H/T Sparrow: - Here is some more comment on the Corbyn speech from journalists. {snipped for space}
Of course some of Labour's "core support" are currently telling pollsters that they're going to vote Tory (etc.), or not going to vote, so it's not mad of him to do this. Corbyn and his supporters have always been convinced that the core vote could be expanded, obviously not by winning over selfish Tories, but by getting back the old Labour core that've drifted to Ukip and the Greens, and by GOTV of the latent support among the young and poor who identify as non-voters. But I don't think any of this is enough to win an election, and if it was you'd already see the Tories and the Mail in full-on Operation Fear mode. (As it is, they've barely got out of first gear.)
It'll be interesting to see how many young people and previous non-voters turn out for Labour this time. I had thought there must be quite a bit of strategy and legwork going on in Momentum (and Labour) to try and justify the faith in Corbyn, but I haven't seen much. Maybe it just needs another five years...
I understand the reasoning behind Corbyn’s campaign message, the problem for him is there is not enough core support to save dozens of his MPs. Corbyn has already given in, it’s the same bunker mentality, we saw with Michael Howard and the Tories.
Questions I posed last night but did not see any answers to. Apparently, over 1 million have signed onto the electoral roll since the announcement of the election.
Is this a sign of unusual levels of intention to vote from previous non-voters? Are the newbies mainly the young? Has anyone looked into the potential impact of this on the make up of the electorate and thus any changes needed to weighting of polls?
This happens every year when there is a referendum or election, and the number of registration applications does not equal additional voters. On many occasions they are just duplicates of existing registrations.
Thanks to all who responded to my questions on the previous thread
Rebecca-Long-Odds-Bailey are not nearly long enough.
I saw her on Question Time and she makes mathematically challenged Diane Abbott sound Prime Ministerial. The idea that she has a better chance than the articulate Emily Thornberry or the telegenic and articulate Chuka Umuna is Ladbrokes having a laugh.
Although, if we're going to look outside Parliament for potential Labour leaders, then electorally Andy Burnham should be considered a much better prospect than Sadiq Khan -- Burnham outperformed 1997 Tony Blair in Greater Manchester, whereas Khan could only match Ed Miliband's performance in London.
Although, if we're going to look outside Parliament for potential Labour leaders, then electorally Andy Burnham should be considered a much better prospect than Sadiq Khan -- Burnham outperformed 1997 Tony Blair in Greater Manchester, whereas Khan could only match Ed Miliband's performance in London.
That will depend on whether the Tories shoot themselves in the foot by running a racist campaign against him again.
But generally speaking, the idea that Khan is a big electoral asset (something even he seems to believe judging from some of his interviews where he's been saying how Labour should learn from him) doesn't really have much to support it. Only staying steady with Miliband's General Election performance, in a mid-term mayoral election, really wasn't much to write home about. Admittedly his opinion poll ratings since the election have been very good, but obviously poll ratings aren't the same as electoral performance.
"Bar" looks great value at 25-1 to me, seeing as it includes McIRA, the Abbott and many other loony lefties.
Apologies if this is pedantic, but I think "Bar" in this context isn't a bet on everyone else (ie, making up the book) - it's indicating the other runners are at greater odds than the bar.
He's campaigning in Salford ? Maybe they are just trying to drive up the national vote count.
Wasn't there a report the other day that Corbyn cares not about the MP count, only the national vote share, as that is key to him carrying on after the shellacking?
"Bar" looks great value at 25-1 to me, seeing as it includes McIRA, the Abbott and many other loony lefties.
Apologies if this is pedantic, but I think "Bar" in this context isn't a bet on everyone else (ie, making up the book) - it's indicating all other runners are at greater odds than the bar.
On balance, I disagree with Mike's view that "it is hard to see Labour’s selectorate changing its view and do anything that is not supportive of JC and whoever he nominates to follow him".
I think people slightly (only slightly!) underestimate the Labour selectorate. The oddity of 2016 was that they were told they were doomed under an unelectable Corbyn... but the alternative presented to them was being doomed under an unelectable Owen Smith.
Smith really was a very, very weak candidate. No experience, a poor stump performer, and a less than compelling pre-politics CV.
That Smith still got 40% of the vote suggested to me that around one-third of the selectorate are ABC (anyone but Corbyn). I would suggest another one-third are hardcore Corbynistas.
It's the third in the middle that are key. They would generally describe themselves as socialist, and like aspects of Corbyn's platform and supposed honesty. They bought the argument that Corbyn deserved a crack at it, and that being doomed under Smith was no better than being doomed under Corbyn. However, they aren't addicted to The Canary, and do understand that you can only do the things you want on the NHS, minimum wage, benefits etc if you are in power. They aren't simply waiting to see who Corbyn anoints, and are very open to the argument, "We tried it Jeremy's way... it failed... let's try it my way" from a moderate who they genuinely believe might take them back to the Promised Land.
I don't think it's inevitable a moderate will emerge from the wreckage. And, if they don't, I see a split sooner rather than later. But, on balance, I still think the centre of the Labour Party will hold, and it will come to its senses this year.
EDIT: I'd add that there is a group - not a huge one but not negligible - who were fairly solidly Corbyn but suddenly realised, post re-election as leader, that he wasn't a big EU man after all (who knew?) and have turned against him.
Assuming a challenge to Corbyn when he refuses to resign, you have to ask who will get the 26/27 nominations required from MPs and MEPs to initiate a contest?
Cooper - yes Starmer - yes Lewis - unlikely Miliband - no Jarvis - possibly Nandy - yes Long-Bailey - no Chuka - probably Rayner - no Thornberry - no
Given that Labour members would probably very much like to elect a female leader, the two value bets in that list are Cooper and Nandy. My choice would be Nandy, but I can see why Cooper would be favourite.
But if it's a challenge, the PLP will unite around one challenger to maximise chances of success - like they did with Owen Smith.
Owen Smith got almost 40% - he was a weak candidate and Corbyn hadn't lost an election at that point. So they'll think the strongest candidate will have every chance of success.
So the question is who will the PLP go for? Cooper seems much more likely than Nandy.
I'm not so sure they will unite around one candidate. I also think there's a decent chance Corbyn will not stand - especially if he thinks someone of similar views can get on the ballot.
