politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Next Labour Leader matrix – working out who’ll win

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Next Labour Leader matrix – working out who’ll win

Calling the Labour leadership contest is hard, to me at least. Not only do we not yet know who’s going to stand but working out what the key considerations will be with the relevant voters – at both nomination stage and in the election proper – is an exercise in second-guessing on multiple levels. We don’t even know when the election will start for sure: it might be next week but that’s still to be confirmed by Labour’s NEC.

Read the full story here

ClippP

First, I think.

CarlottaVance

Second! Like Labour at GE2024

Excellent tour d‘horizon Mr Herdson!

DecrepiterJohnL

Can we rely on polls taken in the golden age of Corbynism, between its (relative) triumph in 2017 and the car crash of 2019?

noneoftheabove

Why hasnt Starmer declared he is running?

MarqueeMark

I think I'm channelling Sunil....

ABOLISH SLAVERY!

IanB2

Labour has invented a complex set of compromises for its leadership process that appears to make it almost impossible for anyone to come from left field (no double meaning intended). My takeaway from this is that Phillips is another good lay from the current field.

The impending surprise is that Starmer appears to have a clear lead despite not resolving Labour’s duck with women.

BudG

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

MarqueeMark

What are Corbyn and McDonnell (and Milne) doing behind the scenes to protect the hard left legacy of Corbynism? Having the NEC in their pocket means this is not a level playing field...

As for Starmer not yet declaring, that could be he is having his own Chuka moment. Or perhaps, he too believes Labour needs a female leader. He would be a very strong Deputy for say a Lisa Nandy. That would then be a strong ticket. Maybe there is haggling going on in the background. Labour should be eternally grateful if he puts ambition aside and becomes the Stop Burgon candidate.

Foxy

I think Jess will get the nominations from the PLP, and CLPs. Her Brexit views don't seem to have been too much of a problem. She won 54.8% of the vote in a constituency that voted 60% Leave. She had one of the smallest swings against Labour north of Watford. She is also Harriet Harmans protege. A great launch video, and starting in Grimsby backed by the defeated candidate there. She touches the parts other candidates cannot reach.

Not afraid to make the right stands too. She is the sort of leader who could regain former New Labour voters like myself.

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1130418708910882817?s=19

numbertwelve

Foxy said:

I think Jess will get the nominations from the PLP, and CLPs. Her Brexit views don't seem to have been too much of a problem. She won 54.8% of the vote in a constituency that voted 60% Leave. She had one of the smallest swings against Labour north of Watford. She is also Harriet Harmans protege. A great launch video, and starting in Grimsby backed by the defeated candidate there. She touches the parts other candidates cannot reach.

Not afraid to make the right stands too. She is the sort of leader who could regain former New Labour voters like myself.

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1130418708910882817?s=19

I find myself liking Jess Phillips despite her “ooh aren’t I a woman of the people” shtick.

However she does not pass the test that any potential Labour leader I rate (from 2010 onwards) never gets the leadership.

numbertwelve

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

I find it somewhat reassuring that there appears to be a dawning realisation that RLB isn’t up to it (why did it take them so long?)

Less reassuring that that seems to be benefitting Lavery of all people...

StuartDickson

Monica Lennon says Scottish Labour must split from UK party

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50982723

BudG

numbertwelve said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

I find it somewhat reassuring that there appears to be a dawning realisation that RLB isn’t up to it (why did it take them so long?)

Less reassuring that that seems to be benefitting Lavery of all people...

General consensus amongst the RLB doubters on social media (myself included) is that a lot would prefer to give their support to Angela Rayner, if she would run. However, as Angela has said she is not running then Lavery benefits as the most left wing candidate

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I see the BBC front page has, as one of the biggest six stories in the world today, Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter name. That's ahead of rising fentanyl use, Nandy's decision to stand, and teen employment declining.

On-topic: I have a knack for screwing up these sorts of things. I think Macron was the only one I got right. Well, that and the previous but one Lib Dem contest when I fluked being online right as almost every relevant bit of news broke. I'd probably be looking at Nandy right now.

numbertwelve

BudG said:

numbertwelve said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

I find it somewhat reassuring that there appears to be a dawning realisation that RLB isn’t up to it (why did it take them so long?)

Less reassuring that that seems to be benefitting Lavery of all people...

General consensus amongst the RLB doubters on social media (myself included) is that a lot would prefer to give their support to Angela Rayner, if she would run. However, as Angela has said she is not running then Lavery benefits as the most left wing candidate

Absolutely. I think Rayner should run. It sounds like she’s settled for deputy though, which is a shame, I genuinely think she’d make a good candidate (and I’m far from someone who could call themselves a left winger!)

Foxy

numbertwelve said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

I find it somewhat reassuring that there appears to be a dawning realisation that RLB isn’t up to it (why did it take them so long?)

Less reassuring that that seems to be benefitting Lavery of all people...

Lavery is the death spiral candidate for Labour. Corbynism sheared of his charisma.

I don't tend to win on leadership contests either. I tend to favour the best candidates, and they rarely win in an era of killer clown leaders.

numbertwelve

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the BBC front page has, as one of the biggest six stories in the world today, Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter name. That's ahead of rising fentanyl use, Nandy's decision to stand, and teen employment declining.

On-topic: I have a knack for screwing up these sorts of things. I think Macron was the only one I got right. Well, that and the previous but one Lib Dem contest when I fluked being online right as almost every relevant bit of news broke. I'd probably be looking at Nandy right now.

The Cult of Greta is fascinating. I do admire her for her conviction and for managing to get people talking about an issue that is important to her, and to stand firm despite the considerable and oft-unjustified flak she gets. But there is an unhealthy personality cult growing around her which sees her every move reported on (can’t be long before Greta Thunberg Eats Sandwich) which I think is somewhat counterproductive.

squareroot2

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense

OldKingCole

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the BBC front page has, as one of the biggest six stories in the world today, Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter name. That's ahead of rising fentanyl use, Nandy's decision to stand, and teen employment declining.

On-topic: I have a knack for screwing up these sorts of things. I think Macron was the only one I got right. Well, that and the previous but one Lib Dem contest when I fluked being online right as almost every relevant bit of news broke. I'd probably be looking at Nandy right now.

To be fair, the 'most watched' is about the looming crisis in mental health as family carers age. We know three families where 'carers' are at or approaching retirement age, and I can't think we're alone.

DecrepiterJohnL

numbertwelve said:

BudG said:

numbertwelve said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

I find it somewhat reassuring that there appears to be a dawning realisation that RLB isn’t up to it (why did it take them so long?)

