politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Liz Kendall, virtually unknown 8 weeks ago, in 2nd place in

Good job Sturgeon wasn't an option as preferred Lab leader as she would have walked the poll. Kidding I think.....

Kendall is the triumph of hope over experience. When you know the others are crap it is human nature to vest your hopes in the one you don't know who is going to save you.

Unfortunately she has done or said very little to date to justify that epithet. Presumably the likes of Hopi Sen have a sound basis for their belief being on the inside but she really needs to become more than a void into which people can project their hopes and dreams.

These are sad times for Labour and in my view they are not great times for the country either. A government without a switched on opposition will make more mistakes and correct them less quickly than a government that is being constantly tested and challenged. At the moment there is no effective opposition. This is not a happy state of affairs.

On that point in the BBC program about the fall of Scottish Labour one of the candidates for their leadership, Ken Macintosh, said that Labour's first target was not to win the next Scottish elections but to form an effective and meaningful opposition.

I thought that was spot on. At the moment the SNP are not being held effectively to account for their numerous failures in health and education. No coherent alternative point of view is being put forward. I would of course be delighted if the Tories could fill that gap but I am realistic enough to know that is just not going to happen in terms of numbers. Davidson also has a number of dinosaurs in the Scottish party who slow her down somewhat.

It also seems to me that Ken Macintosh's aspiration is one that the national leadership should also reflect on. Can they form an effective opposition to this government? It is more difficult than it seems. Macintosh made it clear that this would not be opposition for opposition's sake but would require a coherent alternative approach based in the real world and part of an overall strategy. Something Labour completely failed to produce under Ed. Something that gives the people of this country a real choice and keeps the government on its mettle.

DavidL said:

At the moment there is no effective opposition. This is not a happy state of affairs.

Angus Robertson's not doing a bad job!

I see the SNP are going after (a) pensioner's benefits:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136783/Scots-grab-Queen-s-cash-Sturgeon-want-2m-royal-fund-ourselves.html

DavidL said:

On that point in the BBC program about the fall of Scottish Labour one of the candidates for their leadership, Ken Macintosh, said that Labour's first target was not to win the next Scottish elections but to form an effective and meaningful opposition.

I thought that was spot on. At the moment the SNP are not being held effectively to account for their numerous failures in health and education. No coherent alternative point of view is being put forward. I would of course be delighted if the Tories could fill that gap but I am realistic enough to know that is just not going to happen in terms of numbers. Davidson also has a number of dinosaurs in the Scottish party who slow her down somewhat.

It also seems to me that Ken Macintosh's aspiration is one that the national leadership should also reflect on. Can they form an effective opposition to this government? It is more difficult than it seems. Macintosh made it clear that this would not be opposition for opposition's sake but would require a coherent alternative approach based in the real world and part of an overall strategy. Something Labour completely failed to produce under Ed. Something that gives the people of this country a real choice and keeps the government on its mettle.

For as long as the SNP can blame Westminster it will never be held accountable in Scotland. That's why the reforms in the Scotland Act are so important and have to be so carefully thought through.

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Kendall is the triumph of hope over experience. When you know the others are crap it is human nature to vest your hopes in the one you don't know who is going to save you.

Unfortunately she has done or said very little to date to justify that epithet. Presumably the likes of Hopi Sen have a sound basis for their belief being on the inside but she really needs to become more than a void into which people can project their hopes and dreams.

These are sad times for Labour and in my view they are not great times for the country either. A government without a switched on opposition will make more mistakes and correct them less quickly than a government that is being constantly tested and challenged. At the moment there is no effective opposition. This is not a happy state of affairs.

It's no sadder or more terrible than any other time immediately after an opposition party has suffered a bad defeat and is looking to choose a new leader. I cannot think of a recent election in which there was an effective opposition almost immediately after the result. The Tories have a clear run, just as the Coalition did, and Blair did before that, and Major did before that, and Thatcher did before that. Defeated parties retreat into themselves. The key thing is how Labour emerges once it does have a leader. The Tories could help here. The more Tory they become, the more galvanising that will be.

But the declared intention of this government is to do the opposite SO and govern as one nation Conservatives. If they manage to do that (and it will be very difficult whilst introducing welfare cuts of the present size) they will leave Labour nowhere to go in the same way that Blair did to the Tories in the noughties.

I accept every opposition has to take time to regroup but the successful ones such as Blair/Brown and Cameron/Osborne have looked like a potential government very quickly. This leadership campaign does not have that vibe to be honest.

dr_spyn said:

Biting together.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136773/Sturgeon-link-vile-internet-trolls-revealed-SNP-leader-follows-bullies-Twitter-previously-met-one-them.html

The Cybernats will be ruing the day, or at least after The Mail.

Golly, is that the fourth time that piece has been linked to? Such a shame the term for a group of animals indulging in collective behaviour is forbidden. I guess I'll just have to stick with Daily Mail readers.

This poll suggests both Burnham and to a lesser extent Kendall would give Labour a boost relative to Ed Miliband and be net assets for the party, that should worry the Tories as it was Cameron's polling well above his party and Miliband's well below his which helped cost Labour the election. With Cameron not leading the Tories in 2020 that suggests Labour would have a chance of winning with those 2. However the Tories would be less worried by Cooper and certainly Corbyn as the poll figures suggest

Danczuk - a Labour MP I quite like I must admit, naming and shaming

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136208/Labour-peer-Lord-Janner-violated-raped-tortured-children-PARLIAMENT-claims-Simon-Danczuk-bombshell-debate.html

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Kendall is the triumph of hope over experience. When you know the others are crap it is human nature to vest your hopes in the one you don't know who is going to save you.

