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.
Comments
-
First but not last to leave, like Jezza0
-
Second - like Cooper in a leadership election against JC0
-
Keir Starmer more likely in my view, Cooper was 3rd in 20150
-
0
-
Please, please, please will Labour elect Yvette to be the new leader.0
-
Jezza: "Not one step back!"
0 -
Starmer polls better than Corbyn with the general electorate, indeed any of the above would be better than CorbynDanny565 said:
And again, it's people positing Keir Starmer as the alternative which make me think we should cling to Corbyn as the lesser evil, even after the election drubbing!HYUFD said:Keir Starmer more likely in my view, Cooper was 3rd in 2015
0 -
Afternoon all
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.0 -
I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.0
-
It's one of the markets where every runner looks like a lay.0
-
If he had any shame or decency he would have stood down ages ago.0
-
That's not the point, Eagles. He is the duly elected leader (twice) of the Labour Party. Why should he resign just because you don't like him ?TheScreamingEagles said:If he had any shame or decency he would have stood down ages ago.
0 -
Someone did ask Cameron if he would resign if he lost the referendum and he also said 'No'.stodge said:Afternoon all
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.0 -
On what basis do you make that statement? I find that sort of comment repulsiveJason said:I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.
0 -
She won't be an MP.
Edit - OK she will, but she won't be leader. She's an underachiever in leadership matters and Labour don't do female leaders0 -
In the event that Corbyn did stand down for whatever reason, who of the above might he support ? Clive Lewis ? Shouldn't McDonnell be on the list ?
Corbyn still has a large chunk of the membership behind him.0 -
Exactly eg. Dave and the EURefstodge said:Afternoon all
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.0 -
Betting tip: emulate Ed Balls and lay Yvette Cooper.0
-
This is the Labour party we are talking about. Shame and decency left the stage a long, long time ago. (Starting with Tony). Before him Labour leaders were wrong but decent fellows. From his Toniness and beyond they've been a bunch of scuzzbuckets.TheScreamingEagles said:If he had any shame or decency he would have stood down ages ago.
0 -
I would've been all on the Clive Lewis train until recently, but he now seems to have decided that Labour should junk the one of Corbyn's stances (on Brexit) which is actually the right positioning.PaulM said:In the event that Corbyn did stand down for whatever reason, who of the above might he support ? Clive Lewis ? Shouldn't McDonnell be on the list ?
Corbyn still has a large chunk of the membership behind him.0 -
How can David Miliband be at 8/1? He is not even in the country, not standing as perspective MP and recently said that he was done with that part of his life. Would not waste a £1 at those odds.Richard_Nabavi said:It's one of the markets where every runner looks like a lay.
0 -
I find her furrowed brow and achingly manufactured sincerity repulsive. I find her promise of taking in Syrian refugees into her own household and then flunking her way out of it repulsive. I find her identity politics driven and politically correct sanctimonious bilge repulsive. I'm sure there are many people on my side of the fence you feel equally strongly about. Personally, I couldn't give two hoots.MikeSmithson said:
On what basis do you make that statement? I find that sort of comment repulsiveJason said:I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.
0 -
He's pretty confident of getting back in (and should be after last Thursdays results), he's positioning himself to be the fairly hard left, untainted and new candidateDanny565 said:
I would've been all on the Clive Lewis train until recently, but he now seems to have decided that Labour should junk the one of Corbyn's stances (on Brexit) which is actually the right positioning.PaulM said:In the event that Corbyn did stand down for whatever reason, who of the above might he support ? Clive Lewis ? Shouldn't McDonnell be on the list ?
Corbyn still has a large chunk of the membership behind him.0 -
There is nothing wrong with presenting a vision of pure socialism to the electorate and allowing them to choose; the problem comes when you refuse to listen to their pronouncements.Patrick said:
This is the Labour party we are talking about. Shame and decency left the stage a long, long time ago. (Starting with Tony). Before him Labour leaders were wrong but decent fellows. From his Toniness and beyond they've been a bunch of scuzzbuckets.TheScreamingEagles said:If he had any shame or decency he would have stood down ages ago.