Less reassuring that that seems to be benefitting Lavery of all people...

General consensus amongst the RLB doubters on social media (myself included) is that a lot would prefer to give their support to Angela Rayner, if she would run. However, as Angela has said she is not running then Lavery benefits as the most left wing candidate

Absolutely. I think Rayner should run. It sounds like she’s settled for deputy though, which is a shame, I genuinely think she’d make a good candidate (and I’m far from someone who could call themselves a left winger!)

Angela Rayner and Rebecca Long-Bailey are friends. If Rayner says she will not run against RLB, we can take her at her word.

However, we should not entirely rule out RLB herself deciding she cannot win and encouraging Rayner to stand, effectively flipping the ticket, even while recognising it is unlikely.

BudG

squareroot2 said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense

Yeah maybe, but it is a closed group and as far as i could see, it did not allow you to vote twice for the same person and it was backed up by the stream of positive comments from from individuals. And if I recall, the same voodoo nonsense remarks were said about the Corbyn surge which first registered on facebook groups.

DecrepiterJohnL

Foxy said:

numbertwelve said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

I find it somewhat reassuring that there appears to be a dawning realisation that RLB isn’t up to it (why did it take them so long?)

Less reassuring that that seems to be benefitting Lavery of all people...

Lavery is the death spiral candidate for Labour. Corbynism sheared of his charisma.

I don't tend to win on leadership contests either. I tend to favour the best candidates, and they rarely win in an era of killer clown leaders.

That is the beauty of these markets. Punters approach them as if the aim is to identify the best potential leader (for some value of "best") which means prices can be wrong for extended periods; bookies only pay out on the leader actually elected. Who should win is not the same as who will win.

IanB2

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the BBC front page has, as one of the biggest six stories in the world today, Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter name. That's ahead of rising fentanyl use, Nandy's decision to stand, and teen employment declining.

On-topic: I have a knack for screwing up these sorts of things. I think Macron was the only one I got right. Well, that and the previous but one Lib Dem contest when I fluked being online right as almost every relevant bit of news broke. I'd probably be looking at Nandy right now.

Greta has a genius for publicity that is truly remarkable. Surely one of the global figures of our time.

Meanwhile Canberra has just set an all-time high temperature record, 18C hotter than usual for early Jan.

IanB2

StuartDickson said:

Monica Lennon says Scottish Labour must split from UK party

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50982723

Imagine.

ydoethur

Surely - surely - surely Johnson could not be so lucky as to have Ian Lavery as his next opponent?

Electing a man who has been investigated for tax evasion and stands accused of some distinctly dodgy financial dealings by his own union would be the equivalent of the Tories electing Rees Mogg.

MarqueeMark

squareroot2 said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense

Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.

It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.

state_go_away

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the BBC front page has, as one of the biggest six stories in the world today, Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter name. That's ahead of rising fentanyl use, Nandy's decision to stand, and teen employment declining.

On-topic: I have a knack for screwing up these sorts of things. I think Macron was the only one I got right. Well, that and the previous but one Lib Dem contest when I fluked being online right as almost every relevant bit of news broke. I'd probably be looking at Nandy right now.

Greta has a genius for publicity that is truly remarkable. Surely one of the global figures of our time.

Meanwhile Canberra has just set an all-time high temperature record, 18C hotter than usual for early Jan.

The BBC news website is more like Hello Magazine's everyday . I used to be a supporter of the BBC for its quality but nowadays not so sure why it is special and hence deserving of special status. Still like to see it but it surely must look at itself and sort itself out quickly.

Even sport (and I get that it cannot outbid or should the likes of Sky and BT) that they used to present so well is being broadcast in a very shallow way now - The Sports Personality of the year was a irritating mixture of extreme shallowness (jumping from shot to shot in nanoseconds with constant banal music ) and extreme wokeness. It used to be a good in depth look at the sporting year that was ideal for its audience .BTW BBCthe natural audience for this is not people with the attention span of a wasp but people who watch sport (ie can concentrate on things for hours) .

DecrepiterJohnL

MarqueeMark said:

squareroot2 said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense

Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.

It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.

Yeah that fuckwit Cummings and CCHQ's gurus from down under totally wasted all their time and the party's money on Facebook.

Or was it wasted? One thing is for sure, if you think the right ignores social media, you ought to stay in more.

MarqueeMark

ydoethur said:

Surely - surely - surely Johnson could not be so lucky as to have Ian Lavery as his next opponent?

Electing a man who has been investigated for tax evasion and stands accused of some distinctly dodgy financial dealings by his own union would be the equivalent of the Tories electing Rees Mogg.

You'd have to go back quite a way to find a comparably dodgy prominent Tory. His candidature is risible. If ever there was a back-room operator who should stay hidden under his stone, it is Lavery.

Pushing him forward betrays a slavish adherence to political purity that Donald Trump could only dream about. Alt Right, meet Dolt Left.

squareroot2

state_go_away said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the BBC front page has, as one of the biggest six stories in the world today, Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter name. That's ahead of rising fentanyl use, Nandy's decision to stand, and teen employment declining.

On-topic: I have a knack for screwing up these sorts of things. I think Macron was the only one I got right. Well, that and the previous but one Lib Dem contest when I fluked being online right as almost every relevant bit of news broke. I'd probably be looking at Nandy right now.

Greta has a genius for publicity that is truly remarkable. Surely one of the global figures of our time.

Meanwhile Canberra has just set an all-time high temperature record, 18C hotter than usual for early Jan.

The BBC news website is more like Hello Magazine's everyday . I used to be a supporter of the BBC for its quality but nowadays not so sure why it is special and hence deserving of special status. Still like to see it but it surely must look at itself and sort itself out quickly

its dumbed down to 10 yr old level.

MarqueeMark

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MarqueeMark said:

squareroot2 said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense

Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.

It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.

Yeah that fuckwit Cummings and CCHQ's gurus from down under totally wasted all their time and the party's money on Facebook.

Or was it wasted? One thing is for sure, if you think the right ignores social media, you ought to stay in more.

Nobody I know would be seen dead sharing any of CCHQ's ouput on Facebook. It's almost as if it is a defining element of what makes you a Tory.

Maybe the far right/fanatical Leavers do use facebook to push their own political views out to others. But not the great bulk of the 13m who just voted Tory.

DecrepiterJohnL

ydoethur said:

Surely - surely - surely Johnson could not be so lucky as to have Ian Lavery as his next opponent?

Electing a man who has been investigated for tax evasion and stands accused of some distinctly dodgy financial dealings by his own union would be the equivalent of the Tories electing Rees Mogg.

