Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BMG finds just 2% of voters back Long-Bailey for LAB leader wi

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited December 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BMG finds just 2% of voters back Long-Bailey for LAB leader with 61% saying they haven’t heard of her’

The main poll this weekend is by BMG for the Independent which looks at both the policy profile that would command support and views of possible replacements for two-time loser, Corbyn who led his party to its worst general election since 1935.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,043
    edited December 2019
    Second, like SF In Foyle.
  • Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.

    No idea, I'll have to try get a first soon!
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276

    Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.

    He served in cabinet under Tony Blair and voted for the Iraq war.

    This rules him out of contention.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 50,398

    Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.

    With a name like "Benn" he's almost certainly from the Right of the party. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some blue blood in there somewhere.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,006
    edited December 2019
    You must be mad to want to do the most difficult job in British politics for five years and then maybe get trounced next time, if you last that long. But, for some reason, there seems to be plenty of candidates.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,006
    Off topic, this article on the EU's other problems is pretty good:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/europe/europe-is-in-deep-trouble-analysis-intl/index.html

    I think it underplays the economic issues and overplays the political ones somewhat but I can't argue with its overall thrust.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,786
    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 50,398
    Fishing said:

    Off topic, this article on the EU's other problems is pretty good:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/europe/europe-is-in-deep-trouble-analysis-intl/index.html

    I think it underplays the economic issues and overplays the political ones somewhat but I can't argue with its overall thrust.

    That is a good piece.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 44,636
    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 5,838
    edited December 2019
    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    I am delighted that Corbyn was crushed, but his defeat only removes one of the many heads of the Hydra. We need an effective opposition and you will not get one till the Party moves back to the centre ground. Corbyn, Milne, Mason, McDonnell and their ilk need to thrown out of the party, in a manner similar to that when Militant were expelled. Without this happening, Labour will keep losing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 44,636
    edited December 2019
    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    Exhibit one: the totally bonkers and righteously angry Laurie Penny.
    https://thebaffler.com/latest/necessary-anger-penny
    A complete failure to understand why calling people evil racist bigots doesn’t persuade them to vote for you.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 44,437
    Fishing said:

    Off topic, this article on the EU's other problems is pretty good:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/europe/europe-is-in-deep-trouble-analysis-intl/index.html

    I think it underplays the economic issues and overplays the political ones somewhat but I can't argue with its overall thrust.

    The linked article is also interesting, if only for including some of the lesser known gaffes from our new PM

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/13/uk/boris-johnson-analysis-ge19-intl/index.html
  • Sandpit said:

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    Exhibit one: the totally bonkers and righteously angry Laurie Penny.
    https://thebaffler.com/latest/necessary-anger-penny
    A complete failure to understand why calling people evil racist bigots doesn’t persuade them to vote for you.
    The Conservatives just won having spent the preceding period labelling half the population treacherous quislings so you can understand their confusion.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 44,437
    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    It is more likely that they would have done better without the BXP siphoning off Labour leavers. The assumption that BXP voters all lean Tory is sloppy and up there with the same assumption about UKIP voters that some commentators got wrong in 2017.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 30,009
    Sandpit said:

    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?

    I wonder if it isn't so much 'getting back' voters who switched, as recovering those who didn't vote at all. Or, of course, encouraging younger voters.Turnout was just over 67%, about 1.3% down on 2017. Indeed turnout in this century has generally been down on that at the end of the last, and the 80+% of the 1950's seem an unattainable dream.
    Is there a case for compulsory voting, as in Australia?
  • Sandpit said:

    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?

    I wonder if it isn't so much 'getting back' voters who switched, as recovering those who didn't vote at all. Or, of course, encouraging younger voters.Turnout was just over 67%, about 1.3% down on 2017. Indeed turnout in this century has generally been down on that at the end of the last, and the 80+% of the 1950's seem an unattainable dream.
    Is there a case for compulsory voting, as in Australia?
    Compulsory voting is an abomination. If politicians don’t offer anything the public wants to vote for, the pressure should be on the politicians to do better, not force the public to buy something they don’t want.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,460
    Sandpit said:

    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?

    How many members of the public knew who Corbyn was when the process started in 2015? About the same as RLB now would be my guess. It's not a barrier to success. Her policies, however, could be.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 30,009

    Sandpit said:

    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?

    I wonder if it isn't so much 'getting back' voters who switched, as recovering those who didn't vote at all. Or, of course, encouraging younger voters.Turnout was just over 67%, about 1.3% down on 2017. Indeed turnout in this century has generally been down on that at the end of the last, and the 80+% of the 1950's seem an unattainable dream.
    Is there a case for compulsory voting, as in Australia?
    Compulsory voting is an abomination. If politicians don’t offer anything the public wants to vote for, the pressure should be on the politicians to do better, not force the public to buy something they don’t want.
    I'm not particularly enthusiastic about it myself, but I was listening to discussion the other day, on the Reasons to be Cheerful podcast, where a political scientist of some sort argued that it meant that parties had to greater efforts to persuade electors of their merits, rather than simply on Getting Out The Vote.
    Having said that, New Zealand doesn't have it, and their turnouts are much nearer (and sometimes over) 80% than ours.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743

    Sandpit said:

    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?