But the real culprits are those Lab MPs who stay with it all for some reason or another.0 -
I'm hearing a LOT of stories from friends and families about the effect of cuts to public services, these are NOT overly political or "tories are all scum" types. It seems that the cuts have only started to reveal themselves after seven years. Physios, teachers, social care workers etc. I'm beggining to think a few labour voters really will bottle it.TheScreamingEagles said:If he had any shame or decency he would have stood down ages ago.
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.0 -
Emily Thornberry at 20/1 is the only one who might offer value - she's a Corbyn loyalist and could conceivably be his anointed successor. She'd be no more appealing to the electorate, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in this contest.Richard_Nabavi said:It's one of the markets where every runner looks like a lay.
0 -
The country needs a strong opposition, especially during the Brexit deal.stodge said:
That's not the point, Eagles. He is the duly elected leader (twice) of the Labour Party. Why should he resign just because you don't like him ?TheScreamingEagles said:If he had any shame or decency he would have stood down ages ago.
He fails spectacularly on those traits.
Weak oppositions lead to things like the Iraq war.0 -
Assuming a challenge to Corbyn when he refuses to resign, you have to ask who will get the 26/27 nominations required from MPs and MEPs to initiate a contest?
Cooper - yes
Starmer - yes
Lewis - unlikely
Miliband - no
Jarvis - possibly
Nandy - yes
Long-Bailey - no
Chuka - probably
Rayner - no
Thornberry - no
Given that Labour members would probably very much like to elect a female leader, the two value bets in that list are Cooper and Nandy. My choice would be Nandy, but I can see why Cooper would be favourite.0 -
Claiming he won’t stand down and not standing down are two very different things, it remains to be seen what actually happens. On saying that, Corbyn has already demonstrated a tenacity to cling onto the leadership, long after others would have walked, but I still have no idea what he would hope to achieve with a second term.0
-
Thornberry is a careerist, not a loyalist. There is no way she would get the nominations needed.Essexit said:
Emily Thornberry at 20/1 is the only one who might offer value - she's a Corbyn loyalist and could conceivably be his anointed successor. She'd be no more appealing to the electorate, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in this contest.Richard_Nabavi said:It's one of the markets where every runner looks like a lay.
0 -
Yvette, like Ed, is tainted by her fulsome support and being an apologiser for Brown's economic disaster. She is yesterday's news. Labour need to go for renewal not retrenchment.0
-
Unfortunately, I suspect his anti-Brexit positioning is what he genuinely believes, and what he'd genuinely do if he was party leader - not just him positioning himself for votes with the Labour selectorate.dyedwoolie said:
He's pretty confident of getting back in (and should be after last Thursdays results), he's positioning himself to be the fairly hard left, untainted and new candidateDanny565 said:
I would've been all on the Clive Lewis train until recently, but he now seems to have decided that Labour should junk the one of Corbyn's stances (on Brexit) which is actually the right positioning.PaulM said:In the event that Corbyn did stand down for whatever reason, who of the above might he support ? Clive Lewis ? Shouldn't McDonnell be on the list ?
Corbyn still has a large chunk of the membership behind him.
IMO, the #1 requirement for the next Labour leader to be even halfway-electable is to accept Brexit and accept reductions in immigration.0 -
Agree with your sentiment about the second sentence, but I think Jason might have a point with his first. It's easy to tell what Corbyn stands for: he's stood for it for years and has scarcely changed. His position is Old Labour (tm). It's familiar, and reassuring to many Labour potential voters, if repulsive to many non-Labourites.MikeSmithson said:
On what basis do you make that statement? I find that sort of comment repulsiveJason said:I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.