JRM is stonkingly rich through running his own hedge fund. Surely he embodies Conservative entrepreneurialism a sight more than Boris does. David Cameron, with his family's very peripheral involvement in the Panama Papers is probably closer but he was already leader by then.

The case for Lavery, at risk of damning with faint praise, is that at least he has run something, which puts him a step up on most (all?) of his rivals.

noneoftheabove

MarqueeMark said:

What are Corbyn and McDonnell (and Milne) doing behind the scenes to protect the hard left legacy of Corbynism? Having the NEC in their pocket means this is not a level playing field...

As for Starmer not yet declaring, that could be he is having his own Chuka moment. Or perhaps, he too believes Labour needs a female leader. He would be a very strong Deputy for say a Lisa Nandy. That would then be a strong ticket. Maybe there is haggling going on in the background. Labour should be eternally grateful if he puts ambition aside and becomes the Stop Burgon candidate.

As a Starmer layer before he declares you get:

Starmer agrees it should be a female leader this time
Starmer doesnt want the job for personal or historical reasons unknown
Starmer doesnt want to be leader as its a really tough job with low chance of success

At odds of 5/1+ those might not be very significant concerns but at odds on they are valuable to have onside.

MarqueeMark

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Surely - surely - surely Johnson could not be so lucky as to have Ian Lavery as his next opponent?

Electing a man who has been investigated for tax evasion and stands accused of some distinctly dodgy financial dealings by his own union would be the equivalent of the Tories electing Rees Mogg.

JRM is stonkingly rich through running his own hedge fund. Surely he embodies Conservative entrepreneurialism a sight more than Boris does. David Cameron, with his family's very peripheral involvement in the Panama Papers is probably closer but he was already leader by then.

The case for Lavery, at risk of damning with faint praise, is that at least he has run something, which puts him a step up on most (all?) of his rivals.

The issue is not that Lavery has run something. It is HOW he has run it.

Mafia bosses have "run something". Doesn't mean you'd make them PM.

NickPalmer

MarqueeMark said:

What are Corbyn and McDonnell (and Milne) doing behind the scenes to protect the hard left legacy of Corbynism? Having the NEC in their pocket means this is not a level playing field...

As for Starmer not yet declaring, that could be he is having his own Chuka moment. Or perhaps, he too believes Labour needs a female leader. He would be a very strong Deputy for say a Lisa Nandy. That would then be a strong ticket. Maybe there is haggling going on in the background. Labour should be eternally grateful if he puts ambition aside and becomes the Stop Burgon candidate.

I doubt if Corbyn is doing much - even as leader with two commanding wins under his belt, he was very committed to the idea that the membership should do what it wants, and declined to organise to get favoured people as candidates or to deselect anyone. McDonnell and certainly McCluskey will be taking a more active interest in getting a single strong left candidate.

David's artcle is a good read as always, but rather boils down to "Dunno, really", doesn't it? A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.

I do agree that neither RLB nor Lavery look likely to win unless they blow a TV debate away with a brilliant performance. Lavery in particular would be a reversion to the "let's have a candidate who puts up a feisty show" attitude which the left used to have before Corbyn proved they could actually win. I think that McDonnell will want a winner. If RLB doesn't stand and the left feels Rayner is left-wing (not entirely clear to me) she's their obvious shot, but I wouldn't totally rule out Clive Lewis. Starmer is currently too short in the betting - he's favourite, but some of that is simply name recgonition, and that will change.

DecrepiterJohnL

squareroot2 said:

state_go_away said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the BBC front page has, as one of the biggest six stories in the world today, Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter name. That's ahead of rising fentanyl use, Nandy's decision to stand, and teen employment declining.

On-topic: I have a knack for screwing up these sorts of things. I think Macron was the only one I got right. Well, that and the previous but one Lib Dem contest when I fluked being online right as almost every relevant bit of news broke. I'd probably be looking at Nandy right now.

Greta has a genius for publicity that is truly remarkable. Surely one of the global figures of our time.

Meanwhile Canberra has just set an all-time high temperature record, 18C hotter than usual for early Jan.

The BBC news website is more like Hello Magazine's everyday . I used to be a supporter of the BBC for its quality but nowadays not so sure why it is special and hence deserving of special status. Still like to see it but it surely must look at itself and sort itself out quickly

its dumbed down to 10 yr old level.

It is the weekend. The BBC's news coverage always suffers at the weekend, probably because anyone with more than six weeks' experience works Monday to Friday. It has long had the problem of slavishly following the American satellite news channels, so we often are lumbered with domestic American stories. To this is now added whatever is trending on social media overnight.

Theuniondivvie

Deeply disturbing that a regressive, corrupt theocracy is running amok in the middle east. And Iran isn't any better.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1213250469365272576?s=20

isam

noneoftheabove said:

Why hasnt Starmer declared he is running?

I was wondering whether he might be preparing to do the ultimate sacrifice/ virtue signal and hold a press conference to announce he isn't standing because he thinks Labour should have a female leader

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Isam, maybe the Darwin Awards would have to start a political category...

isam

Foxy said:

I think Jess will get the nominations from the PLP, and CLPs. Her Brexit views don't seem to have been too much of a problem. She won 54.8% of the vote in a constituency that voted 60% Leave. She had one of the smallest swings against Labour north of Watford. She is also Harriet Harmans protege. A great launch video, and starting in Grimsby backed by the defeated candidate there. She touches the parts other candidates cannot reach.

Not afraid to make the right stands too. She is the sort of leader who could regain former New Labour voters like myself.

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1130418708910882817?s=19

Being a remainer in the past shouldn't hurt any candidate really, the only way it would be is if they are seen to to be still unable to accept the result or sneering in their attitude towards Leave voters

Malmesbury

MarqueeMark said:

squareroot2 said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense

Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.

It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.

It's about closed groups - the Left actively "purifies" their circle of acquaintances. This is a phenomenon that has been going on for a long time. Hence the anecdote of the woman who was disbelieving when Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984 - she'd never met anyone who was going to vote for Reagan. The same process has been carried across into social media.

isam

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the BBC front page has, as one of the biggest six stories in the world today, Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter name. That's ahead of rising fentanyl use, Nandy's decision to stand, and teen employment declining.

On-topic: I have a knack for screwing up these sorts of things. I think Macron was the only one I got right. Well, that and the previous but one Lib Dem contest when I fluked being online right as almost every relevant bit of news broke. I'd probably be looking at Nandy right now.

Greta has a genius for publicity that is truly remarkable. Surely one of the global figures of our time.

Meanwhile Canberra has just set an all-time high temperature record, 18C hotter than usual for early Jan.