    How many members of the public knew who Corbyn was when the process started in 2015? About the same as RLB now would be my guess. It's not a barrier to success. Her policies, however, could be.
    I'm a politics geek and I had never heard of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015. The more his leadership unfolded, the more I understood why I had not heard of him.

    That's not the case for Long Bailey, but equally it would be if people if ability had been willing to serve under Corbyn, rather than being sacked for being honest and saying he was useless.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 50,398

    Sandpit said:

    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?

    I wonder if it isn't so much 'getting back' voters who switched, as recovering those who didn't vote at all. Or, of course, encouraging younger voters.Turnout was just over 67%, about 1.3% down on 2017. Indeed turnout in this century has generally been down on that at the end of the last, and the 80+% of the 1950's seem an unattainable dream.
    Is there a case for compulsory voting, as in Australia?
    Compulsory voting is an abomination. If politicians don’t offer anything the public wants to vote for, the pressure should be on the politicians to do better, not force the public to buy something they don’t want.
    Surely those who don't vote are registering their support for the status quo? Much better to count them as votes for the government.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?

    I wonder if it isn't so much 'getting back' voters who switched, as recovering those who didn't vote at all. Or, of course, encouraging younger voters.Turnout was just over 67%, about 1.3% down on 2017. Indeed turnout in this century has generally been down on that at the end of the last, and the 80+% of the 1950's seem an unattainable dream.
    Is there a case for compulsory voting, as in Australia?
    Compulsory voting is an abomination. If politicians don’t offer anything the public wants to vote for, the pressure should be on the politicians to do better, not force the public to buy something they don’t want.
    Surely those who don't vote are registering their support for the status quo? Much better to count them as votes for the government.
    What about those who turn up, scribble obscenities all over the paper and then tear it up?

    Asking for a friend...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 48,606
    edited December 2019

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    I am delighted that Corbyn was crushed, but his defeat only removes one of the many heads of the Hydra. We need an effective opposition and you will not get one till the Party moves back to the centre ground. Corbyn, Milne, Mason, McDonnell and their ilk need to thrown out of the party, in a manner similar to that when Militant were expelled. Without this happening, Labour will keep losing.
    Being brutal, there is nobody in the running for the Labour leadership with the standing and authority to make expulsions. Probably not even of the embedded and politically protected anti-semites.

    The idea that any of them could do a Kinnock and deep-cleanse the party of its current incarnation of Militant is risible. Some of the front-runners wouldn't even have the inclination.

    But at least the ongoing dire state of Labour will act as a continuing comfort to those who already made the break to the Tories - and give a bit more resolve to those who may well join them next time. Because for the vast majority of voters, Labour does not offer a path to improving their life.

    I'm calling it: Labour is dead as a political force at Westminster. It has
    been reduced to a lobby group for city centres and for nowhere else and nothing else. If Labour think this election was brutal, just wait until 2024.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 30,009
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?

    I wonder if it isn't so much 'getting back' voters who switched, as recovering those who didn't vote at all. Or, of course, encouraging younger voters.Turnout was just over 67%, about 1.3% down on 2017. Indeed turnout in this century has generally been down on that at the end of the last, and the 80+% of the 1950's seem an unattainable dream.
    Is there a case for compulsory voting, as in Australia?
    Compulsory voting is an abomination. If politicians don’t offer anything the public wants to vote for, the pressure should be on the politicians to do better, not force the public to buy something they don’t want.
    Surely those who don't vote are registering their support for the status quo? Much better to count them as votes for the government.
    What about those who turn up, scribble obscenities all over the paper and then tear it up?

    Asking for a friend...
    Apparently that's allowable in Australia.
  • IanB2 said:

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    It is more likely that they would have done better without the BXP siphoning off Labour leavers. The assumption that BXP voters all lean Tory is sloppy and up there with the same assumption about UKIP voters that some commentators got wrong in 2017.

    I agree - I think they would barely break 1 for 1 for the Tories. Certainly in Westmorland the Brexit voters could not have rationally voted Conservative if there had not been a Brexit candidate. I think Hartlepool was a special case where the Tory should have stood down, even in defiance of the party nationally. I can see the Tories could have got another 10 seats, maybe. Personally I find the reality which did happen sufficiently satisfactory not to engage in too much whatiffery.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 30,009

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    I am delighted that Corbyn was crushed, but his defeat only removes one of the many heads of the Hydra. We need an effective opposition and you will not get one till the Party moves back to the centre ground. Corbyn, Milne, Mason, McDonnell and their ilk need to thrown out of the party, in a manner similar to that when Militant were expelled. Without this happening, Labour will keep losing.
    Being brutal, there is nobody in the running for the Labour leadership with the standing and authority to make expulsions. Probably not even of the embedded and politically protected anti-semites.

    The idea that any of them could do a Kinnock and deep-cleanse the party of its current incarnation of Militant is risible. Some of the front-runners wouldn't even have the inclination.

