politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the eligibility rules for Labour’s election could help

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

First like Corbyn

Much as I'm no fan of Labour - let alone Corbyn - the Tories need a functioning opposition to keep them on their toes (and no, the 'one-trick-ponies' from the SNP don't count) - and whatever the result of the ballot, it looks like we're still some way from that.....

I remember talking to my Dad about that when I was a kid.

His business had only one major competitor which ran into trouble in the early 1990s following a change in management. I commented that I thought that was great - and was surprised when he disagreed strongly: he was worried about the risk of complacency setting in among his partners.

Many decades ago, my dad's business was owed a rather large sum by a competitor (yet, as is the nature of these things, they also worked together on some projects). The competitor was run by a young man, and he went bankrupt through a combination of trying to expand to fast and a little bad luck.

My dad decided he was not going to chase the money for various reasons.

The competitor started a new business, and when my dad retired years later, brought part of my dad's firm out. A cheque arrived with the correct amount for the deal. In another envelope came another cheque, with the sum owed from a couple of decades before, plus interest.

DecrepitJohnL said:

MattW said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

For Tony Blair's remaining fans:

Tony Blair has been receiving an extraordinary pension of up to £80,000 a year since the day he quit Downing Street.

.......Currently aged 49, Mr Cameron will have to wait until he turns 65 to get the still-generous income of around £20,000.

He will also be entitled to a backbench MPs’ pension - still a gold-plated final salary settlement of around £26,000 a year that most workers can only dream of.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3686348/Cameron-remortgages-house-walks-away-Downing-Street-40-000-pension-20-000-pay-ll-FAR-Tony-Blair-family-live.html

Presumably John Major got the higher pension, and Gordon Brown, like Cameron, must wait to claim the lower pension.

The modifications came in in 2013, I think.

So in addition to cutting his successor's salary just before he left, Mr Brown could also have taken the immediate "pension".

It would take an FOI to find out, but I would not be surprised given my subterranean opinion of Gordon Brown.

The Mail article quoted by CarlottaVance says not, describing Blair as the last Prime Minister to accept the extremely generous non-contributory package, equivalent to half his salary as premier.
The figure is even higher as Gordon Brown and then David Cameron took significantly lower pay than the £196,000 Mr Blair was on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3686348/Cameron-remortgages-house-walks-away-Downing-Street-40-000-pension-20-000-pay-ll-FAR-Tony-Blair-family-live.html

Edit: And Brown cut his own salary.

Re: your edit - I wouldn't go there.

He cut it from 5 April 2010 - i.e. so he had lower pay for only 1 month. It was a spiteful thing to do.

Jonathan said:

I am excited by Owen Smith

I think he has a chance, but defo not odds on.

Pulpstar said:

Please please please please please Can Stephen Kinnock enter the race

That well known, millionaire man of the people, married to Danish politics aristocracy, son of leftwing political aristocracy, small welsh village representing lover of all things EU related? That's just what Labour need.
You should be ashamed of yourself, putting your betting before the country!

blackburn63 said:

TOPPING said:

blackburn63 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am afraid this is completely wrong.

The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.

There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.

So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.

ie they are on the road to becoming like UKIP: a well-organised pressure group promoting a vision of the world that is on the whole deeply antithetical to the vast majority of voters, but which maintains a core non-trivial sized rump with which to harry the established parties.

Good luck to 'em.

I'd be grateful if you could outline that vision of the world that Ukip promote.

Something which this embodies.

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

First like Corbyn

Much as I'm no fan of Labour - let alone Corbyn - the Tories need a functioning opposition to keep them on their toes (and no, the 'one-trick-ponies' from the SNP don't count) - and whatever the result of the ballot, it looks like we're still some way from that.....

Ha Ha Ha , at least they have a trick , not just a bunch of donkeys running about knifing each other.

Malcolm, isn't that a bit harsh? In my experience donkeys are placid and amiable creatures and not given to fighting of any sort, certainly not with knives.

ydoethur, You are correct and I apologise to real donkeys everywhere. I shall use some suitable alternative in future.

I think in future we shall all be measuring the viciousness of gang warfare by how closely it resembles the Labour Party!