Cookie

This is a great piece David.
My conclusion from it is that - improbable as it sounds, Ian Lavery is value. If there is one and only one candidate from the far left, then while RLB must still be favourite, backing for her seems more equivocal than I'd expected. So what chance does he have of being the candidate from the left? I have nothing more than sound and noise to go on, but I'd say somewhere between 25% and 50%. And once you're the candidate from the far left, in a sense it doesn't matter how many opponents you have: the candidate from the left will get down to the last two, at which point it's 50/50. (Massive oversimplification, but you get the drift).
In my view, Ian Lavery should be no worse than 15-1 from here.
I'd also previously given some weight to Len McCluskey's insistence that the next leader be someone from the north who can talk to leave voters. I'd thought this through and come up with Lisa Nandy. But what if this was just code for 'the next leader should be Ian Lavery'? Lavery is, of course, much more a politician in Len's mold than Lisa Nandy is. And while Len doesn't talk for the whole selectorate, his is one of the single most important voices.

matt

Foxy said:

numbertwelve said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

I find it somewhat reassuring that there appears to be a dawning realisation that RLB isn’t up to it (why did it take them so long?)

Less reassuring that that seems to be benefitting Lavery of all people...

Lavery is the death spiral candidate for Labour. Corbynism sheared of his charisma.

I don't tend to win on leadership contests either. I tend to favour the best candidates, and they rarely win in an era of killer clown leaders.

For sucking your own cock, aren’t I clever lines, your last line is a prize winner.

matt

state_go_away said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the BBC front page has, as one of the biggest six stories in the world today, Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter name. That's ahead of rising fentanyl use, Nandy's decision to stand, and teen employment declining.

On-topic: I have a knack for screwing up these sorts of things. I think Macron was the only one I got right. Well, that and the previous but one Lib Dem contest when I fluked being online right as almost every relevant bit of news broke. I'd probably be looking at Nandy right now.

Greta has a genius for publicity that is truly remarkable. Surely one of the global figures of our time.

Meanwhile Canberra has just set an all-time high temperature record, 18C hotter than usual for early Jan.

The BBC news website is more like Hello Magazine's everyday . I used to be a supporter of the BBC for its quality but nowadays not so sure why it is special and hence deserving of special status. Still like to see it but it surely must look at itself and sort itself out quickly.

Even sport (and I get that it cannot outbid or should the likes of Sky and BT) that they used to present so well is being broadcast in a very shallow way now - The Sports Personality of the year was a irritating mixture of extreme shallowness (jumping from shot to shot in nanoseconds with constant banal music ) and extreme wokeness. It used to be a good in depth look at the sporting year that was ideal for its audience .BTW BBCthe natural audience for this is not people with the attention span of a wasp but people who watch sport (ie can concentrate on things for hours) .

I look at the BBC’s frankly adulatory and uncritical promotion of women’s football. I get why, at a high level, they promote it in that way but anyone who thinks it’s nothing to do with the BBCs ability to purchase top level men’s football rights is fooling themselves. If they really wanted to reach an audience unserved by BBC tv, they’d be heading to lower league men’s football.

Cookie

ydoethur said:

Surely - surely - surely Johnson could not be so lucky as to have Ian Lavery as his next opponent?

Electing a man who has been investigated for tax evasion and stands accused of some distinctly dodgy financial dealings by his own union would be the equivalent of the Tories electing Rees Mogg.

Hasn't he also been charged in the past with football hooligansim offences? Though to be hinest to me that's far more forgivable than Corbyn's association with the IRA etc. At least football hooligans tend not to plant bombs.

TheGreenMachine

noneoftheabove said:

Why hasnt Starmer declared he is running?

Good point but early days.

kinabalu

isam said:

That just looks like Stephen Merchant in drag.

Sorry.

TheGreenMachine

StuartDickson said:

Monica Lennon says Scottish Labour must split from UK party

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50982723

Interesting.

Cookie

matt said:

state_go_away said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the BBC front page has, as one of the biggest six stories in the world today, Greta Thunberg changing her Twitter name. That's ahead of rising fentanyl use, Nandy's decision to stand, and teen employment declining.

On-topic: I have a knack for screwing up these sorts of things. I think Macron was the only one I got right. Well, that and the previous but one Lib Dem contest when I fluked being online right as almost every relevant bit of news broke. I'd probably be looking at Nandy right now.

Greta has a genius for publicity that is truly remarkable. Surely one of the global figures of our time.

Meanwhile Canberra has just set an all-time high temperature record, 18C hotter than usual for early Jan.

The BBC news website is more like Hello Magazine's everyday . I used to be a supporter of the BBC for its quality but nowadays not so sure why it is special and hence deserving of special status. Still like to see it but it surely must look at itself and sort itself out quickly.

Even sport (and I get that it cannot outbid or should the likes of Sky and BT) that they used to present so well is being broadcast in a very shallow way now - The Sports Personality of the year was a irritating mixture of extreme shallowness (jumping from shot to shot in nanoseconds with constant banal music ) and extreme wokeness. It used to be a good in depth look at the sporting year that was ideal for its audience .BTW BBCthe natural audience for this is not people with the attention span of a wasp but people who watch sport (ie can concentrate on things for hours) .

I look at the BBC’s frankly adulatory and uncritical promotion of women’s football. I get why, at a high level, they promote it in that way but anyone who thinks it’s nothing to do with the BBCs ability to purchase top level men’s football rights is fooling themselves. If they really wanted to reach an audience unserved by BBC tv, they’d be heading to lower league men’s football.

While we're on about this sort of thing, the BBC's presentation of ivents like the Olympics has, in recent years, become inane beyond belief.

SouthamObserver

Very good from David. Starmer is now clearly the front-runner. Rayner is definitely very good value. Nandy is strong, if she can make the run-off. Long-Bailey is giving every impression of not wanting to stand but being strong-armed into doing so. The far-left is currently giving everyone else a clear run. It’s a real puzzle. I think, though, that Jess Phillips has a decent chance of making the final ballot.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Cookie, the F1 coverage was very good. And then they threw it away when they still had a full year (at least) of rights.

For various reasons, I hardly watch TV news now (used to when I have my sarnies but now I tend to watch history on Youtube). Not sure what the last BBC programme I watched was, other than the news.

JonWC

Can anyone tell me what proportion of the Labour membership is in London. I know it is substantial but is it jaw-dropping?

squareroot2

isam said:

noneoftheabove said:

Why hasnt Starmer declared he is running?

