival even by joining the LD, the example of the Alliance showed that it simply added to the Liberal vote almost uniformly with one or two exceptions.

Since yougov did a poll asking about it, and the moderates got only 1/4 of the Labour vote, you can make a calculation by adding 1/4 of Labour's vote to the LD in each seat and see what they get.

And most moderates are in safe Labour seats, so the likes of Angela Eagle in Liverpool have no chance.

jonny83

Got to split, you can't support a leader you don't believe in. It's not like they can sit back and wait for another opportunity, Corbyn and his cronies are going to come up with ways to prevent this from happening again.

Corbyn is going to take that old party over the abyss, now it's just a case of how many he takes with him.

PlatoSaid

John_M said:

grabcocque said:

There's no point for the PLP to carry on their doomed farce against Corbyn. End the leadership election, fork the party.

Labour should have remembered that vampires can't enter unless you invite them in. Now all they can do is float outside the electorate's bedroom window and scare the shit out of them.

Brilliant analogy.

rottenborough

david_herdson said:

RepublicanTory said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

The choice of Eds partner will be very "interesting"!!

Joking aside I think it is a good move for him. It is all part of the detoxing of the Ed Balls brand.
PLP leader in 2020??

Tipped here as next Labour leader, at 100/1:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/26/might-balls-be-labours-answer-at-1001/

Obviously, the Batley & Spen route to this year's leadership is closed but if Corbyn does hold on to 2020 and if Balls were to return at that election, the bet would still be valid.

I'm on Ed for leader. And Strictly will help him with the public (but not Corbynista labour members I suspect who will reckon it is capitalistic nonsense).

david_herdson

PClipp said:

mwadams said:

PClipp said:

mwadams said:

Slackbladder said:

John_M said:

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Indeed. What it would mean is the lib dems merging and ceasing to exist in a larger SDP-type party.

Well, that has happened before, once or twice.

When? Not in my lifetime.....

It depends how you judge the split of the 25.4% of votes the Alliance got in 1983; although Liberal MPs outnumbered SDP MPs as it all shook out before the formal merger, the SDP probably won more votes. I suspect that you might see similar patterns of voting in a "new" Social Democratic Labour / LibDem alliance, to similar net effect.

In the 1983 there were Liberal candidates and SDP candidates, all fighting under the Alliance banner, so you don´t need to "judge the split", Mr Adams. You can work it out properly. I wouldn´t choose to do so myself - not worth the time.

On what grounds do you "expect" that the "SDP" (ci-devant Labour) would get more votes than Liberal Democrat candidates? They have no big names to lead them - certainly not of the stature of Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams who led the SDP breakaway.

In what way did they have Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams in 1981, before the Limehouse Declaration? Neither was an MP at the time. A new SDP might easily attract the likes of Mandelson, (who was nearly attracted by the original one), and other big beasts of the Blair-Brown era.

if there were a new Labour split, the Lib Dems would be mad not to come to some arrangement with SDP2, which otherwise might well pull support from Farron's party.

grabcocque

I imagine Owen Smith will pull out of the leadership election this week. The Jezbollah excrescence becomes the firmament. Endgame.

The PLP now have no choice but to push the nuclear button.

GIN1138

Is the Labour Party just making this "contest" up as they go along?

Pulpstar

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

MaxPB

The Timed have the Tories winning a 90 seat majority once the boundaries are redrawn and constituency sizes equalised.

http://thetimes.co.uk/article/aaf9a394-5ccf-11e6-9bc8-dca5e34811f1

"The Tories are on course to win a 90-seat majority at the next general election, aided by boundary changes that favour the party.

Research conducted by the political website Electoral Calculus found that planned alterations to the size and make-up of constituencies would increase the Conservative majority from the current 12 seats to a comfortable 48-seat lead. Coupled with recent changes in the public’s voting intentions as support for Labour and Ukip slips, the net effect would give the Conservatives a majority of 90 seats in a smaller House of Commons."

AnneJGP

Good afternoon, everybody.

Seems to me that setting a precedent of such basic injustice would have done the Labour party more damage than any leader, however useless/misguided.