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?0 -
-
Agreed, she's nailed her colours to every mast since Blair.SouthamObserver said:
Thornberry is a careerist, not a loyalist. There is no way she would get the nominations needed.Essexit said:
Emily Thornberry at 20/1 is the only one who might offer value - she's a Corbyn loyalist and could conceivably be his anointed successor. She'd be no more appealing to the electorate, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in this contest.Richard_Nabavi said:It's one of the markets where every runner looks like a lay.
0 -
Assuming Labour go down to 150 seats, anyone challenging Corbyn for the leadership would need around 25 nominations from MPs and MEPs. I can't see Lewis getting those. That's why it's right that McDonnell is not on the list either.Danny565 said:
I would've been all on the Clive Lewis train until recently, but he now seems to have decided that Labour should junk the one of Corbyn's stances (on Brexit) which is actually the right positioning.PaulM said:In the event that Corbyn did stand down for whatever reason, who of the above might he support ? Clive Lewis ? Shouldn't McDonnell be on the list ?
Corbyn still has a large chunk of the membership behind him.
0 -
Very different circumstances there.stodge said:Afternoon all
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.
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.0 -
25/1 on PP but only for small stakes... allowed me £3.80.Essexit said:
Emily Thornberry at 20/1 is the only one who might offer value - she's a Corbyn loyalist and could conceivably be his anointed successor. She'd be no more appealing to the electorate, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in this contest.Richard_Nabavi said:It's one of the markets where every runner looks like a lay.
0 -
It's all about getting the nomination rules changed to give the left a permanent lock on the leadership.SimonStClare said:Claiming he won’t stand down and not standing down are two very different things, it remains to be seen what actually happens. On saying that, Corbyn has already demonstrated a tenacity to cling onto the leadership, long after others would have walked, but I still have no idea what he would hope to achieve with a second term.
0 -
Is it tenacity in the conventional sense though? It's not like he's fighting for the mainstream and a genuine chance to implement what he believes in. Is he not merely taking advantage of a lifelong fantasy of controlling - and shaping - the party he finds himself leader of? To mould Labour into a permanent far left opposition, with little or no interest in becoming a governing party? It's why I agree he won't resign - he's not going to relinquish a once in a lifetime opportunity to wreck his party as a serious electoral force.SimonStClare said:Claiming he won’t stand down and not standing down are two very different things, it remains to be seen what actually happens. On saying that, Corbyn has already demonstrated a tenacity to cling onto the leadership, long after others would have walked, but I still have no idea what he would hope to achieve with a second term.
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.0 -
Yes. It's a religion.TOPPING said:
There is nothing wrong with presenting a vision of pure socialism to the electorate and allowing them to choose; the problem comes when you refuse to listen to their pronouncements.Patrick said:
This is the Labour party we are talking about. Shame and decency left the stage a long, long time ago. (Starting with Tony). Before him Labour leaders were wrong but decent fellows. From his Toniness and beyond they've been a bunch of scuzzbuckets.TheScreamingEagles said:If he had any shame or decency he would have stood down ages ago.
But the real culprits are those Lab MPs who stay with it all for some reason or another.
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.
0 -
FPT
This happens every year when there is a referendum or election, and the number of registration applications does not equal additional voters. On many occasions they are just duplicates of existing registrations.MTimT said:
Questions I posed last night but did not see any answers to. Apparently, over 1 million have signed onto the electoral roll since the announcement of the election.SimonStClare said:
I understand the reasoning behind Corbyn’s campaign message, the problem for him is there is not enough core support to save dozens of his MPs. Corbyn has already given in, it’s the same bunker mentality, we saw with Michael Howard and the Tories.Dadge said:
Of course some of Labour's "core support" are currently telling pollsters that they're going to vote Tory (etc.), or not going to vote, so it's not mad of him to do this. Corbyn and his supporters have always been convinced that the core vote could be expanded, obviously not by winning over selfish Tories, but by getting back the old Labour core that've drifted to Ukip and the Greens, and by GOTV of the latent support among the young and poor who identify as non-voters. But I don't think any of this is enough to win an election, and if it was you'd already see the Tories and the Mail in full-on Operation Fear mode. (As it is, they've barely got out of first gear.)SimonStClare said:H/T Sparrow: - Here is some more comment on the Corbyn speech from journalists. {snipped for space}
It'll be interesting to see how many young people and previous non-voters turn out for Labour this time. I had thought there must be quite a bit of strategy and legwork going on in Momentum (and Labour) to try and justify the faith in Corbyn, but I haven't seen much. Maybe it just needs another five years...