If you think Corbyn will contest a leadership contest.... I think you can lay at 2.72 on betfair that he will go by June. A leadership campaign would still be going on by then I think?
Rebecca-Long-Odds-Bailey are not nearly long enough.
I saw her on Question Time and she makes mathematically challenged Diane Abbott sound Prime Ministerial. The idea that she has a better chance than the articulate Emily Thornberry or the telegenic and articulate Chuka Umuna is Ladbrokes having a laugh.
What I don't understand is how anybody can think it will be better than the deal we had before as the result of 40 years of Treaty and Trade negotiations.
And if anybody says 'sovereignity', they'll get a punch.
Because we'll be out of the political Union that is hellbent on centralisation. And because federation was never going to be acceptable to the British people it was a choice between Leaving now or Leaving later - and Leaving later would have been more difficult and more costly.
Brexit just makes it inevitable that we'll join the Euro when we go back in, instead of keeping our splendid semi-isolation. The anti-federalists have blown it by voting for an existential confrontation with a stronger party.
If we go back in, sure. But we would have been forced into the euro and Schengen sooner or later even if we'd voter Remain.
Out of that bunch Chuka would surely be the best option, he was sent out to bat by Miliband covering every political subject in that period, always handled himself in a strong but cool manner. Thornberry though might be acceptable to Lenny and his Union mates, if that is so he has enough MP's in his pocket to get her through that phase, well worth a flutter.
On balance, I disagree with Mike's view that "it is hard to see Labour’s selectorate changing its view and do anything that is not supportive of JC and whoever he nominates to follow him".
I think people slightly (only slightly!) underestimate the Labour selectorate. The oddity of 2016 was that they were told they were doomed under an unelectable Corbyn... but the alternative presented to them was being doomed under an unelectable Owen Smith.
Smith really was a very, very weak candidate. No experience, a poor stump performer, and a less than compelling pre-politics CV.
That Smith still got 40% of the vote suggested to me that around one-third of the selectorate are ABC (anyone but Corbyn). I would suggest another one-third are hardcore Corbynistas.
It's the third in the middle that are key. They would generally describe themselves as socialist, and like aspects of Corbyn's platform and supposed honesty. They bought the argument that Corbyn deserved a crack at it, and that being doomed under Smith was no better than being doomed under Corbyn. However, they aren't addicted to The Canary, and do understand that you can only do the things you want on the NHS, minimum wage, benefits etc if you are in power. They aren't simply waiting to see who Corbyn anoints, and are very open to the argument, "We tried it Jeremy's way... it failed... let's try it my way" from a moderate who they genuinely believe might take them back to the Promised Land.
I don't think it's inevitable a moderate will emerge from the wreckage. And, if they don't, I see a split sooner rather than later. But, on balance, I still think the centre of the Labour Party will hold, and it will come to its senses this year.
EDIT: I'd add that there is a group - not a huge one but not negligible - who were fairly solidly Corbyn but suddenly realised, post re-election as leader, that he wasn't a big EU man after all (who knew?) and have turned against him.
"Their thinking is that it is better to be ideologically pure but an election loser than choose anybody with a slightly better chance of becoming PM."
The selectorate voted overwhelmingly for Kinnock in 1983 (who was seen as pretty damn left-wing then) before giving Blair a big victory eleven years later. David Miliband got almost half of the vote in 2010 while Liz Kendall could manage only 4.5%, with her support amongst the 'old guard' members being terrible let alone the sign-ups. The point is that the Labour electorate is fickle and volatile and can be persuaded to vote for candidates on whatever wing of the party. Blair and D Miliband were far better and more seasoned politicians than Kendall and had a better understanding of the Labour selectorate (well, back then they stood for the leadership anyway!). Similarly, Corbyn won the leadership while Diane Abbott didn't even make 10%. Again, because the former (for all of his flaws) is far more capable of appealing to the selectorate than the latter. I think YouGov did a poll fairly recently showing that even a majority of Corbyn supporters wouldn't consider voting for Abbott for leader.
David Miliband won among Labour members in 2010. It was the unions that won it for Ed.
"Bar" looks great value at 25-1 to me, seeing as it includes McIRA, the Abbott and many other loony lefties.
You know "bar" doesn't mean you can cover ALL the rest with one bet, don't you? You still need to decide which of the 25-1 (or higher odds) shots to go for! There are several outsiders which might come through... but which?
On topic, this market is now a bit annoying - as I've got some bookie and some Betfair bets. Seeing as I'm into the premium charge zone my Betfair book isn't quite "true" ><
On topic, this market is now a bit annoying - as I've got some bookie and some Betfair bets. Seeing as I'm into the premium charge zone my Betfair book isn't quite "true" ><</p>
I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.
On what basis do you make that statement? I find that sort of comment repulsive
Agree with your sentiment about the second sentence, but I think Jason might have a point with his first. It's easy to tell what Corbyn stands for: he's stood for it for years and has scarcely changed. His position is Old Labour (tm). It's familiar, and reassuring to many Labour potential voters, if repulsive to many non-Labourites.
What about Cooper? What does she stand for? She can obviously differentiate herself by being non-Old Labour, but that can sound a little too much like Blairism and New Labour. What's her message? What's her appeal, aside from just not being Corbyn?
Corbyn is not Old Labour. He hated Old Labour, which was pro-nuke, pro-NATO, pro-monarchy, pro-patriotism and based squarely in the old trade union movement (not the one we have now). Old Labour was Attlee, Bevan, Healey, Callaghan, Wilson, Castle etc. They would all have regarded Corbyn and his mates with total contempt. Corbyn's verison of Labour has never existed because Labour was always a party that sought power through Parliament. That is not what Corbyn believes in.
Yep, fair enough. Perhaps he's the new-old Militant, with the lunatics now having taken over the asylum.
I think my point still stands: Corbyn's values are obvious - he's been spouting them for years. What are Cooper's?
I'm rather hoping that Ms Cooper's dismal performance in her original bid for the leadership might have been due to the stifling effect of the New Labour discipline for staying on-message. After years of spouting the party line one can't just switch into sparkling ideas mode like turning on a tap.