I was wondering whether he might be preparing to do the ultimate sacrifice/ virtue signal and hold a press conference to announce he isn't standing because he thinks Labour should have a female leader

Corbyn must be close to a Darwin award, politically speaking as must Jo Swinson

ydoethur

Cookie said:

ydoethur said:

Surely - surely - surely Johnson could not be so lucky as to have Ian Lavery as his next opponent?

Electing a man who has been investigated for tax evasion and stands accused of some distinctly dodgy financial dealings by his own union would be the equivalent of the Tories electing Rees Mogg.

Hasn't he also been charged in the past with football hooligansim offences? Though to be hinest to me that's far more forgivable than Corbyn's association with the IRA etc. At least football hooligans tend not to plant bombs.

My understanding is that he was convicted of a breach of the peace and fined £200 in 1985.

His version is that the police took advantage of him being in the neighbourhood of a fight to kick, punch, spit on him, arrest him and then stitch him up through perjured evidence due to his role in the Miners’ Strike.

The police version is that they intervened when he ran at ManU supporters shouting and screaming threats and had to restrain him when he attacked them instead.

The magistrates believed the latter version and fined him £200, which he inflates a few hundred more every time he tells the tale.

The NUM believed the former version and paid his fine.

Which was true? Who knows. Both sides involved are pathological liars and I would hesitate to trust either of them if they said rain was wet.

What does it show? Nothing, except that he was always somebody who took money from other people if it suited him.

kinabalu

matt said:

I look at the BBC’s frankly adulatory and uncritical promotion of women’s football. I get why, at a high level, they promote it in that way but anyone who thinks it’s nothing to do with the BBCs ability to purchase top level men’s football rights is fooling themselves. If they really wanted to reach an audience unserved by BBC tv, they’d be heading to lower league men’s football.

You're right that there is a push to elevate Women's team sports above what is atm the genuine level of interest in them. However, there is a good reason for this. Team sports are an extremely healthy thing for young people to get into. It is therefore important that it does not become an area that is effectively boys only. So the irritation that you and others (including myself if I'm honest) feel about Women's team sports sometimes being rather more "in your face" than you would like is IMO a price worth paying for the benefits being sought.

felix

StuartDickson said:

Monica Lennon says Scottish Labour must split from UK party

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50982723

They should merge with the Conservatives

felix

Foxy said:

numbertwelve said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

I find it somewhat reassuring that there appears to be a dawning realisation that RLB isn’t up to it (why did it take them so long?)

Less reassuring that that seems to be benefitting Lavery of all people...

Lavery is the death spiral candidate for Labour. Corbynism sheared of his charisma.

I don't tend to win on leadership contests either. I tend to favour the best candidates, and they rarely win in an era of killer clown leaders.

The arrogance is breathtaking .. but fun. I like it.

SouthamObserver

kinabalu said:

matt said:

I look at the BBC’s frankly adulatory and uncritical promotion of women’s football. I get why, at a high level, they promote it in that way but anyone who thinks it’s nothing to do with the BBCs ability to purchase top level men’s football rights is fooling themselves. If they really wanted to reach an audience unserved by BBC tv, they’d be heading to lower league men’s football.

You're right that there is a push to elevate Women's team sports above what is atm the genuine level of interest in them. However, there is a good reason for this. Team sports are an extremely healthy thing for young people to get into. It is therefore important that it does not become an area that is effectively boys only. So the irritation that you and others (including myself if I'm honest) feel about Women's team sports sometimes being rather more "in your face" than you would like is IMO a price worth paying for the benefits being sought.

The crowds in women’s football are going up. There were nearly 40,000 at Spurs to see the North London derby.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/17/arsenal-tottenham-womens-super-league-wsl-match-report

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.

F1 languishes far behind on the BBC now, after they threw away the coverage to pay TV.

MarqueeMark

squareroot2 said:

isam said:

noneoftheabove said:

Why hasnt Starmer declared he is running?

I was wondering whether he might be preparing to do the ultimate sacrifice/ virtue signal and hold a press conference to announce he isn't standing because he thinks Labour should have a female leader

Corbyn must be close to a Darwin award, politically speaking as must Jo Swinson

Honourable mention to Jacob Rees-Mogg.

kinabalu

Theuniondivvie said:

Deeply disturbing that a regressive, corrupt theocracy is running amok in the middle east. And Iran isn't any better.

Absurdity wherever you look. "Strangelove" can safely be mothballed.

So can "1984" -

"This was not an act of war. It was an act to prevent war."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

YBarddCwsc

NickPalmer said:

A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.

I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.

Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.

ydoethur

JonWC said:

Can anyone tell me what proportion of the Labour membership is in London. I know it is substantial but is it jaw-dropping?

This article from 2017 puts it at half of members live in London and the south:

https://labourlist.org/2017/10/tim-bale-inside-labours-massive-membership-base/

It seems reasonable to suppose more than half of that half is in London, so 25-30% is not a ridiculous figure.

To put it in context, on a rough estimate London contains around 14% of the UK’s population, although a higher than usual proportion of that will not have the franchise.

DecrepiterJohnL

SouthamObserver said:

kinabalu said:

matt said:

I look at the BBC’s frankly adulatory and uncritical promotion of women’s football. I get why, at a high level, they promote it in that way but anyone who thinks it’s nothing to do with the BBCs ability to purchase top level men’s football rights is fooling themselves. If they really wanted to reach an audience unserved by BBC tv, they’d be heading to lower league men’s football.

You're right that there is a push to elevate Women's team sports above what is atm the genuine level of interest in them. However, there is a good reason for this. Team sports are an extremely healthy thing for young people to get into. It is therefore important that it does not become an area that is effectively boys only. So the irritation that you and others (including myself if I'm honest) feel about Women's team sports sometimes being rather more "in your face" than you would like is IMO a price worth paying for the benefits being sought.

The crowds in women’s football are going up. There were over 30,000 at Spurs to see the North London derby, I think.

Yes, it is the same with the age-old controversy over women's tennis. If the aim of women's football is to play in men's teams, clearly it is not good enough.

But if the measure of success is bums on seats, then women's football is up there and keep an eye on women's cricket as well.

kle4

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Surely - surely - surely Johnson could not be so lucky as to have Ian Lavery as his next opponent?

Electing a man who has been investigated for tax evasion and stands accused of some distinctly dodgy financial dealings by his own union would be the equivalent of the Tories electing Rees Mogg.

JRM is stonkingly rich through running his own hedge fund. Surely he embodies Conservative entrepreneurialism a sight more than Boris does. David Cameron, with his family's very peripheral involvement in the Panama Papers is probably closer but he was already leader by then.

The case for Lavery, at risk of damning with faint praise, is that at least he has run something, which puts him a step up on most (all?) of his rivals.