Is this a sign of unusual levels of intention to vote from previous non-voters? Are the newbies mainly the young? Has anyone looked into the potential impact of this on the make up of the electorate and thus any changes needed to weighting of polls?
PS It seems about 40% of newbies are under 25
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39837917
0 -
Spot on.dyedwoolie said:Yvette, like Ed, is tainted by her fulsome support and being an apologiser for Brown's economic disaster. She is yesterday's news. Labour need to go for renewal not retrenchment.
0 -
Corbyn is not Old Labour. He hated Old Labour, which was pro-nuke, pro-NATO, pro-monarchy, pro-patriotism and based squarely in the old trade union movement (not the one we have now). Old Labour was Attlee, Bevan, Healey, Callaghan, Wilson, Castle etc. They would all have regarded Corbyn and his mates with total contempt. Corbyn's verison of Labour has never existed because Labour was always a party that sought power through Parliament. That is not what Corbyn believes in.JosiasJessop said:
Agree with your sentiment about the second sentence, but I think Jason might have a point with his first. It's easy to tell what Corbyn stands for: he's stood for it for years and has scarcely changed. His position is Old Labour (tm). It's familiar, and reassuring to many Labour potential voters, if repulsive to many non-Labourites.MikeSmithson said:
On what basis do you make that statement? I find that sort of comment repulsiveJason said:I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.
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?
0 -
"Next permanent leader" does sound a slight oxymoron.
It does also suggest the possibility that there will be no successor to Corbyn, as the party splits post election...0 -
+1 the only question being fought over is who keeps the name....Jason said:
Is it tenacity in the conventional sense though? It's not like he's fighting for the mainstream and a genuine chance to implement what he believes in. Is he not merely taking advantage of a lifelong fantasy of controlling - and shaping - the party he finds himself leader of? To mould Labour into a permanent far left opposition, with little or no interest in becoming a governing party? It's why I agree he won't resign - he's not going to relinquish a once in a lifetime opportunity to wreck his party as a serious electoral force.SimonStClare said:Claiming he won’t stand down and not standing down are two very different things, it remains to be seen what actually happens. On saying that, Corbyn has already demonstrated a tenacity to cling onto the leadership, long after others would have walked, but I still have no idea what he would hope to achieve with a second term.
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.0 -
There's another aspect: who would want the job? You're not looking at someone who might become PM, but at someone who can rebuild the party, a bit like Howard (or dare I say it, Farron). That's a lot of hard work without much reward, and with no guarantee of success.SouthamObserver said:Assuming a challenge to Corbyn when he refuses to resign, you have to ask who will get the 26/27 nominations required from MPs and MEPs to initiate a contest?
Cooper - yes
Starmer - yes
Lewis - unlikely
Miliband - no
Jarvis - possibly
Nandy - yes
Long-Bailey - no
Chuka - probably
Rayner - no
Thornberry - no
Given that Labour members would probably very much like to elect a female leader, the two value bets in that list are Cooper and Nandy. My choice would be Nandy, but I can see why Cooper would be favourite.
Who would want that job, if only for two or three years?0 -
Again, not the point, Why should he resign NOW in the middle of an election campaign before a single vote has been cast ?TheScreamingEagles said:
The country needs a strong opposition, especially during the Brexit deal.