MaxPB

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

Which government? The current one? Why?

Sandpit

MaxPB said:

The Timed have the Tories winning a 90 seat majority once the boundaries are redrawn and constituency sizes equalised.

http://thetimes.co.uk/article/aaf9a394-5ccf-11e6-9bc8-dca5e34811f1

"The Tories are on course to win a 90-seat majority at the next general election, aided by boundary changes that favour the party.

Research conducted by the political website Electoral Calculus found that planned alterations to the size and make-up of constituencies would increase the Conservative majority from the current 12 seats to a comfortable 48-seat lead. Coupled with recent changes in the public’s voting intentions as support for Labour and Ukip slips, the net effect would give the Conservatives a majority of 90 seats in a smaller House of Commons."

Report from Electoral Calculus apparently.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729026/Tories-track-HUGE-90-seat-majority-Theresa-waits-boundary-changes-calling-general-election.html

Slackbladder

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

Which government? The current one? Why?

Because electoral reform is what is REALLY important for the country...

errr ok.

tlg86

GIN1138 said:

Is the Labour Party just making this "contest" up as they go along?

No, the courts are doing it for them.

ThreeQuidder

https://twitter.com/FillWerrell/status/762493969754271744

Speedy

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

mwadams said:

PClipp said:

mwadams said:

Slackbladder said:

John_M said:

I don't see what benefit the Lib Dems would garner from such a move.

Indeed. What it would mean is the lib dems merging and ceasing to exist in a larger SDP-type party.

Well, that has happened before, once or twice.

When? Not in my lifetime.....

It depends how you judge the split of the 25.4% of votes the Alliance got in 1983; although Liberal MPs outnumbered SDP MPs as it all shook out before the formal merger, the SDP probably won more votes. I suspect that you might see similar patterns of voting in a "new" Social Democratic Labour / LibDem alliance, to similar net effect.

In the 1983 there were Liberal candidates and SDP candidates, all fighting under the Alliance banner, so you don´t need to "judge the split", Mr Adams. You can work it out properly. I wouldn´t choose to do so myself - not worth the time.

On what grounds do you "expect" that the "SDP" (ci-devant Labour) would get more votes than Liberal Democrat candidates? They have no big names to lead them - certainly not of the stature of Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams who led the SDP breakaway.

In what way did they have Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams in 1981, before the Limehouse Declaration? Neither was an MP at the time. A new SDP might easily attract the likes of Mandelson, (who was nearly attracted by the original one), and other big beasts of the Blair-Brown era.

if there were a new Labour split, the Lib Dems would be mad not to come to some arrangement with SDP2, which otherwise might well pull support from Farron's party.

I don't think it's realistic to say that Lord Mandelson, also known as the notorious "Prince of Darkness", has any chance in any election.

Too many scandals, too much baggage.

Jenkins and Williams were actually lucky that they contested the seats of their choosing in by-elections, to maximize their chance of getting elected.
The moderates don't have the luxury of switching to more favourable for them seats.

For instance Hilary Benn would have to abandon his seat where he is already an MP, to run even in the other side of the country, in a Lab-LD marginal (there are not many, realistically only 8 exist).

Sandpit

UKIP wars still ongoing, possible day in court for Steven Woolfe over impartiality of NEC members who excluded him from the ballot.
http://order-order.com/2016/08/08/leaked-messages-reveal-conflicts-interest-ukip-nec/

john_zims

@Pulpstar

'If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.'


Electoral reform was massively rejected by 68% of voters only 5 years ago

Paul_Bedfordshire

So is this US airline really grounding all it's flights due to a computer failure or is that just a line fed by the spooks?

tlg86

ThreeQuidder said:

https://twitter.com/FillWerrell/status/762493969754271744

Certainly since they brought in minimum standards, Eric the Eel did nearly drown in 2000.

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

If PR came in the Tory right would also split off and join UKIP, especially if May keeps us in the single market in some form

MaxPB

Slackbladder said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

Which government? The current one? Why?

Because electoral reform is what is REALLY important for the country...

errr ok.