    But at least the ongoing dire state of Labour will act as a continuing comfort to those who already made the break to the Tories - and give a bit more resolve to those who may well join them next time. Because for the vast majority of voters, Labour does not offer a path to improving their life.

    I'm calling it: Labour is dead as a political force at Westminster. It has
    been reduced to a lobby group for city centres and for nowhere else and nothing else. If Labour think this election was brutal, just wait until 2024.
    Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Or woman!
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 11,409
    I see the 'Gilet Clad Loki' (© Marina Hyde) is being sent to unsheath his kukri on defence spending.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50864917

    When considering Cummings vs. MoD I experience a similar emotional pang to watching Man Utd vs Chelsea: it's a shame they both can't lose.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 48,606
    IanB2 said:

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    It is more likely that they would have done better without the BXP siphoning off Labour leavers. The assumption that BXP voters all lean Tory is sloppy and up there with the same assumption about UKIP voters that some commentators got wrong in 2017.

    Former Labour voters with a Brexit Party candidate had an easy option. Those without one had a tougher call - continue with unthinking support for Labour, or vote to shake things up. Look at places like Mansfield - no Brexit Party option and a Tory majority increasing fifteen fold.

    What is sloppy is denying the evidence that Labour offered nothing but tradition.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 48,606

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    I am delighted that Corbyn was crushed, but his defeat only removes one of the many heads of the Hydra. We need an effective opposition and you will not get one till the Party moves back to the centre ground. Corbyn, Milne, Mason, McDonnell and their ilk need to thrown out of the party, in a manner similar to that when Militant were expelled. Without this happening, Labour will keep losing.
    Being brutal, there is nobody in the running for the Labour leadership with the standing and authority to make expulsions. Probably not even of the embedded and politically protected anti-semites.

    The idea that any of them could do a Kinnock and deep-cleanse the party of its current incarnation of Militant is risible. Some of the front-runners wouldn't even have the inclination.

    But at least the ongoing dire state of Labour will act as a continuing comfort to those who already made the break to the Tories - and give a bit more resolve to those who may well join them next time. Because for the vast majority of voters, Labour does not offer a path to improving their life.

    I'm calling it: Labour is dead as a political force at Westminster. It has
    been reduced to a lobby group for city centres and for nowhere else and nothing else. If Labour think this election was brutal, just wait until 2024.
    Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Or woman!
    From that line up? Puh!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743
    Dura_Ace said:

    I see the 'Gilet Clad Loki' (© Marina Hyde) is being sent to unsheath his kukri on defence spending.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50864917

    When considering Cummings vs. MoD I experience a similar emotional pang to watching Man Utd vs Chelsea: it's a shame they both can't lose.

    Pistols at dawn? That might work...
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Off topic, this article on the EU's other problems is pretty good:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/europe/europe-is-in-deep-trouble-analysis-intl/index.html

    I think it underplays the economic issues and overplays the political ones somewhat but I can't argue with its overall thrust.

    That is a good piece.
    It's a bloody terrifying one. I have been reading about each of the issues in each country in Private Eye, but stacked together its....a worrying trend.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 11,409
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I see the 'Gilet Clad Loki' (© Marina Hyde) is being sent to unsheath his kukri on defence spending.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50864917

    When considering Cummings vs. MoD I experience a similar emotional pang to watching Man Utd vs Chelsea: it's a shame they both can't lose.

    Pistols at dawn? That might work...
    Cummings, as can be established from his Artamène scale blog, considers sidearms (along with nuclear powered HK subs, carriers and 5th gen combat aircraft) to be as obsolete as atlatls. Future conflicts will be decided by cyber ops and smartphone controlled mini-drones apparently.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 47,256
    How many people had heard of David Cameron before he stood for the leadership? Whoever is elected out of this pool of unknowns will have several years, as Cameron did, to learn the job and get some sort of a grip on the issues. The fact that they are a blank slate might also be an advantage with the general public. If they work to present a "reasonable" face I suspect that attempts to undermine them with the daft things they said under Corbyn will be as unsuccessful as attempts to undermine Corbyn with his IRA supporting nonsense proved to be.

    In short I think those who are saying that the Labour Party is doomed are over egging things enormously. It still has over 200 MPs. It remains dominant in London and most other large cities. It is the official opposition and has huge institutional advantages over, for example, the Lib Dems who will once again struggle to be heard at all.

    The important thing for Labour is that the new leader, whoever she is, works to bring the talent that was exiled on the back benches by choice or sacking back in the game, to start to build a team who can be bothered to actually learn their briefs so that they sound vaguely coherent when interviewed about it and who over a period of years start to adapt a platform which sounds vaguely credible. I would suggest that the last thing Labour needs is expulsions or purges (anti semitics apart). Those idiots who surround Corbyn should not be expelled, they should be quietly ignored and allowed to return to the obscurity from whence they came.

    The Tories have increased their vote share 6 elections in a row. It is an astonishing achievement but it is very unlikely to be repeated. I think, barring complete disaster, they are pretty much nailed on to win the next election now or at least get so close no other government is viable. The new Labour leader's job is to get back in the game, to get close and competitive enough so that in the election after that they can actually win. I think this is not only doable, it seems likely given the natural swings in our politics. In short Labour can self destruct but it can also choose not to and it probably will.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-tied-democrat-south-carolina-senate-challenger-jaime-harrison-poll-1477336

    Dem challenger in South Carolina is within 2 points of Graham.