The benchmark for a gangland war is still the Tories. The heads of the other five mafia families all slain, whilst Capo May was sat in church, all innocent....

'Tell Theresa it was only business. I always liked her.'

PlatoSaid said:

blackburn63 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am afraid this is completely wrong.

The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.

There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.

So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.

What I find so surprising/predictable is that the plotters don't have an alternative policy agenda. They were truly spanked last summer and have done sod all about coming up with an answer.

It's the most basic thing. If you're a politician - what are you trying to do bar keep your seat? None of them seem to have a thought of their own.

But the discontent is not about policy per se. It's about Corbyn the individual.

blackburn63 said:

TOPPING said:

blackburn63 said:

TOPPING said:

blackburn63 said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am afraid this is completely wrong.

The Trots will get in to vote via the various affiliates. The Tweets and the emails about how to do it are already being sent out. You can join various organisations for a pittance, cast your vote and then stop paying the monthly fee.

There is absolutely no way on earth Eagle or anyone else will get close to Corbyn. I'd expect him to win by a wider margin than he did last time.

So what? The Corbyn side of Labour is clearly more organised and determined than any other, people need to stop sniping from the sidelines and DO something. Problem is nobody can put forward a candidate with any sort of decent credentials, Labour stands for nothing beyond its North London coterie.

ie they are on the road to becoming like UKIP: a well-organised pressure group promoting a vision of the world that is on the whole deeply antithetical to the vast majority of voters, but which maintains a core non-trivial sized rump with which to harry the established parties.

Good luck to 'em.

I'd be grateful if you could outline that vision of the world that Ukip promote.

Something which this embodies.

This site turns otherwise reasonable people into fuckwits.

While others have been fuckwits all along.

Imo

Next Lab Leader should be (NOT offers)


O Smith: 5-2
J McDonnell: 5-1
A Eagle: 6-1
C Lewis: 10-1

Someone else 3-1

Something like that

TwistedFireStopper said:

I genuinely thought it'd be the Tories who would be consumed by some sort of crisis after the EU Referendum.
Instead, the tories seem to have steadied the ship, while Labour, who should really be hammering the tories by now, have gone buck wild.
Shows what I know about politics!

I think the decision to publish Chillcott was intended to distract/place the focus on labour, after Dave won the referendum.

That was going to be the real crunch time for him - and he knew it.

Charles said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

MattW said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

For Tony Blair's remaining fans:

Tony Blair has been receiving an extraordinary pension of up to £80,000 a year since the day he quit Downing Street.

.......Currently aged 49, Mr Cameron will have to wait until he turns 65 to get the still-generous income of around £20,000.

He will also be entitled to a backbench MPs’ pension - still a gold-plated final salary settlement of around £26,000 a year that most workers can only dream of.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3686348/Cameron-remortgages-house-walks-away-Downing-Street-40-000-pension-20-000-pay-ll-FAR-Tony-Blair-family-live.html

Presumably John Major got the higher pension, and Gordon Brown, like Cameron, must wait to claim the lower pension.

The modifications came in in 2013, I think.

So in addition to cutting his successor's salary just before he left, Mr Brown could also have taken the immediate "pension".

It would take an FOI to find out, but I would not be surprised given my subterranean opinion of Gordon Brown.

The Mail article quoted by CarlottaVance says not, describing Blair as the last Prime Minister to accept the extremely generous non-contributory package, equivalent to half his salary as premier.
The figure is even higher as Gordon Brown and then David Cameron took significantly lower pay than the £196,000 Mr Blair was on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3686348/Cameron-remortgages-house-walks-away-Downing-Street-40-000-pension-20-000-pay-ll-FAR-Tony-Blair-family-live.html

Edit: And Brown cut his own salary.

Re: your edit - I wouldn't go there.

He cut it from 5 April 2010 - i.e. so he had lower pay for only 1 month. It was a spiteful thing to do.

Let's not forget the 50p tax rate that the Labour Party increased days before they were kicked out and constantly hammered the Tories for even when they reduced it to 45p and collected more tax as a result.

Labour opportunistic chancers and I am enjoying their demise. Hopefully this time it will be permanent

PS. I have never been out of work under a Tory administration but lost my job 3 times under a Labour admin. One of those times was with Union connivance. .

