Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes make Yvette Cooper 3/1 favourite to succeed Corbyn f
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes make Yvette Cooper 3/1 favourite to succeed Corbyn following a flurry of bets on her
There has been a trend on the Labour leadership betting markets in the last couple of days which has seen Yvette Cooper establish herself as the firm favourite to succeed Jeremy Corbyn. She’s had some fairly confident performances and was the one person who really shook TMay at PMQs before the Parliament was dissolved.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/861928826779127808
Why is it "amazing" Corbyn has said he won't resign in the event of defeat at the GE ?
Did anyone ask John Major or William Hague if they were going to resign in the event of defeat ? I bet if they had the answer would be the same as Corbyn's now.
For people who supposedly understand politics, I do think some people on here came down with the last shower.
No party leader will say he or she is going to resign BEFORE an election just as Cameron ruled out any deal with the Liberal Democrats three days before the 2010 GE only to offer " full and open talks" the afternoon after.
Corbyn might resign, he might not but not even he is stupid enough to say he will go before a single vote has been cast.
Let's turn it round - should May resign if the Conservatives get a majority of less than 50 ? I'm not being entirely facetious - in May 1940 Neville Chamberlain saw his Commons majority cut from over 200 to 81 and he resigned.
Of course, they have to say these things. The difference is Corbyn might mean it.
Edit - OK she will, but she won't be leader. She's an underachiever in leadership matters and Labour don't do female leaders
Corbyn still has a large chunk of the membership behind him.
But the real culprits are those Lab MPs who stay with it all for some reason or another.
This taken with Labour strengh shown in some places such as Cardiff (two tory targets), Newport (another two), greater Manchester(a couple of tory targets) and other places make me believe the majority will be closer to 100 then 150 imo.
He fails spectacularly on those traits.
Weak oppositions lead to things like the Iraq war.
Cooper - yes
Starmer - yes
Lewis - unlikely
Miliband - no
Jarvis - possibly
Nandy - yes
Long-Bailey - no
Chuka - probably
Rayner - no
Thornberry - no
Given that Labour members would probably very much like to elect a female leader, the two value bets in that list are Cooper and Nandy. My choice would be Nandy, but I can see why Cooper would be favourite.
IMO, the #1 requirement for the next Labour leader to be even halfway-electable is to accept Brexit and accept reductions in immigration.
What about Cooper? What does she stand for? She can obviously differentiate herself by being non-Old Labour, but that can sound a little too much like Blairism and New Labour. What's her message? What's her appeal, aside from just not being Corbyn?
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/861935862380195840
I thought Chamberlain resigned due to how the debate about how the war was progressing and the retreat from Norway? He resigned due to the vote being 81 not due to an election. Also because it was determined a government of national unity including Labour was ideal and Atlee refused to join a government under Chamberlain.
Labour will have no choice but to split after the election, but even if they do that, 2015 proved that the so-called moderates (and the list of names below) are equally unelectable.
Christianity fixed its core doctrine about 2,000 years ago. As the world and our understanding of it has evolved they've struggled with mixed success to adapt. Creation being difficult. Homosexuality too. Religious leaders are forced to decide if they stick with the creed or seek to stay relevant.
Corbyn's old school Marxism is just the same. Wrong, out of date, no market - but it's what his breed of far lefties believe in. There's a certain honour in his abject refusal to evolve. He is what he is. It's his religion.
If red-in-tooth-and-claw marxism is not the MP's religion then they need to found a new church.
It does also suggest the possibility that there will be no successor to Corbyn, as the party splits post election...
Who would want that job, if only for two or three years?
That's not the same as asking whether he should resign after the election.
If they don't stand in some of the seats like mine, Stirling, where the Tories are now the main contender to the SNP, this could make a difference. The Greens got 6.7% of 1st prefs in last weeks Stirling Council election. I'd anticipate a similar picture in other University towns.
He has the support of the Labour membership.
It looks like he will perform close to Miliband in 2015 - and can say, quite rightly, that the reason he has lost seats is that the UKIP vote is going to the Blue side, not the red side - which is something beyond his control - and he is known as being Eurosceptic and having to campaign against something he believes in. If Labour regain a few seats in Scotland then he will be able to say he is leading the fightback against Scottish independence and fighting for the Union (If Labour don't - well that was the hand dealt to him.)
He also strikes me as being a reasonably good speaker (although not necessarily a debater). OK I would never vote for his policies but he seems to be consistent in them.
I think my point still stands: Corbyn's values are obvious - he's been spouting them for years. What are Cooper's?