    Graham won in 2014 by 17 points.
  • I’ve cautiously laid RLB a little bit more.

    I’m not sure even Labour Party members see her as the second coming, and 5/2 is too short.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Interesting CNN link.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 44,636

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    I am delighted that Corbyn was crushed, but his defeat only removes one of the many heads of the Hydra. We need an effective opposition and you will not get one till the Party moves back to the centre ground. Corbyn, Milne, Mason, McDonnell and their ilk need to thrown out of the party, in a manner similar to that when Militant were expelled. Without this happening, Labour will keep losing.
    Being brutal, there is nobody in the running for the Labour leadership with the standing and authority to make expulsions. Probably not even of the embedded and politically protected anti-semites.

    The idea that any of them could do a Kinnock and deep-cleanse the party of its current incarnation of Militant is risible. Some of the front-runners wouldn't even have the inclination.

    But at least the ongoing dire state of Labour will act as a continuing comfort to those who already made the break to the Tories - and give a bit more resolve to those who may well join them next time. Because for the vast majority of voters, Labour does not offer a path to improving their life.

    I'm calling it: Labour is dead as a political force at Westminster. It has
    been reduced to a lobby group for city centres and for nowhere else and nothing else. If Labour think this election was brutal, just wait until 2024.
    Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Or woman!
    From that line up? Puh!
    Yes, there's not obviously a Kinnock figure among the runners, and anyone 'moderate' isn't going to get past the increasingly-socialist membership.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 44,636

    I’ve cautiously laid RLB a little bit more.

    I’m not sure even Labour Party members see her as the second coming, and 5/2 is too short.

    I've not got a Scooby about how this market is going to play out - it will all be about which factions and unions back which candidates, and very little to do with anything the candidates themselves do or say (unless they completely screw up). If St. Jeremy announces his backing for a candidate, it's going to be all over as a contest.

    That said, 5/2 seems way too short for someone so lightweight.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,786
    IanB2 said:

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    It is more likely that they would have done better without the BXP siphoning off Labour leavers. The assumption that BXP voters all lean Tory is sloppy and up there with the same assumption about UKIP voters that some commentators got wrong in 2017.

    The evidence of the polling from Ashcroft and others was that 70+% of thenm would have voted Tory in the basence of a Brexit candidate. So not sloppy at all in this case.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,786
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?

    I wonder if it isn't so much 'getting back' voters who switched, as recovering those who didn't vote at all. Or, of course, encouraging younger voters.Turnout was just over 67%, about 1.3% down on 2017. Indeed turnout in this century has generally been down on that at the end of the last, and the 80+% of the 1950's seem an unattainable dream.
    Is there a case for compulsory voting, as in Australia?
    Compulsory voting is an abomination. If politicians don’t offer anything the public wants to vote for, the pressure should be on the politicians to do better, not force the public to buy something they don’t want.
    Surely those who don't vote are registering their support for the status quo? Much better to count them as votes for the government.
    What about those who turn up, scribble obscenities all over the paper and then tear it up?

    Asking for a friend...
    Maybe they're all Welsh? :)
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,786

    IanB2 said:

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    It is more likely that they would have done better without the BXP siphoning off Labour leavers. The assumption that BXP voters all lean Tory is sloppy and up there with the same assumption about UKIP voters that some commentators got wrong in 2017.

    I agree - I think they would barely break 1 for 1 for the Tories. Certainly in Westmorland the Brexit voters could not have rationally voted Conservative if there had not been a Brexit candidate. I think Hartlepool was a special case where the Tory should have stood down, even in defiance of the party nationally. I can see the Tories could have got another 10 seats, maybe. Personally I find the reality which did happen sufficiently satisfactory not to engage in too much whatiffery.
    The polling says different. Of course the polling could be wrong - like it wasn't this time.
  • Kinnock was elected as a left-wing candidate. He got tough on Militant after he became leader and after its debacle in Liverpool. You don’t ever win elections by telling voters they are stupid and wrong. See 12th December 2019 for the latest example of that. Long Bailey’s odds are too short. Not all the unions will back her. The far-left may well have totally misjudged its reaction to the election defeat. Giving Starmer and others so much time and space to establish their credentials and seize the unity mantle is utterly bizarre. There are also indications that the various far-left factions are doing what they like to do best - falling out with each other. Corbyn was the glue holding them together.

    Make of all that what you will.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743

    I’ve cautiously laid RLB a little bit more.

    It’s unfortunate that people use this word. In this case, it has conjured up a mental image I could do without.
  • felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    Most MPs are not in denial. They know how bad the defeat was. They don’t matter, though. It’s the membership’s reaction that counts. And nobody has any idea of what that may be. All I know is that a number of the diehard Corbynistas I know have told me they will not be voting for Long Bailey. They could be lying, they could change their minds, they could be atypical, but it may also indicate change. We’ll see.

  • Mr. Doethur, perhaps we need a new term?