PlatoSaid said:

Does anyone recall Gordon's last PMQs/final bow?

Did he get applause like Tony?

I only remember his walk away from Downing St with his family.

His last PMQs was before the election, so not valedictory.

PlatoSaid said:

ydoethur said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.

Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.

One could still argue that having a single challenger makes it a simpler contest. TBH, I'd like Labour members to have a choice. Offering up a single candidate just encourages talk of What-If.

Also it is well know in preferential elections that there is a seepage of votes as each round takes place. There are always people who don't understand, or can't be bothered, to do more than mark a first preference. There are others who think making a first and second choice is enough. Or who give up after 1,2,3 etc. People who don't know enough about all the candidates and don't bother to find out once they have decided who to support.

So you never get a perfect transfer, even when to an informed observer it is obvious who the votes *ought* sensibly to transfer to. So, where there is one front-runner and a series of challengers, more challengers reduces all of their chances.

ydoethur said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.

Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.

In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not so sure, for two reasons.

Firstly, a first round result of 45/28/27 with the second and third votes then combining to win the run-off not only demonstrates very strong positive support for the defeated candidate who many will claim to have 'won' by conflating the FPTP implied result with the actual one as conducted under the rules, but will also - crucially - show the true weakness of the base of the final elected leader: they've been chosen not for who they are but for who they're not. Momentum would quickly latch on to the '72%' who didn't vote for whoever won and recite Churchill's comment about the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidate (without citation, presumably).

Secondly, the dynamic of the race itself would be different. Rather than it being mainstream vs Momentum, it would add an additional element of the intra-mainstream contest, where Smith and Eagle would have to fight each other, weakening their attacks on Corbyn, sustaining some intra-mainstream damage and enabling Momentum to try to divide and rule. If not only Corbyn but the other mainstream candidate makes both challengers look a bit useless - and there is that possibility - then there'll be some Labour loyalists who'll conclude that the case for change hasn't been proven and will give the benefit of the doubt to the leader.

Good morning, everyone.

I agree with Mr. Barasi that the rules (to this extent) help Eagle. However, it does seem odd that last time anyone signing up could vote, whereas now there's a cut-off from about six months ago.

Also, what of the mischievous Three Pounders? I suspect their numbers have been exaggerated, but they may well conclude that they've had their fun and having an actual Opposition is a good thing.

Smith standing, if he makes the ballot, is good for Corbyn. Some people will just vote once. There'll be far more Eagle-Smith switchers than Corbyn-Eagle or Corbyn-Smith, so voters effectively dropping out (if it gets to that stage) would benefit Corbyn.

Morris_Dancer said:

Also, what of the mischievous Three Pounders? I suspect their numbers have been exaggerated, but they may well conclude that they've had their fun and having an actual Opposition is a good thing.

I think the number of "mischievous £3" was actually quite low. The vast majority will be "Momentum".

Heard an anecdote yesterday at the local Lib Dem meeting - there was a social event full of mostly Labour supporters and after about an hour, the local Corbyn chief asked everyone to leave the room except "Momentum" members as they were having a meeting.

Not even a pretence of a Labour party meeting, a pure momentum plot and scheme.

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.

Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.

In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not so sure, for two reasons.

Firstly, a first round result of 45/28/27 with the second and third votes then combining to win the run-off not only demonstrates very strong positive support for the defeated candidate who many will claim to have 'won' by conflating the FPTP implied result with the actual one as conducted under the rules, but will also - crucially - show the true weakness of the base of the final elected leader: they've been chosen not for who they are but for who they're not. Momentum would quickly latch on to the '72%' who didn't vote for whoever won and recite Churchill's comment about the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidate (without citation, presumably).

Secondly, the dynamic of the race itself would be different. Rather than it being mainstream vs Momentum, it would add an additional element of the intra-mainstream contest, where Smith and Eagle would have to fight each other, weakening their attacks on Corbyn, sustaining some intra-mainstream damage and enabling Momentum to try to divide and rule. If not only Corbyn but the other mainstream candidate makes both challengers look a bit useless - and there is that possibility - then there'll be some Labour loyalists who'll conclude that the case for change hasn't been proven and will give the benefit of the doubt to the leader.