The Tories think they can take Leeds East, Labour's 77th safest Labour seat.
Not that he (or the rest of us, probably) would care.
https://twitter.com/guardianheather/status/861938935022444544
Owen Smith got almost 40% - he was a weak candidate and Corbyn hadn't lost an election at that point. So they'll think the strongest candidate will have every chance of success.
So the question is who will the PLP go for? Cooper seems much more likely than Nandy.
I cannot see it myself. About the only thing worse for the Labour party right now (than having Corbyn as leader) would be admitting they made a terrible choice for leader.
But somehow can't see it happening.
1) Thrown out by the party. Although he has proven remarkably and admirably resistant to their attempts over the last couple of years.
2) Illness / death. I'm unsure how we can estimate this.
3) Getting fed up with the job. Although given the brickbats and mud thrown at him so far, I cannot see why he would suddenly give in now.
4) He sees his job as complete, or can hand over to someone to continue the task.
Of these, I'd think 4) is most likely.
FWIW Cooper & Co are Prima Donnas with a great and repellant sense of entitlement. Despite Corbyn, who was a very unfortunate choice of leader, these people could and should have done far more to support their party in and out of parliament.
Except that Labour's selectorate don't need to change their view. The YouGov Election Data poll of Labour members back in March 2017 found that only 20% felt he should stay on after a general election defeat, 68% felt he should go. Even amongst only those who voted for Corbyn in 2016, the split was against him staying by 36% to 50%.
That poll really does seem to have sneaked under the radar.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nezlzfrgi7/ElectionDataResults_170303_LabourMembers.pdf
I think they should go with Chuka, he would get sooo many Remain votes from Cons and LDs, with a possible boost from his "trash" comments about the wrong kind of Londoners
Three to one is an awful price though.
They might as well give up.
We shall see where they are standing after nominations close. My guess is, fewer places than last time.
We were all in the 30s.
A truly fun market, especially when I felt smug about backing Becky Long Bailey at 66/1 and others pointed out they had backed her at 350/1 and over 500/1.
So long as David Miliband doesn't win, I love this market.
The Conservatives crashed to 165 seats in 1997 and 166 in 2001 - they were wiped out in Wales and Scotland in 1997. Yet they came back.
Even if Labour go sub 100 they will be back because, until and unless something radical happens, they are the only conceivable alternate Government in town. A schism might finish them off if enough of the MPs go to a new grouping but that grouping would become the alternative and might be harder for the Conservatives to manage.
1. Corbyn won a lot of support from people who genuinely believed he could change the world. After a crushing election defeat, they will see that is not the case. They will vote for someone else or, much more likely, drift away.
2. Corbyn beat Owen Smith in 2016. Smith was not a great challenger (though he was brave) and did not have the name recognition of many others. He still got 38% of the vote - despite the coup narrative.
3. Corbyn has enjoyed strong union support up to now. That is now drifting away. He is certain to lose Unison's backing; he may even lose Unites. That will hurt him organisationally and on the NEC.
Without question, there are still a lot of Labour members who will support Corbyn; but I do not think it is by any means certain a majority will after the election. His backers last time were not a singular block, they were a coalition. My sense is that it will fracture after the GE. If it doesn't, Labour will split.
After all, Leavers are quick to tell us that it is up to the government what flavour of leave we get and there are no specific commitments, nor a manifesto which set out their specific demands.
*chortle*
politically, I don't think it's a bad move. Kippers vote Cons shock is not going to change the game much.
Won't be doing Cooper any favours.
The selectorate voted overwhelmingly for Kinnock in 1983 (who was seen as pretty damn left-wing then) before giving Blair a big victory eleven years later. David Miliband got almost half of the vote in 2010 while Liz Kendall could manage only 4.5%, with her support amongst the 'old guard' members being terrible let alone the sign-ups. The point is that the Labour electorate is fickle and volatile and can be persuaded to vote for candidates on whatever wing of the party. Blair and D Miliband were far better and more seasoned politicians than Kendall and had a better understanding of the Labour selectorate (well, back then they stood for the leadership anyway!). Similarly, Corbyn won the leadership while Diane Abbott didn't even make 10%. Again, because the former (for all of his flaws) is far more capable of appealing to the selectorate than the latter. I think YouGov did a poll fairly recently showing that even a majority of Corbyn supporters wouldn't consider voting for Abbott for leader.
I just have this nagging feeling that Corbyn's proven remarkably resistant to attempts to unseat him so far, and think that aspect of his character's been largely unrecognised by his opponents within the party. He's a fighter.