Forget that it's not a priority, why would the party in power, the one that benefits the most from FPTP get rid of it? Seems like Lib Dem wishful thinking.

Pulpstar

john_zims said:

@Pulpstar

'If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.'


Electoral reform was massively rejected by 68% of voters only 5 years ago

No. The alternate vote was.

HYUFD

Speedy said:

I'm against changing the rules mid game.

Using the courts to either kick Corbyn out or de-facto Smith out, is not the proper way.

Anyway, Smith is now at proper levels in the betting markets.

As for those who think the Labour moderates have any chance of survival even by joining the LD, the example of the Alliance showed that it simply added to the Liberal vote almost uniformly with one or two exceptions.

Since yougov did a poll asking about it, and the moderates got only 1/4 of the Labour vote, you can make a calculation by adding 1/4 of Labour's vote to the LD in each seat and see what they get.

And most moderates are in safe Labour seats, so the likes of Angela Eagle in Liverpool have no chance.

That yougov poll actually had the moderates and LDs combined on 19%, just 2% behind Corbyn Labour on 21%

Pulpstar

MaxPB said:

Slackbladder said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

Which government? The current one? Why?

Because electoral reform is what is REALLY important for the country...

errr ok.

Forget that it's not a priority, why would the party in power, the one that benefits the most from FPTP get rid of it? Seems like Lib Dem wishful thinking.

I'm talking about the very much odds against Alliance/SDP2 2020 Gov't...

ThreeQuidder

Pulpstar said:

john_zims said:

@Pulpstar

'If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.'


Electoral reform was massively rejected by 68% of voters only 5 years ago

No. The alternate vote was.

Yes, but it was proposed because it was the smallest change and hence considered to be the most acceptable to the public. Nobody actually wanted it.

Pulpstar

ThreeQuidder said:

Pulpstar said:

john_zims said:

@Pulpstar

'If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.'


Electoral reform was massively rejected by 68% of voters only 5 years ago

No. The alternate vote was.

Yes, but it was proposed because it was the smallest change and hence considered to be the most acceptable to the public. Nobody actually wanted it.

Really I don't have the strength >.>

Tissue_Price

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

FPTP forces Oppositions to get their shit together and look like a competent government in waiting. If you just allow people to vote against the status quo, projecting their own particular preferences for the future and hoping to cobble something together afterwards, then that's how Brexit happens

MarkHopkins

So long Labour,
we knew thee well;
but now you descend,
into the pit of hell.

edmundintokyo

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

I'm against changing the rules mid game.

Using the courts to either kick Corbyn out or de-facto Smith out, is not the proper way.

Anyway, Smith is now at proper levels in the betting markets.

As for those who think the Labour moderates have any chance of survival even by joining the LD, the example of the Alliance showed that it simply added to the Liberal vote almost uniformly with one or two exceptions.

Since yougov did a poll asking about it, and the moderates got only 1/4 of the Labour vote, you can make a calculation by adding 1/4 of Labour's vote to the LD in each seat and see what they get.

And most moderates are in safe Labour seats, so the likes of Angela Eagle in Liverpool have no chance.

That yougov poll actually had the moderates and LDs combined on 19%, just 2% behind Corbyn Labour on 21%

That's quite a respectable number when you bear in mind that the Tories are probably at their high watermark, and assuming they drop back a decent chunk of their votes should go to the centre.

Still seems like FPTP would kill them and bury them in a hole though.

MaxPB

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Slackbladder said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

Which government? The current one? Why?

Because electoral reform is what is REALLY important for the country...

errr ok.

Forget that it's not a priority, why would the party in power, the one that benefits the most from FPTP get rid of it? Seems like Lib Dem wishful thinking.

I'm talking about the very much odds against Alliance/SDP2 2020 Gov't...

Oh well that's even less likely than the Tories doing something. They'd have to win first!

david_herdson

Speedy said:

david_herdson said:

PClipp said:

mwadams said:

PClipp said:

mwadams said:

Slackbladder said:

Indeed. What it would mean is the lib dems merging and ceasing to exist in a larger SDP-type party.

Well, that has happened before, once or twice.

When? Not in my lifetime.....