He fails spectacularly on those traits.
Weak oppositions lead to things like the Iraq war.
That's not the same as asking whether he should resign after the election.
0 -
FPT
The Greens had 22 candidates in GE 2015 - will be standing <10 this time around.kle4 said:
Is that fewer than usual? I'm wondering how much the SNP are aided.Scott_P said:This is how to do expectations management...
https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/861920331723935744
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.0 -
Indeed a lot of it will be people who've moved house or this is the first election etc and haven't bothered to register to vote until it becomes necessary to do so. Happens every time, is over-analysed every time.chestnut said:FPT
This happens every year when there is a referendum or election, and the number of registration applications does not equal additional voters. On many occasions they are just duplicates of existing registrations.MTimT said:Questions I posed last night but did not see any answers to. Apparently, over 1 million have signed onto the electoral roll since the announcement of the election.
Is this a sign of unusual levels of intention to vote from previous non-voters? Are the newbies mainly the young? Has anyone looked into the potential impact of this on the make up of the electorate and thus any changes needed to weighting of polls?
PS It seems about 40% of newbies are under 25
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-398379170 -
Can anyone give a political reason (not an ad hominem) why Corbyn should say to himself 'I must go'?
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.0 -
An unfortunate metaphor given her previous with flags...dyedwoolie said:
Agreed, she's nailed her colours to every mast since Blair.SouthamObserver said:
Thornberry is a careerist, not a loyalist. There is no way she would get the nominations needed.Essexit said:
Emily Thornberry at 20/1 is the only one who might offer value - she's a Corbyn loyalist and could conceivably be his anointed successor. She'd be no more appealing to the electorate, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in this contest.Richard_Nabavi said:It's one of the markets where every runner looks like a lay.
0 -
Would assume though that the MPs would be under huge pressure from the CLP membership to at least allow an "heir to Crobyn" on the ballot. Otherwise there could be deselections all over the place. MPs can't ride roughshod over the membership and have a coup.SouthamObserver said:Assuming a challenge to Corbyn when he refuses to resign, you have to ask who will get the 26/27 nominations required from MPs and MEPs to initiate a contest?
Cooper - yes
Starmer - yes
Lewis - unlikely
Miliband - no
Jarvis - possibly
Nandy - yes
Long-Bailey - no
Chuka - probably
Rayner - no
Thornberry - no
Given that Labour members would probably very much like to elect a female leader, the two value bets in that list are Cooper and Nandy. My choice would be Nandy, but I can see why Cooper would be favourite.
0 -
If anything, ideological flexibility might help her get the nominations needed. The membership vote, perhaps not.SouthamObserver said:
Thornberry is a careerist, not a loyalist. There is no way she would get the nominations needed.Essexit said:
Emily Thornberry at 20/1 is the only one who might offer value - she's a Corbyn loyalist and could conceivably be his anointed successor. She'd be no more appealing to the electorate, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in this contest.Richard_Nabavi said:It's one of the markets where every runner looks like a lay.
0 -
Thanks - I reckon it's worth a flutter.Baskerville said:
25/1 on PP but only for small stakes... allowed me £3.80.Essexit said:
Emily Thornberry at 20/1 is the only one who might offer value - she's a Corbyn loyalist and could conceivably be his anointed successor. She'd be no more appealing to the electorate, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in this contest.Richard_Nabavi said:It's one of the markets where every runner looks like a lay.