    Selectively hedging against gut-instinct, perhaps? Or 'shag' for short.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    Kinnock was elected as a left-wing candidate. He got tough on Militant after he became leader and after its debacle in Liverpool. You don’t ever win elections by telling voters they are stupid and wrong. See 12th December 2019 for the latest example of that. Long Bailey’s odds are too short. Not all the unions will back her. The far-left may well have totally misjudged its reaction to the election defeat. Giving Starmer and others so much time and space to establish their credentials and seize the unity mantle is utterly bizarre. There are also indications that the various far-left factions are doing what they like to do best - falling out with each other. Corbyn was the glue holding them together.

    Make of all that what you will.

    Is Starmer the MP for your old constituency?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    Most MPs are not in denial. They know how bad the defeat was. They don’t matter, though. It’s the membership’s reaction that counts. And nobody has any idea of what that may be. All I know is that a number of the diehard Corbynistas I know have told me they will not be voting for Long Bailey. They could be lying, they could change their minds, they could be atypical, but it may also indicate change. We’ll see.

    It could also be that many believe they are so entrenched in the party now that they don’t actually need to directly control the leadership. Get a “moderate” in to appeal outwardly to the public, whilst still pulling all the strings in the background. And there’s always the option for post election coups.
  • So if it's RLB vs Starmer vs Phillips it's kind of Corbynism vs Experienced non-Corbynist vs Feisty Non-Corbynist. Imagine the Corbynist got eliminated, is it safe to assume the Corbynist second preference goes to Experienced over Feisty?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    I don’t get what people see in Starmer at all. I can only see he’s in the frame as the leading “moderate” because the more relatively capable and voter attractive ones are on the back benches. How many junior ministers from the Blair/Brown govts are still around?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 5,838
    edited December 2019

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    Most MPs are not in denial. They know how bad the defeat was. They don’t matter, though. It’s the membership’s reaction that counts. And nobody has any idea of what that may be. All I know is that a number of the diehard Corbynistas I know have told me they will not be voting for Long Bailey. They could be lying, they could change their minds, they could be atypical, but it may also indicate change. We’ll see.

    You just need to watch and listen to each Labour MP when interviewed. It will take about 10 seconds to know if they are in denial.. and a lot of them are.
  • So everything everybody hears on the doorstep seems to confirm their existing priors. Is everybody full of shit about what they're hearing or are the voters trying to be friendly and reflecting their opinions back at them?

    https://twitter.com/LauraPidcock/status/1208502805645975552
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,786

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    Most MPs are not in denial. They know how bad the defeat was. They don’t matter, though. It’s the membership’s reaction that counts. And nobody has any idea of what that may be. All I know is that a number of the diehard Corbynistas I know have told me they will not be voting for Long Bailey. They could be lying, they could change their minds, they could be atypical, but it may also indicate change. We’ll see.

    Fair point - I should have said the leadership contenders.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,786

    Laura Pidcock
    @LauraPidcock

    Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:

    HILARIOUS!
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    So everything everybody hears on the doorstep seems to confirm their existing priors. Is everybody full of shit about what they're hearing or are the voters trying to be friendly and reflecting their opinions back at them?

    https://twitter.com/LauraPidcock/status/1208502805645975552

    Surely everyone on here is aware by now that tribal politicos's hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?
  • isam said:


    Surely everyone on here is aware by now that tribal politicos's hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?

    You're probably right, I guess it's that
  • isam said:

    Kinnock was elected as a left-wing candidate. He got tough on Militant after he became leader and after its debacle in Liverpool. You don’t ever win elections by telling voters they are stupid and wrong. See 12th December 2019 for the latest example of that. Long Bailey’s odds are too short. Not all the unions will back her. The far-left may well have totally misjudged its reaction to the election defeat. Giving Starmer and others so much time and space to establish their credentials and seize the unity mantle is utterly bizarre. There are also indications that the various far-left factions are doing what they like to do best - falling out with each other. Corbyn was the glue holding them together.

    Make of all that what you will.

    Is Starmer the MP for your old constituency?

    Starmer is MP for where I grew up. Corbyn is MP for where I last lived in London.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 48,606
    ydoethur said:

    I’ve cautiously laid RLB a little bit more.

    It’s unfortunate that people use this word. In this case, it has conjured up a mental image I could do without.
    Imagine the trauma for the poor sods laying Burgon.....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743
    alex_ said:

    I don’t get what people see in Starmer at all. I can only see he’s in the frame as the leading “moderate” because the more relatively capable and voter attractive ones are on the back benches. How many junior ministers from the Blair/Brown govts are still around?