Not if he has run it dodgily! And at the very least the way he did looks dodgy at first glance and he will spend plenty of time explaining why it is not.

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Surely - surely - surely Johnson could not be so lucky as to have Ian Lavery as his next opponent?

Electing a man who has been investigated for tax evasion and stands accused of some distinctly dodgy financial dealings by his own union would be the equivalent of the Tories electing Rees Mogg.

JRM is stonkingly rich through running his own hedge fund. Surely he embodies Conservative entrepreneurialism a sight more than Boris does. David Cameron, with his family's very peripheral involvement in the Panama Papers is probably closer but he was already leader by then.

The case for Lavery, at risk of damning with faint praise, is that at least he has run something, which puts him a step up on most (all?) of his rivals.

The issue is not that Lavery has run something. It is HOW he has run it.

Mafia bosses have "run something". Doesn't mean you'd make them PM.

There was that Guardian piece on the Albanian mafia which made them seem like hugely innovative and efficient operators, increasing quality whilst passing on savings to the consumer and building cooperative contacts with others, perhaps they could take over.

Theuniondivvie

felix said:

StuartDickson said:

Monica Lennon says Scottish Labour must split from UK party

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50982723

They should merge with the Conservatives

I guess then they might be able to scrape up a not-entirely-crap leader between them.

Actually, scrub that.

https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1213375414544084992?s=20

Nigelb

matt said:

Foxy said:

numbertwelve said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

I find it somewhat reassuring that there appears to be a dawning realisation that RLB isn’t up to it (why did it take them so long?)

Less reassuring that that seems to be benefitting Lavery of all people...

Lavery is the death spiral candidate for Labour. Corbynism sheared of his charisma.

I don't tend to win on leadership contests either. I tend to favour the best candidates, and they rarely win in an era of killer clown leaders.

For sucking your own cock, aren’t I clever lines, your last line is a prize winner.

You prefer Boris’s ... ?

kle4

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Cookie, the F1 coverage was very good. And then they threw it away when they still had a full year (at least) of rights.

For various reasons, I hardly watch TV news now (used to when I have my sarnies but now I tend to watch history on Youtube). Not sure what the last BBC programme I watched was, other than the news.

Same here. I dont have any complaints about them and get most of my news from their website, but other than sport I get most of my tv online.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

Very good from David. Starmer is now clearly the front-runner. Rayner is definitely very good value. Nandy is strong, if she can make the run-off. Long-Bailey is giving every impression of not wanting to stand but being strong-armed into doing so. The far-left is currently giving everyone else a clear run. It’s a real puzzle. I think, though, that Jess Phillips has a decent chance of making the final ballot.

Certainly if Long Baily does want it it's been a strangely anaemic way of going about it.

SouthamObserver

YBarddCwsc said:

NickPalmer said:

A point not yet mentioned here is that Phillips will be viewed with reservations by members who didn't like vocal critics of Corbyn, especially as she's been enthusiastically endorsed by arch-critic Wes Streeting. Also, subtle point about hHer otherwise excellent video is that it seemed to have a subtext that caring about people in difficulty was a progressive programme, impicitly without the need for more, and that doesn't tick the left of centre box.

I agree with this -- talk of "stabbing Corbyn in the front" is unacceptable.

Imagine if a male politician had said this about a female one.

What did John McDonnell say about Esther McVeigh?

Theuniondivvie

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Deeply disturbing that a regressive, corrupt theocracy is running amok in the middle east. And Iran isn't any better.

Absurdity wherever you look. "Strangelove" can safely be mothballed.

So can "1984" -

"This was not an act of war. It was an act to prevent war."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

See also:

https://twitter.com/PeterArnottGlas/status/1213389690730098688?s=20

Charles

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MarqueeMark said:

squareroot2 said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

Facebook poll.. voodoo nonsense

Twitter, Facebook and the Death of the Left as an Electoral Force will be a popular topic in about a decade.

It is fascinating how the Left have taken to these platforms to reinforoce each other, whereas the Right by and large do not share their views. Even in totally apolitical groups, those on the Left will find a reason to rail at Johnson/Tories. Yet from those 14m who voted Tory, not a peep. Certainly, nobody on Facebook would have a clue about my politics.

Yeah that fuckwit Cummings and CCHQ's gurus from down under totally wasted all their time and the party's money on Facebook.

Or was it wasted? One thing is for sure, if you think the right ignores social media, you ought to stay in more.

That’s not what he was saying.

The left are much noisier and public about their views on social media than the right. Doesn’t mean the right isn’t there.

ydoethur

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Cookie, the F1 coverage was very good. And then they threw it away when they still had a full year (at least) of rights.

For various reasons, I hardly watch TV news now (used to when I have my sarnies but now I tend to watch history on Youtube). Not sure what the last BBC programme I watched was, other than the news.

Same here. I dont have any complaints about them and get most of my news from their website, but other than sport I get most of my tv online.

I tried The Trial of Christine Keeler.

I found it guilty. It’s the first thing I’ve ever come across where the plot structure is more confused than Huxley’s Eyeless in Gaza.

kle4

DecrepiterJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

kinabalu said:

matt said:

I look at the BBC’s frankly adulatory and uncritical promotion of women’s football. I get why, at a high level, they promote it in that way but anyone who thinks it’s nothing to do with the BBCs ability to purchase top level men’s football rights is fooling themselves. If they really wanted to reach an audience unserved by BBC tv, they’d be heading to lower league men’s football.

You're right that there is a push to elevate Women's team sports above what is atm the genuine level of interest in them. However, there is a good reason for this. Team sports are an extremely healthy thing for young people to get into. It is therefore important that it does not become an area that is effectively boys only. So the irritation that you and others (including myself if I'm honest) feel about Women's team sports sometimes being rather more "in your face" than you would like is IMO a price worth paying for the benefits being sought.

The crowds in women’s football are going up. There were over 30,000 at Spurs to see the North London derby, I think.

Yes, it is the same with the age-old controversy over women's tennis. If the aim of women's football is to play in men's teams, clearly it is not good enough.

But if the measure of success is bums on seats, then women's football is up there and keep an eye on women's cricket as well.

I've often thought there shoudnt be a reason some female cricketers could not be as good as men - as you dont need to be the fastest or the strongest which at a top level the men would be in order to be really really good in cricket. Plenty of great bowlers who cannot get in high 90s, plenty of great batsmen who are not muscled meat machines.