Now, after a spell on the back benches when she must have been seething with "No!!!!! and "I could do that so much better!!!!!", her original motivations may have been stoked up & ignited.
One can always hope. The same applies to other candidates who looked lack-lustre before.
"Bar" looks great value at 25-1 to me, seeing as it includes McIRA, the Abbott and many other loony lefties.
You know "bar" doesn't mean you can cover ALL the rest with one bet, don't you? You still need to decide which of the 25-1 (or higher odds) shots to go for! There are several outsiders which might come through... but which?
Yep I know a full Dutch lay of the listed runners wouldn't come to 96% of the market on Betfair either.
You open an email titled "May updates on [blah]", and your first thought is why is the Prime Minister getting involved, before you remember which month it is.
Although, if we're going to look outside Parliament for potential Labour leaders, then electorally Andy Burnham should be considered a much better prospect than Sadiq Khan -- Burnham outperformed 1997 Tony Blair in Greater Manchester, whereas Khan could only match Ed Miliband's performance in London.
A few weeks ago, I asked some of PB's great and the good how many people they had backed or laid in this market.
We were all in the 30s.
A truly fun market, especially when I felt smug about backing Becky Long Bailey at 66/1 and others pointed out they had backed her at 350/1 and over 500/1.
So long as David Miliband doesn't win, I love this market.
My failure in this market has been total. I have forsworn it with a universal streak of red.
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
Liam must have really failed to bring home the bacon...
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
Why not bring back badger baiting and dog fighting too?
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
A really dumb idea raising it as an issue at the moment even if only answering a question.
A few weeks ago, I asked some of PB's great and the good how many people they had backed or laid in this market.
We were all in the 30s.
A truly fun market, especially when I felt smug about backing Becky Long Bailey at 66/1 and others pointed out they had backed her at 350/1 and over 500/1.
So long as David Miliband doesn't win, I love this market.
My failure in this market has been total. I have forsworn it with a universal streak of red.
I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.
On what basis do you make that statement? I find that sort of comment repulsive
Agree with your sentiment about the second sentence, but I think Jason might have a point with his first. It's easy to tell what Corbyn stands for: he's stood for it for years and has scarcely changed. His position is Old Labour (tm). It's familiar, and reassuring to many Labour potential voters, if repulsive to many non-Labourites.
What about Cooper? What does she stand for? She can obviously differentiate herself by being non-Old Labour, but that can sound a little too much like Blairism and New Labour. What's her message? What's her appeal, aside from just not being Corbyn?
Corbyn is not Old Labour. He hated Old Labour, which was pro-nuke, pro-NATO, pro-monarchy, pro-patriotism and based squarely in the old trade union movement (not the one we have now). Old Labour was Attlee, Bevan, Healey, Callaghan, Wilson, Castle etc. They would all have regarded Corbyn and his mates with total contempt. Corbyn's verison of Labour has never existed because Labour was always a party that sought power through Parliament. That is not what Corbyn believes in.
Yep, fair enough. Perhaps he's the new-old Militant, with the lunatics now having taken over the asylum.
I think my point still stands: Corbyn's values are obvious - he's been spouting them for years. What are Cooper's?
I'm rather hoping that Ms Cooper's dismal performance in her original bid for the leadership might have been due to the stifling effect of the New Labour discipline for staying on-message. After years of spouting the party line one can't just switch into sparkling ideas mode like turning on a tap.
Now, after a spell on the back benches when she must have been seething with "No!!!!! and "I could do that so much better!!!!!", her original motivations may have been stoked up & ignited.
One can always hope. The same applies to other candidates who looked lack-lustre before.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My guess is that Ms Cooper has learned a lot over the last two years.
The trouble with linking to Sky is that weak minded people like me end up reading '20 disgusting things you didn't know about Randy Andy and the lurid behaviour that forced the Royal family to disown him'
I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.
On what basis do you make that statement? I find that sort of comment repulsive
Agree with your sentiment about the second sentence, but I think Jason might have a point with his first. It's easy to tell what Corbyn stands for: he's stood for it for years and has scarcely changed. His position is Old Labour (tm). It's familiar, and reassuring to many Labour potential voters, if repulsive to many non-Labourites.
What about Cooper? What does she stand for? She can obviously differentiate herself by being non-Old Labour, but that can sound a little too much like Blairism and New Labour. What's her message? What's her appeal, aside from just not being Corbyn?
Corbyn is not Old Labour. He hated Old Labour, which was pro-nuke, pro-NATO, pro-monarchy, pro-patriotism and based squarely in the old trade union movement (not the one we have now). Old Labour was Attlee, Bevan, Healey, Callaghan, Wilson, Castle etc. They would all have regarded Corbyn and his mates with total contempt. Corbyn's verison of Labour has never existed because Labour was always a party that sought power through Parliament. That is not what Corbyn believes in.
Yep, fair enough. Perhaps he's the new-old Militant, with the lunatics now having taken over the asylum.
I think my point still stands: Corbyn's values are obvious - he's been spouting them for years. What are Cooper's?
I'm rather hoping that Ms Cooper's dismal performance in her original bid for the leadership might have been due to the stifling effect of the New Labour discipline for staying on-message. After years of spouting the party line one can't just switch into sparkling ideas mode like turning on a tap.
Now, after a spell on the back benches when she must have been seething with "No!!!!! and "I could do that so much better!!!!!", her original motivations may have been stoked up & ignited.
One can always hope. The same applies to other candidates who looked lack-lustre before.
Good afternoon, everyone.
To be fair, Cooper did improve towards the end of the last leadership contest, started showing some spark and passion - although campaigning to let more refugees in probably isn't the best hill for her to die on.
On topic, I wouldn't entirely trust Corbyn's comments. Like Cameron before the referendum, things may look different afterwards.
In particular, if he doesn't stand down then that excludes any other MP from the left from standing and limits the rest of the field to two at most, both of who will almost certainly be heavyweights. It's one thing launching a challenge 14 months into a parliament against a leader with huge activist support; it's another thing doing it after a bad election defeat. The obvious candidates are Starmer and Cooper, though the obvious don't always make it. Even the likes of NickP might conclude that Corbyn's been given his chance if Labour are reduced to, say, 180 MPs (never mind the 150 total some polls suggest), and that someone else should take over. The true believers will continue to back him of course but the true believers aren't enough by themselves.