    I wouldn’t have thought it’s many. Offhand I can think of Kendall, Lammy, Brennan, Bryant, Nick Brown, Maria Eagle, Bradshaw, Hodge, Cooper, Benn, Ed Miliband, Harman, Beckett. There might be more, but between expenses, old age, deselections and a series of election defeats including the devastation in Scotland and the Midlands an awful lot have been cleared out.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 5,838
    isam said:

    So everything everybody hears on the doorstep seems to confirm their existing priors. Is everybody full of shit about what they're hearing or are the voters trying to be friendly and reflecting their opinions back at them?

    https://twitter.com/LauraPidcock/status/1208502805645975552

    Surely everyone on here is aware by now that tribal politicos's hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?
    All I heard in the GE was "Get Brexit Done" and Corbyn is a cnut (or variant) I received a WhatsApp about Boris being a bit naughty with the ladies and tells a few porkies. Then the list of Corbyn's misdeeds which included his terrorist sympathies. It must have reached a very wide audience.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743

    ydoethur said:

    I’ve cautiously laid RLB a little bit more.

    It’s unfortunate that people use this word. In this case, it has conjured up a mental image I could do without.
    Imagine the trauma for the poor sods laying Burgon.....
    Dear me. I’d rather not, if you don’t mind...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743

    isam said:


    Surely everyone on here is aware by now that tribal politicos's hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?

    You're probably right, I guess it's that
    ‘Time and again’ might mean her boyfriend and her constituency agent. It would still technically meet the definition.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    David Lammy is 100/1 on Ladbrokes. Think there's value there.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    isam said:

    So everything everybody hears on the doorstep seems to confirm their existing priors. Is everybody full of shit about what they're hearing or are the voters trying to be friendly and reflecting their opinions back at them?

    https://twitter.com/LauraPidcock/status/1208502805645975552

    Surely everyone on here is aware by now that tribal politicos's hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?
    Like a Boxer?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 44,636
    felix said:


    Laura Pidcock
    @LauraPidcock

    Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:

    HILARIOUS!

    LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    isam said:

    Kinnock was elected as a left-wing candidate. He got tough on Militant after he became leader and after its debacle in Liverpool. You don’t ever win elections by telling voters they are stupid and wrong. See 12th December 2019 for the latest example of that. Long Bailey’s odds are too short. Not all the unions will back her. The far-left may well have totally misjudged its reaction to the election defeat. Giving Starmer and others so much time and space to establish their credentials and seize the unity mantle is utterly bizarre. There are also indications that the various far-left factions are doing what they like to do best - falling out with each other. Corbyn was the glue holding them together.

    Make of all that what you will.

    Is Starmer the MP for your old constituency?

    Starmer is MP for where I grew up. Corbyn is MP for where I last lived in London.

    Do you have a similar profile on paper to Starmer would you say? Age, upbringing, family etc?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743
    corporeal said:

    David Lammy is 100/1 on Ladbrokes. Think there's value there.

    David Lammy is a great disappointment to those of us who have watched him over the years. He started out as an intelligent, thoughtful and centrist politician of obvious ability and integrity, who was clearly capable of going to the very top. However, he was hung out to dry by Blair and Brown over top-up fees and got a monstering from just about everybody. It seems to have embittered him. Instead of relying on his talents, he since has gone down the SJW route and played the race card with all his might. The result is he has gone from being a possible unifier of great talent to a divisive figure who trades on his background and seems to forget how good he really could be if he traded on his merits.

    I sometimes wonder whether something similar happened to Diane Abbott, although I don’t think she was anything other than pretty left wing.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 5,838
    Sandpit said:

    felix said:


    Laura Pidcock
    @LauraPidcock

    Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:

    HILARIOUS!

    LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
    She probably prompted people to give an opinion about Blair, that's why she heard it so often, Everyone thinks Blair is a cnut anyway and no one listens to him anymore, but that's not the reason Labour voters turned blue.. its delusional to think so.
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,012
    Sandpit said:

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    Exhibit one: the totally bonkers and righteously angry Laurie Penny.
    https://thebaffler.com/latest/necessary-anger-penny
    A complete failure to understand why calling people evil racist bigots doesn’t persuade them to vote for you.
    Well, it's a little bit slavishly devoted to the cult of Corbyn, and a little bit too excited about The Manifesto, too much of which was guff, and she of course never says the words "electoral reform", but not much of it seems inaccurate to me.

    Am I totally bonkers and righteously angry? Not really. But I have little hope of positive change in this country.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Sandpit said:

    felix said:


    Laura Pidcock
    @LauraPidcock

    Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:

    HILARIOUS!

    LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
    I think you're kind of missing the point. For a LOT of Labour people, Blair wasn't really Labour. Mandeleson's comment that he doesn't care if people get filthy rich would have been the final straw were it not for the trump card of all, the illegal Iraq War.

    Blair is poison to most on the left. It doesn't matter if he 'won.' So did Thatcher. Doesn't mean she had social democratic or socialist principles.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743
    Sandpit said:

    felix said:


    Laura Pidcock
    @LauraPidcock

    Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:

    HILARIOUS!

    LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
    Maybe she didn’t notice as her own seat went blue for the first time since (checks notes) 1931.
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,012

    Sandpit said:

    Rebecca who? Are the membership who voted for Corbyn twice, really going to go for such an utter lightweight?

    Do they realise that, in order to win an election and govern, they have to persuade and win over a couple of million people who just voted for the blue team, not simply their own fanatical membership?