0 -
Yep, fair enough. Perhaps he's the new-old Militant, with the lunatics now having taken over the asylum.SouthamObserver said:
Corbyn is not Old Labour. He hated Old Labour, which was pro-nuke, pro-NATO, pro-monarchy, pro-patriotism and based squarely in the old trade union movement (not the one we have now). Old Labour was Attlee, Bevan, Healey, Callaghan, Wilson, Castle etc. They would all have regarded Corbyn and his mates with total contempt. Corbyn's verison of Labour has never existed because Labour was always a party that sought power through Parliament. That is not what Corbyn believes in.JosiasJessop said:
Agree with your sentiment about the second sentence, but I think Jason might have a point with his first. It's easy to tell what Corbyn stands for: he's stood for it for years and has scarcely changed. His position is Old Labour (tm). It's familiar, and reassuring to many Labour potential voters, if repulsive to many non-Labourites.MikeSmithson said:
On what basis do you make that statement? I find that sort of comment repulsiveJason said:I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.
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?
I think my point still stands: Corbyn's values are obvious - he's been spouting them for years. What are Cooper's?0 -
Because someone like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson could stop an extinction level event defeat for Labour.stodge said:
Again, not the point, Why should he resign NOW in the middle of an election campaign before a single vote has been cast ?TheScreamingEagles said:
The country needs a strong opposition, especially during the Brexit deal.
He fails spectacularly on those traits.
Weak oppositions lead to things like the Iraq war.
That's not the same as asking whether he should resign after the election.
The Tories think they can take Leeds East, Labour's 77th safest Labour seat.0 -
Because if he stays it might well split the party ?Arthur_Penny said:Can anyone give a political reason (not an ad hominem) why Corbyn should say to himself 'I must go'?
Not that he (or the rest of us, probably) would care.
0 -
On the other hand, a centrist moderate Labour Party might have every chance in 2021 or 2022 against an exhausted May Government.Jason said: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.
0 -
I agree with this. HIPs were also repulsive.Jason said:
I find her furrowed brow and achingly manufactured sincerity repulsive. I find her promise of taking in Syrian refugees into her own household and then flunking her way out of it repulsive. I find her identity politics driven and politically correct sanctimonious bilge repulsive. I'm sure there are many people on my side of the fence you feel equally strongly about. Personally, I couldn't give two hoots.MikeSmithson said:
On what basis do you make that statement? I find that sort of comment repulsiveJason said:I reckon Cooper could do even worse than Corbyn at a general election. She is more repulsive than he is.
0 -
It almost suggests that the problem is the product as much as the personnel.Richard_Nabavi said:It's one of the markets where every runner looks like a lay.
0 -
Cooper didnt' particularly shine when up against Corbyn, Burnham and Kendall last time.0
-
0
-
But if it's a challenge, the PLP will unite around one challenger to maximise chances of success - like they did with Owen Smith.SouthamObserver said:Assuming a challenge to Corbyn when he refuses to resign, you have to ask who will get the 26/27 nominations required from MPs and MEPs to initiate a contest?
Cooper - yes
Starmer - yes
Lewis - unlikely
Miliband - no
Jarvis - possibly
Nandy - yes
Long-Bailey - no
Chuka - probably
Rayner - no
Thornberry - no
Given that Labour members would probably very much like to elect a female leader, the two value bets in that list are Cooper and Nandy. My choice would be Nandy, but I can see why Cooper would be favourite.
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.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
Because someone like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson could stop an extinction level event defeat for Labour.stodge said:
Again, not the point, Why should he resign NOW in the middle of an election campaign before a single vote has been cast ?TheScreamingEagles said:
The country needs a strong opposition, especially during the Brexit deal.
He fails spectacularly on those traits.
Weak oppositions lead to things like the Iraq war.
That's not the same as asking whether he should resign after the election.
The Tories think they can take Leeds East, Labour's 77th safest Labour seat.
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.
0 -
"Bar" looks great value at 25-1 to me, seeing as it includes McIRA, the Abbott and many other loony lefties.0
-
-
There is one way to make sure he goes. Vote him out as an MP.
But somehow can't see it happening.0 -
How could Corbyn go?
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.0 -
Following every GE since 1992, bar one, the losing leader resigned immediately - giving rise to a less than optimal outcome in terms of what followed. The exception, Michael Howard in 2005, allowed time for talent to be nurtured. Cameron succeeded him eventually, which at the time was just what the Tories needed.