It depends how you judge the split of the 25.4% of votes the Alliance got in 1983; although Liberal MPs outnumbered SDP MPs as it all shook out before the formal merger, the SDP probably won more votes. I suspect that you might see similar patterns of voting in a "new" Social Democratic Labour / LibDem alliance, to similar net effect.

In the 1983 there were Liberal candidates and SDP candidates, all fighting under the Alliance banner, so you don´t need to "judge the split", Mr Adams. You can work it out properly. I wouldn´t choose to do so myself - not worth the time.

On what grounds do you "expect" that the "SDP" (ci-devant Labour) would get more votes than Liberal Democrat candidates? They have no big names to lead them - certainly not of the stature of Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams who led the SDP breakaway.

In what way did they have Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams in 1981, before the Limehouse Declaration? Neither was an MP at the time. A new SDP might easily attract the likes of Mandelson, (who was nearly attracted by the original one), and other big beasts of the Blair-Brown era.

if there were a new Labour split, the Lib Dems would be mad not to come to some arrangement with SDP2, which otherwise might well pull support from Farron's party.

I don't think it's realistic to say that Lord Mandelson, also known as the notorious "Prince of Darkness", has any chance in any election.

Too many scandals, too much baggage.

Jenkins and Williams were actually lucky that they contested the seats of their choosing in by-elections, to maximize their chance of getting elected.
The moderates don't have the luxury of switching to more favourable for them seats.

For instance Hilary Benn would have to abandon his seat where he is already an MP, to run even in the other side of the country, in a Lab-LD marginal (there are not many, realistically only 8 exist).

Mandelson wouldn't need to contest an election; he could serve in the Lords. I'm not sure if he even could fight an election - I know peers can retire from the Lords but don't know whether they can then seek election to the Commons; it's not the same as disclaiming an hereditary peerage.

As for Benn and the like, well, that all depends on how the vote would shift over the next 3-4 years. Certainly, he has a safe Labour seat right now but is it one with any great enthusiasm for Corbyn's Labour?

logical_song

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

FPTP forces Oppositions to get their shit together and look like a competent government in waiting. If you just allow people to vote against the status quo, projecting their own particular preferences for the future and hoping to cobble something together afterwards, then that's how Brexit happens

So that's how Brexit happens, thank goodness we don't have PR!

DecrepitJohnL

MaxPB said:

Slackbladder said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

Which government? The current one? Why?

Because electoral reform is what is REALLY important for the country...

errr ok.

Forget that it's not a priority, why would the party in power, the one that benefits the most from FPTP get rid of it? Seems like Lib Dem wishful thinking.

They wouldn't -- but groups of MPs in that party might see advantages for themselves, much as some on the left are. The question is whether the XXX group can have more influence in formal coalition agreements than currently when their own big tent party leaderships can ignore them.

david_herdson

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

No, they'd need to force that via hung parliament talks. There'll be no enthusiasm for it from the Tories (not only from partisan reasons).

Pulpstar

david_herdson said:

Pulpstar said:

If the LDs and Labour moderate riff raff do come to an arrangement, then I'd hope/expect full PR (Or at least the FPTP+ system) to be the overriding priority for the Gov't.

No, they'd need to force that via hung parliament talks. There'll be no enthusiasm for it from the Tories (not only from partisan reasons).

I probably should have added "In the (unlikely) event of an Alliance/SDP2 majority" to the start of my first post on this. Seriously of course I know the Conservatives would never go for it >>>>>>>>>>>>.>>>>>>>>>>>

MarqueeMark

tlg86 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

https://twitter.com/FillWerrell/status/762493969754271744

Certainly since they brought in minimum standards, Eric the Eel did nearly drown in 2000.

I once met Eric the Eel, in a hotel in Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea.

rcs1000

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

Oohhh... Does this mean Yvette might soon become single?

BannedInParis

tlg86 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

https://twitter.com/FillWerrell/status/762493969754271744

Certainly since they brought in minimum standards, Eric the Eel did nearly drown in 2000.

A serious point: Go to a pool. See how long it takes you to swim 100 m freestyle.