Nigelb

Theuniondivvie said:

Deeply disturbing that a regressive, corrupt theocracy is running amok in the middle east. And Iran isn't any better.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1213250469365272576?s=20

And Pence resuscitating the Iran/911 nonsense:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/03/mike-pence-iran-911-suleimani

What is the administration up to ?
Was this just an impulse assassination, or are they planning a full scale war ?
(There are legal arguments that the US has already initiated a state of war, but that’s not the same thing.)

kinabalu

SouthamObserver said:

The crowds in women’s football are going up. There were nearly 40,000 at Spurs to see the North London derby.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/17/arsenal-tottenham-womens-super-league-wsl-match-report

Yes. And apparently in olden times it was massive. The standard (to my eye) is not bad. Main exception to that - the goalkeeping. Oh dear.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Cookie, the F1 coverage was very good. And then they threw it away when they still had a full year (at least) of rights.

For various reasons, I hardly watch TV news now (used to when I have my sarnies but now I tend to watch history on Youtube). Not sure what the last BBC programme I watched was, other than the news.

Same here. I dont have any complaints about them and get most of my news from their website, but other than sport I get most of my tv online.

I tried The Trial of Christine Keeler.

I found it guilty. It’s the first thing I’ve ever come across where the plot structure is more confused than Huxley’s Eyeless in Gaza.

Not a guilty pleasure, then.

DecrepiterJohnL

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Deeply disturbing that a regressive, corrupt theocracy is running amok in the middle east. And Iran isn't any better.

Absurdity wherever you look. "Strangelove" can safely be mothballed.

So can "1984" -

"This was not an act of war. It was an act to prevent war."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

See also:

https://twitter.com/PeterArnottGlas/status/1213389690730098688?s=20

Never mind hypothetical daughters, families of very real sons and daughters serving in the US armed forces are probably higher amongst Trump's followers. It will be interesting to see how they react. This might be yet another Darwin nominee.

kle4

Many of us thought Corbyn obviously has no chance running for leader as he would be awful. While that was right and the mps who knew him thought so and never stopped believing that, members loved him as we know, so can Lavery really tap into that? He just doesnt seem to have that gentle old grandad vibe that Corbyn had.

matt

Nigelb said:

matt said:

Foxy said:

numbertwelve said:

BudG said:

Took part in another You Gov poll for Labour members last night. The difference between this and the first one that caused a lot of movement in the market was that they included Lavery this time (he had not announced an interest in running at the time of the last poll)

I would also mention that there seems to be quite a bit of support growing in some of the Facebook groups I am a member of. One was running a poll over the last few days and it put Lavery top in a poll of about 900 group members, although I would estimate that only around half of these will have Labour membership. There seems to be a swing towards support for Lavery from RLB.

Am expecting a strong showing from Lavery when the next YouGov poll comes out, but as ever, DYOR if betting

I find it somewhat reassuring that there appears to be a dawning realisation that RLB isn’t up to it (why did it take them so long?)

Less reassuring that that seems to be benefitting Lavery of all people...

Lavery is the death spiral candidate for Labour. Corbynism sheared of his charisma.

I don't tend to win on leadership contests either. I tend to favour the best candidates, and they rarely win in an era of killer clown leaders.

For sucking your own cock, aren’t I clever lines, your last line is a prize winner.

You prefer Boris’s ... ?

There are few genuine polymaths in the world yet all of them post here. It’s a remarkable coincidence.

ydoethur

kle4 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

kinabalu said:

matt said:

I look at the BBC’s frankly adulatory and uncritical promotion of women’s football. I get why, at a high level, they promote it in that way but anyone who thinks it’s nothing to do with the BBCs ability to purchase top level men’s football rights is fooling themselves. If they really wanted to reach an audience unserved by BBC tv, they’d be heading to lower league men’s football.

You're right that there is a push to elevate Women's team sports above what is atm the genuine level of interest in them. However, there is a good reason for this. Team sports are an extremely healthy thing for young people to get into. It is therefore important that it does not become an area that is effectively boys only. So the irritation that you and others (including myself if I'm honest) feel about Women's team sports sometimes being rather more "in your face" than you would like is IMO a price worth paying for the benefits being sought.

The crowds in women’s football are going up. There were over 30,000 at Spurs to see the North London derby, I think.

Yes, it is the same with the age-old controversy over women's tennis. If the aim of women's football is to play in men's teams, clearly it is not good enough.

But if the measure of success is bums on seats, then women's football is up there and keep an eye on women's cricket as well.

I've often thought there shoudnt be a reason some female cricketers could not be as good as men - as you dont need to be the fastest or the strongest which at a top level the men would be in order to be really really good in cricket. Plenty of great bowlers who cannot get in high 90s, plenty of great batsmen who are not muscled meat machines.

You would have thought that if there was a sport (OK, I know there are arguments about whether it is one, but still) where women and men could compete on level terms it would be snooker. After all, the trick there is eyesight and straight cueing.

Yet even Reanne Evans and Kelly Fisher, when playing against men, lost and lost badly. This despite being so dominant in the women’s game that Evans won the world championship when eight months pregnant.

isam

DecrepiterJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

kinabalu said:

matt said:

I look at the BBC’s frankly adulatory and uncritical promotion of women’s football. I get why, at a high level, they promote it in that way but anyone who thinks it’s nothing to do with the BBCs ability to purchase top level men’s football rights is fooling themselves. If they really wanted to reach an audience unserved by BBC tv, they’d be heading to lower league men’s football.

You're right that there is a push to elevate Women's team sports above what is atm the genuine level of interest in them. However, there is a good reason for this. Team sports are an extremely healthy thing for young people to get into. It is therefore important that it does not become an area that is effectively boys only. So the irritation that you and others (including myself if I'm honest) feel about Women's team sports sometimes being rather more "in your face" than you would like is IMO a price worth paying for the benefits being sought.

The crowds in women’s football are going up. There were over 30,000 at Spurs to see the North London derby, I think.

Yes, it is the same with the age-old controversy over women's tennis. If the aim of women's football is to play in men's teams, clearly it is not good enough.

But if the measure of success is bums on seats, then women's football is up there and keep an eye on women's cricket as well.

The change in football spectating in my lifetime has been amazing. As teenagers we used to get the tube to Upton Park to watch West Ham and stand in the South Bank for the atmosphere, the undercurrent of violence, the what would now be regarded as offensive chanting and the ridiculously dangerous terrace surges as much as the game (especially those of us who weren't West Ham fans). Now it is a family day out for both sexes and all ages, which is an improvement, but where do the lads go that like that kind of thing? I guess it was the hoodies and gangs on bikes of its day

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Deeply disturbing that a regressive, corrupt theocracy is running amok in the middle east. And Iran isn't any better.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1213250469365272576?s=20

And Pence resuscitating the Iran/911 nonsense:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/03/mike-pence-iran-911-suleimani

What is the administration up to ?
Was this just an impulse assassination, or are they planning a full scale war ?
(There are legal arguments that the US has already initiated a state of war, but that’s not the same thing.)