And he will get advice to that end, probably from McDonnell, amongst others. The left's future then could only be secure with a new standard bearer. What of the 15% barrier? A problem, and one that may well be insurmountable for the far left. I'd therefore expect the annointment to be of a co-operative member of the not-quite-so-hard-left: RLB or Thornberry, for example, who could attract the nominations.
However, if someone like that can inherit the Corbyn lustre, then they would be well-placed to win. The mistakes of 2015-17 could be written off to the individuals and not the message or the strategy (and there is good, if potentially misleading, polling to back that up). Of course, just because Corbyn was a duffer doesn't mean the next candidate from the left will be any better but that's for experience to show.
Meanwhile, Cooper? Maybe. But as Mike says, women underperform in Labour's contest. I can't quite work out whether Balls would be an asset or not but either way, he'd be an issue for her.
Starmer? Yes, value at 6/1 to me. Very capable if not yet quite the parliamentary politician. The one member of the current front bench that looks PM material.
Lewis? Lightweight and not entirely safe in his own constituency. Odds too short.
Miliband? What?! Why?! He's not a candidate, he's shown no sign of wanting to be a candidate and yet he's 8/1? Utterly, utterly absurd. Even if he did stand for the GE, how does he win over the Corbynite membership? Should be three figures rather than one.
My tip: Angela Raynor. Guessing who the anointed one will be is a very difficult game but I think that women stand an advantage, that it'll be someone from a younger generation, and that Raynor is sufficiently under-the-radar to present more of a clean sheet for nominating MPs than, say, Thornberry. 20/1 is quite decent.
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
Is that a real quote?
Full quote: "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain our commitment - we've had a commitment previously - to allow a free vote"
There are 26 of them. So if Labour gets more than 150 MPs - big if - then it's highly unlikely a far left candidate could mount a leadership challenge. Of the 26 listed, though, I am not sure all are guaranteed to back a far left candidate. Thornberry, for example.
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
A really dumb idea raising it as an issue at the moment even if only answering a question.
I'm no supporter of fox hunting, but it surely cannot be any crueller or any more unjustified in a so-called civilsied society than Halal and Kosher slaughter. A hound's teeth ripping your throat out, or a sharp knife running across your throat. Take your pick.
Mark BrownVerified account @MarkOneinFour 19m19 minutes ago Wondering. Is Trump's state visit to UK still happening? Or is this general election the most elaborate 'I'm washing my hair' in history?
Mark BrownVerified account @MarkOneinFour 14m14 minutes ago Replying to @JimmyRushmore@stephenkb Can we not just turn the telly off and crawl around under the window until he goes?
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
Is that a real quote?
Full quote: "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain our commitment - we've had a commitment previously - to allow a free vote"
So it's not 'she hopes to bring back fox hunting' at all. She would allow a free vote. %chance of this being on the manifesto not unadjacent to zero.
Out of that bunch Chuka would surely be the best option, he was sent out to bat by Miliband covering every political subject in that period, always handled himself in a strong but cool manner. Thornberry though might be acceptable to Lenny and his Union mates, if that is so he has enough MP's in his pocket to get her through that phase, well worth a flutter.
Cooper has failed before, her chance has gone.
Chuka will have to live down calling Labour members spoilt children. And indeed decide to run given he dropped out last time.
Would the unions really see Thornberry as one of them?
Burnham bombed in 2010 but probably would have won in 2015 if Corbyn hadn't been on the ballot. I don't think you can write off Cooper. Her refugee focus will have appealed to many Corbyn supporters and moderates will like her too...
I know there's a lot of doom and gloom for Labour at present, and a lot of smugness on here from the blues. But I do wonder if it's YET as apocalyptic as is suggested.
Personally, I think there's a low but not negligible chance of a Labour PM in 2022. It would take several things.
Firstly, a defeat at the lower end of expectations (e.g. majority in the range 70-90) - my forecast is currently around 125, but I can see potential for a good ground war, combined with some Tory hubris/complacency saving a few seats.
Secondly, a moderate leader emerging such as Cooper, Starmer, or Umunna - I know Conservatives will sneer about any one or all of them, but they are fairly credible candidates who are capable of leading. And I think it's perfectly possible - but not certain - the Labour Party will select one of them.
Thirdly, events need to do them some political favours. 2017-2022 won't be an easy term for the Government. There is still a substantial deficit, and blaming Gordon Brown gets harder every year. Schools and hospitals really are feeling the squeeze. The economy is slowing, and inflation is rising. And May has to actually negotiate a deal and sell it to her party rather than parroting her one line on the One Show sofa - if the deal appears poor or splits emerge, her "strong and stable" line becomes a stick to beat her with.
I'm not trying to be a Pollyanna about it. Tricky waters lie ahead for Labour, and they probably won't be celebrating in 2022. But there's a tendency to overdo the doom in these sort of situations.
There are 26 of them. So if Labour gets more than 150 MPs - big if - then it's highly unlikely a far left candidate could mount a leadership challenge. Of the 26 listed, though, I am not sure all are guaranteed to back a far left candidate. Thornberry, for example.
But Thornberry is technically not a far left candidate. She is with Jezza because of the Islington connection.
If they have 26 MPs - isn't 174 or more MP's then needed. 15%.
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
I thought most hunts still carried on more or less regardless anyway, getting round the rules by carrying an eagle owl or dragging an aniseed soaked rag or something?
My parents apparently went to watch the Boxing day hunt last year "as usual". Doesn't float my boat but there you go
So it's not 'she hopes to bring back fox hunting' at all. She would allow a free vote. %chance of this being on the manifesto not unadjacent to zero.
In the private email, sent to hunt masters at the end of April, Lord Mancroft claimed he has received private reassurances that Mrs May will give a manifesto pledge to hold a free vote on repealing the hunting ban.
There are 26 of them. So if Labour gets more than 150 MPs - big if - then it's highly unlikely a far left candidate could mount a leadership challenge. Of the 26 listed, though, I am not sure all are guaranteed to back a far left candidate. Thornberry, for example.