The battle has to be the PLP (via one representative) vs Corbyn - with the focus on do you want to ever govern again or just want to be a protest party. Anything else means fighting amongst the candidates as Corbyn sneaks down the left flank and wins (as shown last year)

The question is can Angela remove herself from the election now she's been nominated. If not and Owen is also on the ballot the PLP loses....

I half expect them to lose anyway (I don't think the stitch up helps the PLP as much as they think it does) but if its 2 vs 1 they have lost...

Mr. Pulpstar, true, but there will also be those who've seen Corbyn as leader and think someone who hasn't 80% of the PLP against them would be good.

eek said:

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.

Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.

In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not so sure, for two reasons.

Firstly, a first round result of 45/28/27 with the second and third votes then combining to win the run-off not only demonstrates very strong positive support for the defeated candidate who many will claim to have 'won' by conflating the FPTP implied result with the actual one as conducted under the rules, but will also - crucially - show the true weakness of the base of the final elected leader: they've been chosen not for who they are but for who they're not. Momentum would quickly latch on to the '72%' who didn't vote for whoever won and recite Churchill's comment about the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidate (without citation, presumably).

Secondly, the dynamic of the race itself would be different. Rather than it being mainstream vs Momentum, it would add an additional element of the intra-mainstream contest, where Smith and Eagle would have to fight each other, weakening their attacks on Corbyn, sustaining some intra-mainstream damage and enabling Momentum to try to divide and rule. If not only Corbyn but the other mainstream candidate makes both challengers look a bit useless - and there is that possibility - then there'll be some Labour loyalists who'll conclude that the case for change hasn't been proven and will give the benefit of the doubt to the leader.

The battle has to be the PLP (via one representative) vs Corbyn - with the focus on do you want to ever govern again or just want to be a protest party. Anything else means fighting amongst the candidates as Corbyn sneaks down the left flank and wins (as shown last year)

Labour's membership doesn't want to govern again. Ever.

asjohnstone said:

rkrkrk said:

asjohnstone said:

Pulpstar said:

Owen Smith is odds on. That simply must be wrong.

It's leader after Corbyn though. I think the market is assuming that Jezza will defeat Eagle

Won't Owen Smith and Eagle run in the same leadership election?

I've also had a nibble on Rachel Reeves at 220-1 as a long-term prospect.

Ray

I don't think so; It's now or never for Eagle in my opinion, but Smith can run again and win in the future

The party may not hold together long enough for Smith to do so.

Innocent_Abroad said:

eek said:

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

partypoliticalorphan said:

Thread header premise is undermined as news that Owen Smith is entering the race. Needs to be a straight head to head to have any chance of unseating Corbyn surely.

Under the Labour electoral system, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 200 candidates. Candidates are systematically eliminated and their second preferences allocated until there is an outright winner. Therefore, more candidates means more rounds but won't affect the overall result. Corbyn won on first allocation, Miliband on the last one.

In theory, yes; in practice, I'm not so sure, for two reasons.

Firstly, a first round result of 45/28/27 with the second and third votes then combining to win the run-off not only demonstrates very strong positive support for the defeated candidate who many will claim to have 'won' by conflating the FPTP implied result with the actual one as conducted under the rules, but will also - crucially - show the true weakness of the base of the final elected leader: they've been chosen not for who they are but for who they're not. Momentum would quickly latch on to the '72%' who didn't vote for whoever won and recite Churchill's comment about the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidate (without citation, presumably).

Secondly, the dynamic of the race itself would be different. Rather than it being mainstream vs Momentum, it would add an additional element of the intra-mainstream contest, where Smith and Eagle would have to fight each other, weakening their attacks on Corbyn, sustaining some intra-mainstream damage and enabling Momentum to try to divide and rule. If not only Corbyn but the other mainstream candidate makes both challengers look a bit useless - and there is that possibility - then there'll be some Labour loyalists who'll conclude that the case for change hasn't been proven and will give the benefit of the doubt to the leader.

The battle has to be the PLP (via one representative) vs Corbyn - with the focus on do you want to ever govern again or just want to be a protest party. Anything else means fighting amongst the candidates as Corbyn sneaks down the left flank and wins (as shown last year)

Labour's membership doesn't want to govern again. Ever.