    I wonder if it isn't so much 'getting back' voters who switched, as recovering those who didn't vote at all. Or, of course, encouraging younger voters.Turnout was just over 67%, about 1.3% down on 2017. Indeed turnout in this century has generally been down on that at the end of the last, and the 80+% of the 1950's seem an unattainable dream.
    Is there a case for compulsory voting, as in Australia?
    There's a case for having an electoral system where your vote is counted.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    felix said:

    felix said:

    It will make no difference as most of the MPs and memebers are still in denial about the scale of the defeat. They 'd have lost 20+ more heartland seats had the Brexit party not stood, including Sunderland, Wandsbeck, Hull, Hemsworth, Normanton et al. The prevailing view is that the voters got it wrong. As a staunch Tory it is very heartening news. Until the party comes to its senses the vital role of opposition will have to come from elsewhere.

    Most MPs are not in denial. They know how bad the defeat was. They don’t matter, though. It’s the membership’s reaction that counts. And nobody has any idea of what that may be. All I know is that a number of the diehard Corbynistas I know have told me they will not be voting for Long Bailey. They could be lying, they could change their minds, they could be atypical, but it may also indicate change. We’ll see.

    Fair point - I should have said the leadership contenders.
    For a lot of them their internal victory and advancement relies on them (publicly at least) believing a particular narrative.

    That's always very persuasive.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    corporeal said:

    isam said:

    So everything everybody hears on the doorstep seems to confirm their existing priors. Is everybody full of shit about what they're hearing or are the voters trying to be friendly and reflecting their opinions back at them?

    https://twitter.com/LauraPidcock/status/1208502805645975552

    Surely everyone on here is aware by now that tribal politicos's hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest?
    Like a Boxer?
    Yes!
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    corporeal said:

    David Lammy is 100/1 on Ladbrokes. Think there's value there.

    He would be very entertaining. He'd probably rip Boris Johnson to piece at the despatch box. I'm not sure we've ever had the equivalent of a US firebrand over here?

    It's certainly value. A nice tip, however unlikely.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 5,838
    as her nickname states Rebecca Wrong Daily
  • Get your money on Dawn Butler. Don't bet without understanding the process. Those coming out now are NOT candidates, they are most likely people who know they will struggle to get the union ticket to be a candidate so their hope is to get well known in the local offices and get 30 votes for a ticket that way. Take it from me, the will be no centrist leader of the Labour party.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    corporeal said:

    David Lammy is 100/1 on Ladbrokes. Think there's value there.

    Interesting.

    100/1 to do what?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    isam said:


    corporeal said:

    David Lammy is 100/1 on Ladbrokes. Think there's value there.

    Interesting.

    100/1 to do what?
    Do you have to be quite such a pillock?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743

    Get your money on Dawn Butler.

    Bloody hell. The Illuminati really have turned against Labour, haven’t they?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 5,838

    corporeal said:

    David Lammy is 100/1 on Ladbrokes. Think there's value there.

    He would be very entertaining. He'd probably rip Boris Johnson to piece at the despatch box. I'm not sure we've ever had the equivalent of a US firebrand over here?

    It's certainly value. A nice tip, however unlikely.
    Lets ask Lammy a few questions on his Mastermind specialist subject, or for that matter a few general knowledge questions..
  • Sandpit said:

    felix said:


    Laura Pidcock
    @LauraPidcock

    Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:

    HILARIOUS!

    LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
    Those North seats voted Johnson in 2015 and the smart money was on them doing it again in another Brexit vote as Johnson had 3 months to setup. They didn't in 2017 and they won't next time, people are not sheep it's about the democratic will of the people not the Tory policies who fuck would vote for those. Have some common sense man or lose cash endlessly.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    isam said:


    corporeal said:

    David Lammy is 100/1 on Ladbrokes. Think there's value there.

    Interesting.

    100/1 to do what?
    Do you have to be quite such a pillock?
    That's a bit nasty! No need for name calling

    David Lammy could be value at 100/1 to do lots of things
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    David Lammy is actually very capable. He's also highly ambitious and a bit wild at times. Of all the candidates mentioned he's the one probably most capable of re-igniting Labour.

    Dawn Butler is absolutely useless.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743

    Sandpit said:

    felix said:


    Laura Pidcock
    @LauraPidcock

    Vital to learn the lessons of Labour’s #GE2019 defeat. However, the answers will not be found at the door of New Labour’s architects. Blair’s legacy still hangs around this party like a millstone, especially in the North East. I heard it time & time again:

    HILARIOUS!

    LOL! Blair's own Sedgefield seat just turned blue for the first time in living memory, that's how bad a defeat you went down to, Laura.
    Those North seats voted Johnson in 2015 and the smart money was on them doing it again in another Brexit vote as Johnson had 3 months to setup.
    Do you mean 2016? Or did David Cameron send Johnson campaigning across the north to win a victory I have forgotten about?
  • Mr. 3pm, but why Butler, specifically?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 59,743

    Mr. 3pm, but why Butler, specifically?

    The double clown strategy. First a Corbyn, then someone even worse.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 38,810

    Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.

    His odds were so long that I thought worth a punt as a long shot.