But Thornberry is technically not a far left candidate. She is with Jezza because of the Islington connection.
If they have 26 MPs - isn't 174 or more MP's then needed. 15%.
You need 15% of MEPs and MPs combined.
Agree on Thornberry - she is a careerist not a member of the far left.
On topic, I wouldn't entirely trust Corbyn's comments. Like Cameron before the referendum, things may look different afterwards.
In particular, if he doesn't stand down then that excludes any other MP from the left from standing and limits the rest of the field to two at most, both of who will almost certainly be heavyweights. It's one thing launching a challenge 14 months into a parliament against a leader with huge activist support; it's another thing doing it after a bad election defeat. The obvious candidates are Starmer and Cooper, though the obvious don't always make it. Even the likes of NickP might conclude that Corbyn's been given his chance if Labour are reduced to, say, 180 MPs (never mind the 150 total some polls suggest), and that someone else should take over. The true believers will continue to back him of course but the true believers aren't enough by themselves.
And he will get advice to that end, probably from McDonnell, amongst others. The left's future then could only be secure with a new standard bearer. What of the 15% barrier? A problem, and one that may well be insurmountable for the far left. I'd therefore expect the annointment to be of a co-operative member of the not-quite-so-hard-left: RLB or Thornberry, for example, who could attract the nominations.
However, if someone like that can inherit the Corbyn lustre, then they would be well-placed to win. The mistakes of 2015-17 could be written off to the individuals and not the message or the strategy (and there is good, if potentially misleading, polling to back that up). Of course, just because Corbyn was a duffer doesn't mean the next candidate from the left will be any better but that's for experience to show.
Meanwhile, Cooper? Maybe. But as Mike says, women underperform in Labour's contest. I can't quite work out whether Balls would be an asset or not but either way, he'd be an issue for her.
Starmer? Yes, value at 6/1 to me. Very capable if not yet quite the parliamentary politician. The one member of the current front bench that looks PM material.
Lewis? Lightweight and not entirely safe in his own constituency. Odds too short.
Miliband? What?! Why?! He's not a candidate, he's shown no sign of wanting to be a candidate and yet he's 8/1? Utterly, utterly absurd. Even if he did stand for the GE, how does he win over the Corbynite membership? Should be three figures rather than one.
My tip: Angela Raynor. Guessing who the anointed one will be is a very difficult game but I think that women stand an advantage, that it'll be someone from a younger generation, and that Raynor is sufficiently under-the-radar to present more of a clean sheet for nominating MPs than, say, Thornberry. 20/1 is quite decent.
Cooper would be my choice as she was in 2015. I could also live with Starmer. If someone from the left will win, I'd rather it was Thornberry.
My choice would be the 20/1 shot Emily Thornberry. By a distance the brightest (sounding) and most articulate on the list.
She's presumably on the left (she's in Corbyn's shadow cabinet) so no problems from that quarter she's female possibly gay (I have no knowledge but it's the progressive option) and who's to say she hasn't got a bit of West Indian like the Everton footballer.
I know there's a lot of doom and gloom for Labour at present, and a lot of smugness on here from the blues. But I do wonder if it's YET as apocalyptic as is suggested.
Personally, I think there's a low but not negligible chance of a Labour PM in 2022. It would take several things.
Firstly, a defeat at the lower end of expectations (e.g. majority in the range 70-90) - my forecast is currently around 125, but I can see potential for a good ground war, combined with some Tory hubris/complacency saving a few seats.
Secondly, a moderate leader emerging such as Cooper, Starmer, or Umunna.
A majority of 70 and a new leader may well not both happen though - Jez would surely stay on if he did that "well".
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
A really dumb idea raising it as an issue at the moment even if only answering a question.
I'm no supporter of fox hunting, but it surely cannot be any crueller or any more unjustified in a so-called civilsied society than Halal and Kosher slaughter. A hound's teeth ripping your throat out, or a sharp knife running across your throat. Take your pick.
You are referring to Toxteth dogs I assume...ripping children's flesh etc..
Ha, I read dyedwoolie's figures the wrong way round then, was thinking it was Con 52% Lab 20%.
It's quite hard to actually poll this - what with Jez's dire supplementaries, our generally awful turnout (Even if its 65% say), the Tories being in the forties (Higher natural MoE here), May's gargantuan lead over Jezza and a whole bunch of minor parties that might surge or may not even run candidates.
The polls may well be wrong, but they have every excuse !
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
I thought most hunts still carried on more or less regardless anyway, getting round the rules by carrying an eagle owl or dragging an aniseed soaked rag or something?
My parents apparently went to watch the Boxing day hunt last year "as usual". Doesn't float my boat but there you go
"The unspeakable in the pursuit of the uneatable" still holds a century and a bit after Oscar Wilde's observation in my view. I would defend to the death their right to be unspeakable, I think, except I am not sure I can be bothered.
Have Corbyn or Labour made any comment yet about railway renationalisation wrt the manifesto?
I'm slightly surprised, as it's something he's commented on before, he seems to believe in it, and the polling shows that it's generally popular amongst the public.
I would have thought it would have been one of their strongest policies going into the GE. Or is 'nationalisation' a word Labour want to avoid at the moment?
(Note: I am wary of it as a policy, but think it could play positively for Labour).
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
Why not bring back badger baiting and dog fighting too?
My choice would be the 20/1 shot Emily Thornberry. By a distance the brightest (sounding) and most articulate on the list.
She's presumably on the left (she's in Corbyn's shadow cabinet) so no problems from that quarter she's female possibly gay (I have no knowledge but it's the progressive option) and who's to say she hasn't got a bit of West Indian like the Everton footballer.
On topic, I wouldn't entirely trust Corbyn's comments. Like Cameron before the referendum, things may look different afterwards.
In particular, if he doesn't stand down then that excludes any other MP from the left from standing and limits the rest of the field to two at most, both of who will almost certainly be heavyweights. It's one thing launching a challenge 14 months into a parliament against a leader with huge activist support; it's another thing doing it after a bad election defeat. The obvious candidates are Starmer and Cooper, though the obvious don't always make it. Even the likes of NickP might conclude that Corbyn's been given his chance if Labour are reduced to, say, 180 MPs (never mind the 150 total some polls suggest), and that someone else should take over. The true believers will continue to back him of course but the true believers aren't enough by themselves.