He's still likely to be faster than you.

I'm a regular swimmer, admittedly not the fastest but I can do a good few miles, and he'd probably have me at the turns -_-

NickPalmer

6% looks about right odds to me. The weakness of the "one anti-Corbyn candidate" strategy is that any single candidate can't unite all the anti-Corbyn vote. Supporters of Smith argue that

(a) Corbyn's policies are broadly right
(b) Smith really agrees with them (except Trident) as he says and
(c) Corbynism is most successfully represented by someone other than Corbyn.

The number of people who agree with all three elements of this is relatively small, which is why most Labour MPs are not campaigning for anyone.

PlatoSaid

Awkward

http://order-order.com/2016/08/08/leaked-messages-reveal-conflicts-interest-ukip-nec/

tlg86

BannedInParis said:

tlg86 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

https://twitter.com/FillWerrell/status/762493969754271744

Certainly since they brought in minimum standards, Eric the Eel did nearly drown in 2000.

A serious point: Go to a pool. See how long it takes you to swim 100 m freestyle.

He's still likely to be faster than you.

I'm a regular swimmer, admittedly not the fastest but I can do a good few miles, and he'd probably have me at the turns -_-

If I remember rightly, he was at world record pace for the first 50m but then really struggled in the final 25m.

I've never swum in a 50m pool, I'd like to do so one day.

John_M

rcs1000 said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

Oohhh... Does this mean Yvette might soon become single?

Fancy your chances Robert ?

PlatoSaid

BannedInParis said:

tlg86 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

https://twitter.com/FillWerrell/status/762493969754271744

Certainly since they brought in minimum standards, Eric the Eel did nearly drown in 2000.

A serious point: Go to a pool. See how long it takes you to swim 100 m freestyle.

He's still likely to be faster than you.

I'm a regular swimmer, admittedly not the fastest but I can do a good few miles, and he'd probably have me at the turns -_-

*impressed face*

felix

http://electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Fun predictor tool on here for the projected 600 seat boundaries. however, getting the Tories beyond 2 in Scotland is nigh on impossible - which shows the weakness of models based on just uniform swing operating.

DaemonBarber

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

So is this US airline really grounding all it's flights due to a computer failure or is that just a line fed by the spooks?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/08/computer_fault_takes_down_delta/

rcs1000

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

So is this US airline really grounding all it's flights due to a computer failure or is that just a line fed by the spooks?

Computer system failures have grounded many airlines in the past, so it's not inconcievable.

A lot of the airlines are moving off proprietary stems these days, and moving onto standard ones built by Amadeus in Spain. I think delta is still running their own...

Pulpstar

felix said:

http://electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Fun predictor tool on here for the projected 600 seat boundaries. however, getting the Tories beyond 2 in Scotland is nigh on impossible - which shows the weakness of models based on just uniform swing operating.

The three borders, and Murphy's old seat would be my guess for the 3 next potential Tory gains.

rcs1000

John_M said:

rcs1000 said:

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@mrjohnofarrell: Suggested NEC compromise; new Labour members CAN vote in leadership but are banned from voting for Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.

Do you get paid to appear on Strictly? Or is it just a very public way of simultaneously becoming fit and making a fool of yourself?

Quite a few contestants have got very friendly with their dance partners. Keep an eye on him, Yvette!

Oohhh... Does this mean Yvette might soon become single?

Fancy your chances Robert ?

If I wasn't happily married...

John_M

DaemonBarber said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

So is this US airline really grounding all it's flights due to a computer failure or is that just a line fed by the spooks?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/08/computer_fault_takes_down_delta/

Ahhhhhhhh. Triggered by the mention of 'leap second' in that story. The bane of any multi-national software developer's life.

Sandpit

John_M said:

DaemonBarber said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

So is this US airline really grounding all it's flights due to a computer failure or is that just a line fed by the spooks?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/08/computer_fault_takes_down_delta/

Ahhhhhhhh. Triggered by the mention of 'leap second' in that story. The bane of any multi-national software developer's life.

I'm sure you've read this one then:
http://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time
Date and time are a software nightmare!