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.0 -
I agree. That's basically what I said.MikeL said:
But if it's a challenge, the PLP will unite around one challenger to maximise chances of success - like they did with Owen Smith.SouthamObserver said:Assuming a challenge to Corbyn when he refuses to resign, you have to ask who will get the 26/27 nominations required from MPs and MEPs to initiate a contest?
Cooper - yes
Starmer - yes
Lewis - unlikely
Miliband - no
Jarvis - possibly
Nandy - yes
Long-Bailey - no
Chuka - probably
Rayner - no
Thornberry - no
Given that Labour members would probably very much like to elect a female leader, the two value bets in that list are Cooper and Nandy. My choice would be Nandy, but I can see why Cooper would be favourite.
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.
0 -
He's campaigning in Salford ? Maybe they are just trying to drive up the national vote count.Scott_P said:Labour are so screwed
https://twitter.com/guardianheather/status/8619389350224445440 -
OT "Even though the inevitable CON landslide June 8th is going to change the political environment it is hard to see Labour’s selectorate changing its view and do anything that is not supportive of JC and whoever he nominates to follow him."
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
0 -
Longer standing Labour members that actually volunteer and do constituency work are way more moderate than the keyboard warriors who voted for Corbyn in 2015 and 2016. Owen Smith won among Labour members who joined before 2015, for example. The reason why there are so many moderate/soft left MPs is because you get to be a candidate by winning votes after meetings which people have had to attend in person.PaulM said:
Would assume though that the MPs would be under huge pressure from the CLP membership to at least allow an "heir to Crobyn" on the ballot. Otherwise there could be deselections all over the place. MPs can't ride roughshod over the membership and have a coup.SouthamObserver said:Assuming a challenge to Corbyn when he refuses to resign, you have to ask who will get the 26/27 nominations required from MPs and MEPs to initiate a contest?
Cooper - yes
Starmer - yes
Lewis - unlikely
Miliband - no
Jarvis - possibly
Nandy - yes
Long-Bailey - no
Chuka - probably
Rayner - no
Thornberry - no
Given that Labour members would probably very much like to elect a female leader, the two value bets in that list are Cooper and Nandy. My choice would be Nandy, but I can see why Cooper would be favourite.
0 -
Is there a definitive list of Labour MP's that haven't been tipped on here as next Leader?
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
0 -
let her be leader .shes not leader material.0
-
Cooper isn't spectacular, but looks like a Michael Howard type that could steady the ship. The Tories would be on over 500 seats if she sinks, so I think she'll make it through the great Labour bloodbath of 2017.
Three to one is an awful price though.0 -
Diane Abbott seems to cut through to people who don't pay much attention to politics. Perhaps they should choose her.0
-
So they're going to stand in near enough 600 seats as last time, get around 3% of the vote and once again deliver perhaps 10 more Tory MPs to the House of Commons than would otherwise have got there.dr_spyn said:Lucas and Cable's little plot falls apart.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/8619288267791278080 -
The centrist "Blairs" versus the public sector, trade union representative soundalikes?
They might as well give up.
0 -
Although, if we're going to look outside Parliament for potential Labour leaders, then electorally Andy Burnham should be considered a much better prospect than Sadiq Khan -- Burnham outperformed 1997 Tony Blair in Greater Manchester, whereas Khan could only match Ed Miliband's performance in London.0
-
Some of us have her at 33/1. Although the limit on the bet was pretty lousy.Pulpstar said:Cooper isn't spectacular, but looks like a Michael Howard type that could steady the ship. The Tories would be on over 500 seats if she sinks, so I think she'll make it through the great Labour bloodbath of 2017.