And he will get advice to that end, probably from McDonnell, amongst others. The left's future then could only be secure with a new standard bearer. What of the 15% barrier? A problem, and one that may well be insurmountable for the far left. I'd therefore expect the annointment to be of a co-operative member of the not-quite-so-hard-left: RLB or Thornberry, for example, who could attract the nominations.
However, if someone like that can inherit the Corbyn lustre, then they would be well-placed to win. The mistakes of 2015-17 could be written off to the individuals and not the message or the strategy (and there is good, if potentially misleading, polling to back that up). Of course, just because Corbyn was a duffer doesn't mean the next candidate from the left will be any better but that's for experience to show.
(snipped)
Very few people seem to take seriously what Mr McDonnell (I think) said just after Mr Corbyn was first elected. Their hard left ideology doesn't 'do' individual leadership.
So like every other decision from the party leader, whether Mr Corbyn stands down or stays isn't really up to him as an individual. It's a communal decision to be made by the leadership team.
G-Live: Labour confirms UK will leave EU if party wins the election
The Labour rebuttal unit has been in action again this afternoon - rebutting, or at least clarifying, what Jeremy Corbyn was saying earlier. If Labour wins the election, the UK will leave the EU, aides to the Labour leader say.
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
Why not bring back badger baiting and dog fighting too?
Cock fighting ?
A policy enthusiastically backed by Alistair Majury...
I know there's a lot of doom and gloom for Labour at present, and a lot of smugness on here from the blues. But I do wonder if it's YET as apocalyptic as is suggested.
Personally, I think there's a low but not negligible chance of a Labour PM in 2022. It would take several things.
Firstly, a defeat at the lower end of expectations (e.g. majority in the range 70-90) - my forecast is currently around 125, but I can see potential for a good ground war, combined with some Tory hubris/complacency saving a few seats.
Secondly, a moderate leader emerging such as Cooper, Starmer, or Umunna - I know Conservatives will sneer about any one or all of them, but they are fairly credible candidates who are capable of leading. And I think it's perfectly possible - but not certain - the Labour Party will select one of them.
Thirdly, events need to do them some political favours. 2017-2022 won't be an easy term for the Government. There is still a substantial deficit, and blaming Gordon Brown gets harder every year. Schools and hospitals really are feeling the squeeze. The economy is slowing, and inflation is rising. And May has to actually negotiate a deal and sell it to her party rather than parroting her one line on the One Show sofa - if the deal appears poor or splits emerge, her "strong and stable" line becomes a stick to beat her with.
I'm not trying to be a Pollyanna about it. Tricky waters lie ahead for Labour, and they probably won't be celebrating in 2022. But there's a tendency to overdo the doom in these sort of situations.
You only have to look at the current cabinet to see the paucity of talent that exists inside the Parliamentary Conservative party. Even with some sprightly new bloods entering the Commons in June that will not change much. With a leader freed up to form a shadow cabinet from all parts of the PLP, Labour will start to do a much better job of holding the government to account - from the leader down. It is also very hard to see how May can produce a Brexit result that works for all parts of the very broad coalition of support she is building. If labour does get its act together, it has every reason to believe it could significantly cut the Tory majority in 2022 or, if the wind is really blowing in the right direction, deny the Tories an overall majority all together.
I know there's a lot of doom and gloom for Labour at present, and a lot of smugness on here from the blues. But I do wonder if it's YET as apocalyptic as is suggested.
Personally, I think there's a low but not negligible chance of a Labour PM in 2022. It would take several things.
Firstly, a defeat at the lower end of expectations (e.g. majority in the range 70-90) - my forecast is currently around 125, but I can see potential for a good ground war, combined with some Tory hubris/complacency saving a few seats.
Secondly, a moderate leader emerging such as Cooper, Starmer, or Umunna - I know Conservatives will sneer about any one or all of them, but they are fairly credible candidates who are capable of leading. And I think it's perfectly possible - but not certain - the Labour Party will select one of them.
Thirdly, events need to do them some political favours. 2017-2022 won't be an easy term for the Government. There is still a substantial deficit, and blaming Gordon Brown gets harder every year. Schools and hospitals really are feeling the squeeze. The economy is slowing, and inflation is rising. And May has to actually negotiate a deal and sell it to her party rather than parroting her one line on the One Show sofa - if the deal appears poor or splits emerge, her "strong and stable" line becomes a stick to beat her with.
I'm not trying to be a Pollyanna about it. Tricky waters lie ahead for Labour, and they probably won't be celebrating in 2022. But there's a tendency to overdo the doom in these sort of situations.
Have Corbyn or Labour made any comment yet about railway renationalisation wrt the manifesto?
I'm slightly surprised, as it's something he's commented on before, he seems to believe in it, and the polling shows that it's generally popular amongst the public.
I would have thought it would have been one of their strongest policies going into the GE. Or is 'nationalisation' a word Labour want to avoid at the moment?
(Note: I am wary of it as a policy, but think it could play positively for Labour).
He might as well go for it. I'd be amused if May stuck it in the Tory manifesto mind
Assuming a challenge to Corbyn when he refuses to resign, you have to ask who will get the 26/27 nominations required from MPs and MEPs to initiate a contest?
Cooper - yes Starmer - yes Lewis - unlikely Miliband - no Jarvis - possibly Nandy - yes Long-Bailey - no Chuka - probably Rayner - no Thornberry - no
Given that Labour members would probably very much like to elect a female leader, the two value bets in that list are Cooper and Nandy. My choice would be Nandy, but I can see why Cooper would be favourite.
If it's a challenge to Corbyn rather than an open vacancy, isn't the threshold 20% rather than 15%?
I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.
On what basis do you make that statement? I find that sort of comment repulsive
Agree with your sentiment about the second sentence, but I think Jason might have a point with his first. It's easy to tell what Corbyn stands for: he's stood for it for years and has scarcely changed. His position is Old Labour (tm). It's familiar, and reassuring to many Labour potential voters, if repulsive to many non-Labourites.