With this administration, I would suggest avoid looking for conspiracy where stupidity will explain things.

SandyRentool

I am briefly breaking my self-imposed exile to declsre:

#Sandy4Nandy

kinabalu

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.

Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.

MarqueeMark

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Very good from David. Starmer is now clearly the front-runner. Rayner is definitely very good value. Nandy is strong, if she can make the run-off. Long-Bailey is giving every impression of not wanting to stand but being strong-armed into doing so. The far-left is currently giving everyone else a clear run. It’s a real puzzle. I think, though, that Jess Phillips has a decent chance of making the final ballot.

Certainly if Long Baily does want it it's been a strangely anaemic way of going about it.

I particularly liked David's "her Guardian article last week was a masterpiece of meaninglessness".

The reason why most of us are astonished she got pushed onto the stage as Corbyn's Annointed One has nothing to do with how she looks or how she sounds. It's just that There's Nothing There.....

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Deeply disturbing that a regressive, corrupt theocracy is running amok in the middle east. And Iran isn't any better.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1213250469365272576?s=20

And Pence resuscitating the Iran/911 nonsense:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/03/mike-pence-iran-911-suleimani

What is the administration up to ?
Was this just an impulse assassination, or are they planning a full scale war ?
(There are legal arguments that the US has already initiated a state of war, but that’s not the same thing.)

With this administration, I would suggest avoid looking for conspiracy where stupidity will explain things.

I agree entirely.
But who knows where that stupidity might lead them ?

Theuniondivvie

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Deeply disturbing that a regressive, corrupt theocracy is running amok in the middle east. And Iran isn't any better.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1213250469365272576?s=20

And Pence resuscitating the Iran/911 nonsense:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/03/mike-pence-iran-911-suleimani

What is the administration up to ?
Was this just an impulse assassination, or are they planning a full scale war ?
(There are legal arguments that the US has already initiated a state of war, but that’s not the same thing.)

Dunno which is more quease making, the thought that it's part of a larger strategic evangelical 'rapture' or the standard lurching into crises by corrupt incompetents. The former I suppose.

On point.

https://twitter.com/StallaSimon/status/1213350400000249856?s=20

isam

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Deeply disturbing that a regressive, corrupt theocracy is running amok in the middle east. And Iran isn't any better.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1213250469365272576?s=20

And Pence resuscitating the Iran/911 nonsense:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/03/mike-pence-iran-911-suleimani

What is the administration up to ?
Was this just an impulse assassination, or are they planning a full scale war ?
(There are legal arguments that the US has already initiated a state of war, but that’s not the same thing.)

Dunno which is more quease making, the thought that it's part of a larger strategic evangelical 'rapture' or the standard lurching into crises by corrupt incompetents. The former I suppose.

On point.

https://twitter.com/StallaSimon/status/1213350400000249856?s=20

Pretty good

kinabalu

Theuniondivvie said:

See also:

https://twitter.com/PeterArnottGlas/status/1213389690730098688?s=20

Oh FFS. I give up. That cannot be topped.

isam

kinabalu said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.

Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.

I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events

Nigelb

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.

Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.

I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events

We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.

Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.

I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events

We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.

Then the more exposure the England cricket team get, the better.

DecrepiterJohnL

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Cookie, the F1 coverage was very good. And then they threw it away when they still had a full year (at least) of rights.

For various reasons, I hardly watch TV news now (used to when I have my sarnies but now I tend to watch history on Youtube). Not sure what the last BBC programme I watched was, other than the news.

Same here. I dont have any complaints about them and get most of my news from their website, but other than sport I get most of my tv online.

I tried The Trial of Christine Keeler.

I found it guilty. It’s the first thing I’ve ever come across where the plot structure is more confused than Huxley’s Eyeless in Gaza.

Aside from the odd flashback or two, the plot is quite straightforward and the only mystery is how on earth they can spin it out for another four episodes. Radio Times says they will, so there must be more complications planned.

I'm no expert but because I know someone who knew Profumo back in the day, I've read a few books on the subject and the trouble for any drama and especially this one is that Christine Keeler is paradoxically both central to and peripheral to events. Keeler and the people around her are blundering about like bulls in someone else's china shop. And that explains the flashbacks -- to get Keeler's former lovers into the story. Frankly, a documentary would be better (and one is scheduled to follow the series).

kinabalu

ydoethur said:

I tried The Trial of Christine Keeler.

I found it guilty. It’s the first thing I’ve ever come across where the plot structure is more confused than Huxley’s Eyeless in Gaza.

I'm enjoying it so no spoilers please.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, it's an agenda driving editorial decisions. Women's sport is sometimes the equal or better (in popularity terms) of men's (tennis springs to mind) but women's football is orders of magnitude behind men's. You wouldn't guess that from the coverage.

Yes, it's an agenda. That's what I said. The agenda is to promote Women's team sports so that team sports (e.g. football rather than tennis) do not become a boys only activity.

I'd say it's a pretty good example of what the BBC should be for, rather than competing with private companies by paying exorbitant salaries to established stars/fees for the rights to blockbuster events

We agree. I’d add that sports tend to improve quickly after they get significant TV exposure, which would render the ‘they’re not good enough’ argument invalid.

Then the more exposure the England cricket team get, the better.

No, they’ve already found their level. As a 90s tribute act....

JBriskinindyref2

Here comes some new challengers-

Phillips

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jess-phillips-need-strong-leader-21209233

Nandy

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/03/labour-power-activism-leader

DecrepiterJohnL

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Deeply disturbing that a regressive, corrupt theocracy is running amok in the middle east. And Iran isn't any better.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1213250469365272576?s=20

And Pence resuscitating the Iran/911 nonsense:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/03/mike-pence-iran-911-suleimani

What is the administration up to ?
Was this just an impulse assassination, or are they planning a full scale war ?
(There are legal arguments that the US has already initiated a state of war, but that’s not the same thing.)

Dunno which is more quease making, the thought that it's part of a larger strategic evangelical 'rapture' or the standard lurching into crises by corrupt incompetents. The former I suppose.

On point.

https://twitter.com/StallaSimon/status/1213350400000249856?s=20

From Trump's point of view, it is probably more about avoiding impeachment than campaigning for reelection.

As mooted earlier, this might hurt him with his base who are likely to have family in the services. This could be behind the sudden urgency to show Trump surrounded by evangelicals.