Three to one is an awful price though.0 -
We live in a democracy and people have a right to stand, even if they are bloody annoying.Wulfrun_Phil said:
So they're going to stand in near enough 600 seats as last time, get around 3% of the vote and once again deliver perhaps 10 more Tory MPs to the House of Commons than would otherwise have got there.dr_spyn said:Lucas and Cable's little plot falls apart.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/861928826779127808
We shall see where they are standing after nominations close. My guess is, fewer places than last time.0 -
A few weeks ago, I asked some of PB's great and the good how many people they had backed or laid in this market.
We were all in the 30s.
A truly fun market, especially when I felt smug about backing Becky Long Bailey at 66/1 and others pointed out they had backed her at 350/1 and over 500/1.
So long as David Miliband doesn't win, I love this market.0 -
I remember Tony King coining the phrase in 1997 -"like an asteroid hitting the Earth and wiping out all life". As no one (even Dimbleby) could remember that far back it went over people's heads.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because someone like Yvette Cooper or Tom Watson could stop an extinction level event defeat for Labour.
The Tories think they can take Leeds East, Labour's 77th safest Labour seat.
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.0 -
That may be true. Counter arguments:JosiasJessop said:How could Corbyn go?
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.
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.
0 -
he could of course Leave but maintain free movement, single market, ECJ, etc, etc.Scott_P said:
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.0 -
Surely the question is 'who will be the most left-wing/union friendly' person who will be in the contest? Given the electorate, and the support they can go, then that must be the one with the best chance of winning.
0 -
Might help Aaron get over the line :>TOPPING said:
he could of course Leave but maintain free movement, single market, ECJ, etc, etc.Scott_P said:
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.0 -
Who is placing the bets?
Won't be doing Cooper any favours.0 -
Khan will quickly find himself in trouble if this carries on: http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/08/teenager-becomes-11th-person-to-be-stabbed-to-death-in-london-in-two-weeks-6622481/Danny565 said:Although, if we're going to look outside Parliament for potential Labour leaders, then electorally Andy Burnham should be considered a much better prospect than Sadiq Khan -- Burnham outperformed 1997 Tony Blair in Greater Manchester, whereas Khan could only match Ed Miliband's performance in London.
0 -
"Their thinking is that it is better to be ideologically pure but an election loser than choose anybody with a slightly better chance of becoming PM."
The selectorate voted overwhelmingly for Kinnock in 1983 (who was seen as pretty damn left-wing then) before giving Blair a big victory eleven years later. David Miliband got almost half of the vote in 2010 while Liz Kendall could manage only 4.5%, with her support amongst the 'old guard' members being terrible let alone the sign-ups. The point is that the Labour electorate is fickle and volatile and can be persuaded to vote for candidates on whatever wing of the party. Blair and D Miliband were far better and more seasoned politicians than Kendall and had a better understanding of the Labour selectorate (well, back then they stood for the leadership anyway!). Similarly, Corbyn won the leadership while Diane Abbott didn't even make 10%. Again, because the former (for all of his flaws) is far more capable of appealing to the selectorate than the latter. I think YouGov did a poll fairly recently showing that even a majority of Corbyn supporters wouldn't consider voting for Abbott for leader.
0 -
All good points.SouthamObserver said:
That may be true. Counter arguments:JosiasJessop said:How could Corbyn go?
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.
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.
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.0 -
But lets not stop and search in case it hurts someone's feelingschestnut said:
Khan will quickly find himself in trouble if this carries on: http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/08/teenager-becomes-11th-person-to-be-stabbed-to-death-in-london-in-two-weeks-6622481/Danny565 said:Although, if we're going to look outside Parliament for potential Labour leaders, then electorally Andy Burnham should be considered a much better prospect than Sadiq Khan -- Burnham outperformed 1997 Tony Blair in Greater Manchester, whereas Khan could only match Ed Miliband's performance in London.
0 -
Clive Lewis. Overhead him in a pub.Jonathan said:Who is placing the bets?
Won't be doing Cooper any favours.0