What about Cooper? What does she stand for? She can obviously differentiate herself by being non-Old Labour, but that can sound a little too much like Blairism and New Labour. What's her message? What's her appeal, aside from just not being Corbyn?
Corbyn is not Old Labour. He hated Old Labour, which was pro-nuke, pro-NATO, pro-monarchy, pro-patriotism and based squarely in the old trade union movement (not the one we have now). Old Labour was Attlee, Bevan, Healey, Callaghan, Wilson, Castle etc. They would all have regarded Corbyn and his mates with total contempt. Corbyn's verison of Labour has never existed because Labour was always a party that sought power through Parliament. That is not what Corbyn believes in.
Yep, fair enough. Perhaps he's the new-old Militant, with the lunatics now having taken over the asylum.
I think my point still stands: Corbyn's values are obvious - he's been spouting them for years. What are Cooper's?
I'm rather hoping that Ms Cooper's dismal performance in her original bid for the leadership might have been due to the stifling effect of the New Labour discipline for staying on-message. After years of spouting the party line one can't just switch into sparkling ideas mode like turning on a tap.
Now, after a spell on the back benches when she must have been seething with "No!!!!! and "I could do that so much better!!!!!", her original motivations may have been stoked up & ignited.
One can always hope. The same applies to other candidates who looked lack-lustre before.
Good afternoon, everyone.
For someone who is not a Labour supporter, your analysis is spot on. Her 2015 campaign was disappointing as was Burnham's. Both are capable of doing much better.
Lately, I think I have seen her on manoeuvres like popping on the telly to give a rebuttal to some government initiative with the help, no doubt, of some BBC / ITV / Sky journalists. The shadow spokesperson could not be found perhaps.
Have Corbyn or Labour made any comment yet about railway renationalisation wrt the manifesto?
I'm slightly surprised, as it's something he's commented on before, he seems to believe in it, and the polling shows that it's generally popular amongst the public.
I would have thought it would have been one of their strongest policies going into the GE. Or is 'nationalisation' a word Labour want to avoid at the moment?
(Note: I am wary of it as a policy, but think it could play positively for Labour).
Have Corbyn or Labour made any comment yet about railway renationalisation wrt the manifesto?
I'm slightly surprised, as it's something he's commented on before, he seems to believe in it, and the polling shows that it's generally popular amongst the public.
I would have thought it would have been one of their strongest policies going into the GE. Or is 'nationalisation' a word Labour want to avoid at the moment?
(Note: I am wary of it as a policy, but think it could play positively for Labour).
The psychology of new leaders is often under-estimated. They tend to compensate for the perceived weaknesses of the person they are replacing on personality, not necessarily policy. Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump. Howard to Cameron to May.Blair to Brown to Miliband to Corbyn. Therefore the next leader will probably be someone relatively new to Parliament, young, well turned out and with some Northern (ish) constituency. Nandy or Jarvis (if he wants it) for me.
@Jack_Blanchard_: Sensational. Theresa May confirms she hopes to bring back fox hunting. "I've always been in favour of hunting & we maintain out commitment"
Why not bring back badger baiting and dog fighting too?
Comments
I saw her on Question Time and she makes mathematically challenged Diane Abbott sound Prime Ministerial. The idea that she has a better chance than the articulate Emily Thornberry or the telegenic and articulate Chuka Umuna is Ladbrokes having a laugh.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/apr/30/theresa-may-reform-police-stop-and-search-powers
Fwiw - She was right.
But generally speaking, the idea that Khan is a big electoral asset (something even he seems to believe judging from some of his interviews where he's been saying how Labour should learn from him) doesn't really have much to support it. Only staying steady with Miliband's General Election performance, in a mid-term mayoral election, really wasn't much to write home about. Admittedly his opinion poll ratings since the election have been very good, but obviously poll ratings aren't the same as electoral performance.
25/1 on "any other" would be a fantastic bet.
Alas, too good to be true!
I think people slightly (only slightly!) underestimate the Labour selectorate. The oddity of 2016 was that they were told they were doomed under an unelectable Corbyn... but the alternative presented to them was being doomed under an unelectable Owen Smith.
Smith really was a very, very weak candidate. No experience, a poor stump performer, and a less than compelling pre-politics CV.
That Smith still got 40% of the vote suggested to me that around one-third of the selectorate are ABC (anyone but Corbyn). I would suggest another one-third are hardcore Corbynistas.
It's the third in the middle that are key. They would generally describe themselves as socialist, and like aspects of Corbyn's platform and supposed honesty. They bought the argument that Corbyn deserved a crack at it, and that being doomed under Smith was no better than being doomed under Corbyn. However, they aren't addicted to The Canary, and do understand that you can only do the things you want on the NHS, minimum wage, benefits etc if you are in power. They aren't simply waiting to see who Corbyn anoints, and are very open to the argument, "We tried it Jeremy's way... it failed... let's try it my way" from a moderate who they genuinely believe might take them back to the Promised Land.
I don't think it's inevitable a moderate will emerge from the wreckage. And, if they don't, I see a split sooner rather than later. But, on balance, I still think the centre of the Labour Party will hold, and it will come to its senses this year.
EDIT: I'd add that there is a group - not a huge one but not negligible - who were fairly solidly Corbyn but suddenly realised, post re-election as leader, that he wasn't a big EU man after all (who knew?) and have turned against him.
I also think there's a decent chance Corbyn will not stand - especially if he thinks someone of similar views can get on the ballot.
If you think Corbyn will contest a leadership contest.... I think you can lay at 2.72 on betfair that he will go by June. A leadership campaign would still be going on by then I think?
Cooper has failed before, her chance has gone.
I know, because I was one of them.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/861944589506289664
Now, after a spell on the back benches when she must have been seething with "No!!!!! and "I could do that so much better!!!!!", her original motivations may have been stoked up & ignited.
One can always hope. The same applies to other candidates who looked lack-lustre before.
Good afternoon, everyone.
http://www.politico.eu/article/commission-vice-president-the-eu-cannot-afford-macrons-buy-european-act/
Sign you have been on PB too much #46.
You open an email titled "May updates on [blah]", and your first thought is why is the Prime Minister getting involved, before you remember which month it is.
Mr. Jason/Mr. Isam, well, quite.