    Labour need their Micheal Howard or John Smith before their Blair. Not Blair in terms of policy, but Blair in terms of charisma and appeal to a plurality of voters.
  • One thing New Labour absolutely don’t get is voter frustration with mass immigration.

    I’ve heard both Blair and Jim Murphy make good points in recent days about the lunacy of the far Left, and then throw in how good openness to immigration is for the economy and cultural enrichment.

    Many political factions are incapable of learning lessons it seems.
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,012

    ydoethur said:

    I’ve cautiously laid RLB a little bit more.

    It’s unfortunate that people use this word. In this case, it has conjured up a mental image I could do without.
    Imagine the trauma for the poor sods laying Burgon.....
    I think that image is too far-fetched to trouble me, but if I suddenly drop down dead in the street one day you can know you were to blame...
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    ydoethur said:

    Mr. 3pm, but why Butler, specifically?

    The double clown strategy. First a Corbyn, then someone even worse.
    Difficult to disagree with that.

    Labour are slightly hamstrung by the idea that they feel the 'need' to put a woman in the top post. The problem being that there's no one of any calibre. Yvette Cooper comes closest but as a Blairite there's little chance. Thornberry is marmite. Loved and hated. And that's it. I don't rate any of the other sisters I'm afraid.

    They'd be far better to put a top bloke in there than install a token female. I mean, it hardly served the LibDems well did it?
  • eekeek Posts: 22,805
    Foxy said:

    Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.

    His odds were so long that I thought worth a punt as a long shot.

    Labour need their Micheal Howard or John Smith before their Blair. Not Blair in terms of policy, but Blair in terms of charisma and appeal to a plurality of voters.
    Labour needs a Kinnock before their Smith replacement - the party first has to be made electable with the unelectable parties either removed or put back in their place.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited December 2019

    One thing New Labour absolutely don’t get is voter frustration with mass immigration.

    I’ve heard both Blair and Jim Murphy make good points in recent days about the lunacy of the far Left, and then throw in how good openness to immigration is for the economy and cultural enrichment.

    Many political factions are incapable of learning lessons it seems.

    Which touches on the fissure. Labour white working class men in the north (Flat Cap Fred) are basically Alf Garnett one step removed, and in private indistinguishable. They want their country back etc. etc.

    Emily Thornberry may or may not have called them stupid but I can see her point. They are, at least, deluded. The chimera of Brexit will soon dash their dreams of a better life via Leaving the EU.

    Cummings and Johnson knew all this, of course, and cynically manipulated it.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    ydoethur said:

    Mr. 3pm, but why Butler, specifically?

    The double clown strategy. First a Corbyn, then someone even worse.
    Difficult to disagree with that.

    Labour are slightly hamstrung by the idea that they feel the 'need' to put a woman in the top post. The problem being that there's no one of any calibre. Yvette Cooper comes closest but as a Blairite there's little chance. Thornberry is marmite. Loved and hated. And that's it. I don't rate any of the other sisters I'm afraid.

    They'd be far better to put a top bloke in there than install a token female. I mean, it hardly served the LibDems well did it?
    I don't think Swinson was a token.
  • Lammy, who criticised the Grenfell judge for, amongst other things, being white isn't necessarily going to win back the WWC in the north of England.

    Incidentally, another rape gang got sent down recently.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,786
    Foxy said:

    Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.

    His odds were so long that I thought worth a punt as a long shot.

    Labour need their Micheal Howard or John Smith before their Blair. Not Blair in terms of policy, but Blair in terms of charisma and appeal to a plurality of voters.
    It may be too early but atm there is little sign that they have any understanding of what just happened to them. The voters gave the the dockside hooker treatment because the MPs gave in to the Momentum/Militant tendency. There will be no significant recovery till the party gets back towards the centre ground.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    Why doesnt Hilary Benn stand? Seems a decent type and more centrist than his father. And has at least female name.

    His odds were so long that I thought worth a punt as a long shot.

    Labour need their Micheal Howard or John Smith before their Blair. Not Blair in terms of policy, but Blair in terms of charisma and appeal to a plurality of voters.
    It may be too early but atm there is little sign that they have any understanding of what just happened to them. The voters gave the the dockside hooker treatment because the MPs gave in to the Momentum/Militant tendency. There will be no significant recovery till the party gets back towards the centre ground.
    Yeah but it's not that simple. The Centre Ground isn't where a lot of the country currently sits. Half the country is pro-Brexit. If Labour move to the centre they're going to abandon the rest of their crumbling northern wall.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 38,810
    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I see the 'Gilet Clad Loki' (© Marina Hyde) is being sent to unsheath his kukri on defence spending.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50864917

    When considering Cummings vs. MoD I experience a similar emotional pang to watching Man Utd vs Chelsea: it's a shame they both can't lose.

    Pistols at dawn? That might work...
    Cummings, as can be established from his Artamène scale blog, considers sidearms (along with nuclear powered HK subs, carriers and 5th gen combat aircraft) to be as obsolete as atlatls. Future conflicts will be decided by cyber ops and smartphone controlled mini-drones apparently.
    What could possibly go wrong with Skynet?

    Though human extinction may provide the solution to the climate crisis.
This discussion has been closed.