But at least if they vote and decide that, the part of the PLP who do want to govern again can stand up on mass and leave in good heart. The party will have left them, they will just be leaving a party that isn't theirs anymore...

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

First like Corbyn

Much as I'm no fan of Labour - let alone Corbyn - the Tories need a functioning opposition to keep them on their toes (and no, the 'one-trick-ponies' from the SNP don't count) - and whatever the result of the ballot, it looks like we're still some way from that.....

I remember talking to my Dad about that when I was a kid.

His business had only one major competitor which ran into trouble in the early 1990s following a change in management. I commented that I thought that was great - and was surprised when he disagreed strongly: he was worried about the risk of complacency setting in among his partners.

Definitely the right approach. No competition makes you lazy. Then when competition does appear you are buggered. Owners of strong, market-dominating patents often end up in terrible trouble once the patent term expires for that reason. See Xerox and photocopiers, for example.

Bob__Sykes said:

Surely Eagle and Smith can't both stand? Won't that hand it to Corbyn on a plate?

Labour. The gift that keeps on giving....

Only Labour could put up a whole batch of unity candidates, all splitting the party...

IanB2 said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Surely Eagle and Smith can't both stand? Won't that hand it to Corbyn on a plate?

Labour. The gift that keeps on giving....

Only Labour could put up a whole batch of unity candidates, all splitting the party...

It's an AV election.

Mr. Pulpstar, can't say I'm surprised to hear that.

Freggles said:

IanB2 said:

Bob__Sykes said:

Surely Eagle and Smith can't both stand? Won't that hand it to Corbyn on a plate?

Labour. The gift that keeps on giving....

Only Labour could put up a whole batch of unity candidates, all splitting the party...

It's an AV election.

I might do a thread on AV, explaining how it works, clearly some PBers don't understand how AV works, despite my best efforts.

Twitter already digging on Smith - a domestic violence comment from 2010 found.

"Surely the liberals will file for divorce as the bruises start to show through the make up"

Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?

If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.

As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

RobD said:

First like Corbyn

Much as I'm no fan of Labour - let alone Corbyn - the Tories need a functioning opposition to keep them on their toes (and no, the 'one-trick-ponies' from the SNP don't count) - and whatever the result of the ballot, it looks like we're still some way from that.....

Ha Ha Ha , at least they have a trick , not just a bunch of donkeys running about knifing each other.

I think your metaphors are in need of unmixing......

National - RABA

Clinton 41 .. Trump 29

http://www.rabaresearch.com/documents/RABA-National-Survey-July-2016.pdf

ydoethur said:

Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?

If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.

As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.

ydoethur said:

Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?

If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.

As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.

If Smith knocks out Eagle though he can win

Twitter more positive about Smith than Eagle. He should finish second I think.

PlatoSaid said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

asjohnstone said:

rkrkrk said:

asjohnstone said:

Pulpstar said:

Owen Smith is odds on. That simply must be wrong.

It's leader after Corbyn though. I think the market is assuming that Jezza will defeat Eagle

Won't Owen Smith and Eagle run in the same leadership election?

I've also had a nibble on Rachel Reeves at 220-1 as a long-term prospect.

Ray

I don't think so; It's now or never for Eagle in my opinion, but Smith can run again and win in the future

The party may not hold together long enough for Smith to do so.

Assuming Labour follows a similar timetable to last summer - the result will be announced around conference.

Are you in favour of a single challenger or a choice?

I think there's some merit in what Margaret Hodge said on the Radio this morning - of those that are nominated, the PLP has a vote which is effectively their assessment of who is best placed and there is heavy pressure on all other declared candidates to then stand down and back them, possibly with people withdrawing their nominations to make it happen.

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?

If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.

As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.

ydoethur said:

Why is everyone assuming Smith and Eagle are fishing in the same pool?

If this were FPTP, Smith's candidacy would be a serious blow to Corbyn. Their policy positions are similar but Smith is younger, saner, more intelligent and a better speaker. Also, he's a potential unifying candidate as a left winger who wants power.

As it isn't, I'd expect a majority of Smith's 2nd preferences going to Corbyn, not Eagle, if he is knocked out early. His entry makes very little difference to the potential outcome.