We also saw the silence, turning away and even seeming collusion in Rotherham.
(PS I only got to ten)
In particular, if he doesn't stand down then that excludes any other MP from the left from standing and limits the rest of the field to two at most, both of who will almost certainly be heavyweights. It's one thing launching a challenge 14 months into a parliament against a leader with huge activist support; it's another thing doing it after a bad election defeat. The obvious candidates are Starmer and Cooper, though the obvious don't always make it. Even the likes of NickP might conclude that Corbyn's been given his chance if Labour are reduced to, say, 180 MPs (never mind the 150 total some polls suggest), and that someone else should take over. The true believers will continue to back him of course but the true believers aren't enough by themselves.
And he will get advice to that end, probably from McDonnell, amongst others. The left's future then could only be secure with a new standard bearer. What of the 15% barrier? A problem, and one that may well be insurmountable for the far left. I'd therefore expect the annointment to be of a co-operative member of the not-quite-so-hard-left: RLB or Thornberry, for example, who could attract the nominations.
However, if someone like that can inherit the Corbyn lustre, then they would be well-placed to win. The mistakes of 2015-17 could be written off to the individuals and not the message or the strategy (and there is good, if potentially misleading, polling to back that up). Of course, just because Corbyn was a duffer doesn't mean the next candidate from the left will be any better but that's for experience to show.
Meanwhile, Cooper? Maybe. But as Mike says, women underperform in Labour's contest. I can't quite work out whether Balls would be an asset or not but either way, he'd be an issue for her.
Starmer? Yes, value at 6/1 to me. Very capable if not yet quite the parliamentary politician. The one member of the current front bench that looks PM material.
Lewis? Lightweight and not entirely safe in his own constituency. Odds too short.
Miliband? What?! Why?! He's not a candidate, he's shown no sign of wanting to be a candidate and yet he's 8/1? Utterly, utterly absurd. Even if he did stand for the GE, how does he win over the Corbynite membership? Should be three figures rather than one.
My tip: Angela Raynor. Guessing who the anointed one will be is a very difficult game but I think that women stand an advantage, that it'll be someone from a younger generation, and that Raynor is sufficiently under-the-radar to present more of a clean sheet for nominating MPs than, say, Thornberry. 20/1 is quite decent.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13aF5XfyBQMJr3mRmiw8l9h69tSRv3CcVDlvZqTeTbHM/edit
There are 26 of them. So if Labour gets more than 150 MPs - big if - then it's highly unlikely a far left candidate could mount a leadership challenge. Of the 26 listed, though, I am not sure all are guaranteed to back a far left candidate. Thornberry, for example.
Wondering. Is Trump's state visit to UK still happening? Or is this general election the most elaborate 'I'm washing my hair' in history?
Mark BrownVerified account @MarkOneinFour 14m14 minutes ago
Replying to @JimmyRushmore @stephenkb
Can we not just turn the telly off and crawl around under the window until he goes?
Would the unions really see Thornberry as one of them?
Burnham bombed in 2010 but probably would have won in 2015 if Corbyn hadn't been on the ballot.
I don't think you can write off Cooper. Her refugee focus will have appealed to many Corbyn supporters and moderates will like her too...
Personally, I think there's a low but not negligible chance of a Labour PM in 2022. It would take several things.
Firstly, a defeat at the lower end of expectations (e.g. majority in the range 70-90) - my forecast is currently around 125, but I can see potential for a good ground war, combined with some Tory hubris/complacency saving a few seats.
Secondly, a moderate leader emerging such as Cooper, Starmer, or Umunna - I know Conservatives will sneer about any one or all of them, but they are fairly credible candidates who are capable of leading. And I think it's perfectly possible - but not certain - the Labour Party will select one of them.
Thirdly, events need to do them some political favours. 2017-2022 won't be an easy term for the Government. There is still a substantial deficit, and blaming Gordon Brown gets harder every year. Schools and hospitals really are feeling the squeeze. The economy is slowing, and inflation is rising. And May has to actually negotiate a deal and sell it to her party rather than parroting her one line on the One Show sofa - if the deal appears poor or splits emerge, her "strong and stable" line becomes a stick to beat her with.
I'm not trying to be a Pollyanna about it. Tricky waters lie ahead for Labour, and they probably won't be celebrating in 2022. But there's a tendency to overdo the doom in these sort of situations.
If they have 26 MPs - isn't 174 or more MP's then needed. 15%.
My parents apparently went to watch the Boxing day hunt last year "as usual". Doesn't float my boat but there you go
In the private email, sent to hunt masters at the end of April, Lord Mancroft claimed he has received private reassurances that Mrs May will give a manifesto pledge to hold a free vote on repealing the hunting ban.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/fox-hunt-masters-secretly-mobilising-10383202
Agree on Thornberry - she is a careerist not a member of the far left.
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/861954179115368448
She's presumably on the left (she's in Corbyn's shadow cabinet) so no problems from that quarter she's female possibly gay (I have no knowledge but it's the progressive option) and who's to say she hasn't got a bit of West Indian like the Everton footballer.
A shoo-in
The polls may well be wrong, but they have every excuse !
I'm slightly surprised, as it's something he's commented on before, he seems to believe in it, and the polling shows that it's generally popular amongst the public.
I would have thought it would have been one of their strongest policies going into the GE. Or is 'nationalisation' a word Labour want to avoid at the moment?
(Note: I am wary of it as a policy, but think it could play positively for Labour).
So like every other decision from the party leader, whether Mr Corbyn stands down or stays isn't really up to him as an individual. It's a communal decision to be made by the leadership team.
The Labour rebuttal unit has been in action again this afternoon - rebutting, or at least clarifying, what Jeremy Corbyn was saying earlier. If Labour wins the election, the UK will leave the EU, aides to the Labour leader say.
#shortstraws
Lately, I think I have seen her on manoeuvres like popping on the telly to give a rebuttal to some government initiative with the help, no doubt, of some BBC / ITV / Sky journalists. The shadow spokesperson could not be found perhaps.
It may be why, contrary to other languages, the slang in English for a gentleman's particular appendage is 'cock' rather than 'dog'.
https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/861904121951113217
These days we have to make do with X-Factor, BGT, and PMQs.