If Smith knocks out Eagle though he can win

It remains the case, however, that a greater proportion of otherwise Argclu voters would vote for Smith in a straight contest, if she didn't stand, than would transfer to him from her if there are multiple candidates.

Maybe the Trots will not be able to vote for Corbyn via the affiliates:
https://twitter.com/richardbourne49/status/753129443548393472

Wulfrun_Phil said:

PlatoSaid said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

asjohnstone said:

rkrkrk said:

asjohnstone said:

Pulpstar said:

Owen Smith is odds on. That simply must be wrong.

It's leader after Corbyn though. I think the market is assuming that Jezza will defeat Eagle

Won't Owen Smith and Eagle run in the same leadership election?

I've also had a nibble on Rachel Reeves at 220-1 as a long-term prospect.

Ray

I don't think so; It's now or never for Eagle in my opinion, but Smith can run again and win in the future

The party may not hold together long enough for Smith to do so.

Assuming Labour follows a similar timetable to last summer - the result will be announced around conference.

Are you in favour of a single challenger or a choice?

I think there's some merit in what Margaret Hodge said on the Radio this morning - of those that are nominated, the PLP has a vote which is effectively their assessment of who is best placed and there is heavy pressure on all other declared candidates to then stand down and back them, possibly with people withdrawing their nominations to make it happen.

You'd think she has been looking at the Tory rules recently!

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Moses_ said:

Charles said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

MattW said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

For Tony Blair's remaining fans:

Tony Blair has been receiving an extraordinary pension of up to £80,000 a year since the day he quit Downing Street.

.......Currently aged 49, Mr Cameron will have to wait until he turns 65 to get the still-generous income of around £20,000.

He will also be entitled to a backbench MPs’ pension - still a gold-plated final salary settlement of around £26,000 a year that most workers can only dream of.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3686348/Cameron-remortgages-house-walks-away-Downing-Street-40-000-pension-20-000-pay-ll-FAR-Tony-Blair-family-live.html

Presumably John Major got the higher pension, and Gordon Brown, like Cameron, must wait to claim the lower pension.

The modifications came in in 2013, I think.

So in addition to cutting his successor's salary just before he left, Mr Brown could also have taken the immediate "pension".

It would take an FOI to find out, but I would not be surprised given my subterranean opinion of Gordon Brown.

The Mail article quoted by CarlottaVance says not, describing Blair as the last Prime Minister to accept the extremely generous non-contributory package, equivalent to half his salary as premier.
The figure is even higher as Gordon Brown and then David Cameron took significantly lower pay than the £196,000 Mr Blair was on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3686348/Cameron-remortgages-house-walks-away-Downing-Street-40-000-pension-20-000-pay-ll-FAR-Tony-Blair-family-live.html

Edit: And Brown cut his own salary.

Re: your edit - I wouldn't go there.

He cut it from 5 April 2010 - i.e. so he had lower pay for only 1 month. It was a spiteful thing to do.

Let's not forget the 50p tax rate that the Labour Party increased days before they were kicked out and constantly hammered the Tories for even when they reduced it to 45p and collected more tax as a result.

a bigger whopper than anything the Brexiteers managed.

But not as memorable as '£350million a week for the NHS'

Nor painted on the side of a bus.....

Moses_ said:

I have never been out of work under a Tory administration but lost my job 3 times under a Labour admin.

Bad luck!
Presumably you'll sympathise with the statistically larger amount of people who lost jobs under Conservative governments of the last 40 years, and feel similarly negative towards that party.

paulyork64 said:

Pulpstar said:

Imo

Next Lab Leader should be (NOT offers)


O Smith: 5-2
J McDonnell: 5-1
A Eagle: 6-1
C Lewis: 10-1

Someone else 3-1

Something like that

I think id only be interested in a "who will labour leader be on nov 1st" type market. If corbyns leader for years your money is tied up all that time and much can change. Altho if its a betfair trading position thats another option

Once there is an election, there must be such a market, surely? Otherwise how can people bet for or against Corbyn being re-elected?

kle4 said:

Pulpstar said:

Owen Smith is odds on. That simply must be wrong.

He's not well known, so there's hope he will be very popular once he is

Bloomin' bonkers odds