Unfortunately she has done or said very little to date to justify that epithet. Presumably the likes of Hopi Sen have a sound basis for their belief being on the inside but she really needs to become more than a void into which people can project their hopes and dreams.

These are sad times for Labour and in my view they are not great times for the country either. A government without a switched on opposition will make more mistakes and correct them less quickly than a government that is being constantly tested and challenged. At the moment there is no effective opposition. This is not a happy state of affairs.

It's no sadder or more terrible than any other time immediately after an opposition party has suffered a bad defeat and is looking to choose a new leader. I cannot think of a recent election in which there was an effective opposition almost immediately after the result. The Tories have a clear run, just as the Coalition did, and Blair did before that, and Major did before that, and Thatcher did before that. Defeated parties retreat into themselves. The key thing is how Labour emerges once it does have a leader. The Tories could help here. The more Tory they become, the more galvanising that will be.

But the declared intention of this government is to do the opposite SO and govern as one nation Conservatives. If they manage to do that (and it will be very difficult whilst introducing welfare cuts of the present size) they will leave Labour nowhere to go in the same way that Blair did to the Tories in the noughties.

I accept every opposition has to take time to regroup but the successful ones such as Blair/Brown and Cameron/Osborne have looked like a potential government very quickly. This leadership campaign does not have that vibe to be honest.

Declared intentions are one thing, outcomes are another. If the Tories succeed then it does not matter about the opposition, they will continue to win. But those cuts are going to be huge and will have a major impact on a lot of people. They were not fully explained or examined during the election, so may come as a surprise to a fair few voters. I don't think you can judge a general vibe less than two months after a GE has take place. There are plenty of events to come. I believe that unless Corbyn somehow ends up winning Labour will have their best leader since Blair. That may not be saying much, but it is a start.

Financier Even Blair did not sever the link with the unions, Burnham has shored up his core vote and is now moving to the centre, saying Labour overspent, there need to be some welfare cuts and the Mansion Tax was wrong etc He has most potential to appeal to Scotland and win over floating voters which is the gap the ideal leader would bridge, Kendall would do the latter too but less chance of the former

Theuniondivvie said:

dr_spyn said:

Biting together.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136773/Sturgeon-link-vile-internet-trolls-revealed-SNP-leader-follows-bullies-Twitter-previously-met-one-them.html

The Cybernats will be ruing the day, or at least after The Mail.

Such a shame the term for a group of animals indulging in collective behaviour is forbidden.

Cybernats?

SO Indeed, but even if the Tories finally sort the deficit by 2020 and the economy is doing OK that does not mean they will win if voters want a change and prefer the Labour leader as 1997 proved, who knows what divisions Osborne or whoever will have to deal with post EU ref

Morning all. Interesting polling on the candidates, looks like it could be between Burnham and Kendall among the general public. Of note is that there are very few associate and Union members registered for the election than in 2010, so could be much more down to the 'full' membership who clearly voted for David Miliband last time out.

Also a really good last thread from Tissue Price about odds compilation. Thanks.

HYUFD said:

SO Indeed, but even if the Tories finally sort the deficit by 2020 and the economy is doing OK that does not mean they will win if voters want a change and prefer the Labour leader as 1997 proved, who knows what divisions Osborne or whoever will have to deal with post EU ref

Yes, the EU referendum is going to dominate the next couple of years. Cameron and the next Tory leader are going to have a big job on their hands to keep the party together, especially if the result is close one way or the other.

I see that one Greek in Milo Yiannopolous holds little sympathy for his tax-evading countrymen.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/23/is-anyone-honestly-surprised-that-greeks-dont-pay-their-debts/

Sandpit Indeed, the nightmare result for the Tories and the best for UKIP is a narrow In

I think Burnham as leader would be a big improvement on Ed Miliband. Miliband was too nerdy and wonkish from the start, I could never see him as PM (although the polls tested my nerve....). Burnham's problem - whether true or not - is being seen as the Union's choice - if the Tories get to paint him as continuity-Miliband then Labour have a problem.

I think Labour would be best served picking a female leader anyway. Kendall is new and interesting and Cooper has always been a classy, intelligent act. For starters it would be historic for Labour to elect a full-time female leader and a female would be harder for the Tory machine/right wing press to knock about.

If I were a Labour supporter I'd personally go with Yvette Cooper because - for all Kendall's merits - she will struggle to win much back in Scotland.

And therein lies Labour's starkest problem - finding a leader who can bridge the need to win back middle England voters while at the same time winning back the lefties in Scotland. Not an easy task.

Amazing to think that only a year ago it was the Tories facing the supposed existential crisis of its right flank splitting with UKIP. So much can change in politics so quickly. Labour will be hoping thinks change as quickly for them.

Their biggest hope by 2020 will be an unpopular, tired Tory party and the electorate's desire for a change.

Fenster Very good summary, though I think once voters decide they think a leader is OK it is difficult for their opponents to tar them, see Blair and 'demon eyes', anyway got to go

Fenster said:

I think Burnham as leader would be a big improvement on Ed Miliband. Miliband was too nerdy and wonkish from the start, I could never see him as PM (although the polls tested my nerve....). Burnham's problem - whether true or not - is being seen as the Union's choice - if the Tories get to paint him as continuity-Miliband then Labour have a problem.

I think Labour would be best served picking a female leader anyway. Kendall is new and interesting and Cooper has always been a classy, intelligent act. For starters it would be historic for Labour to elect a full-time female leader and a female would be harder for the Tory machine/right wing press to knock about.

If I were a Labour supporter I'd personally go with Yvette Cooper because - for all Kendall's merits - she will struggle to win much back in Scotland.

And therein lies Labour's starkest problem - finding a leader who can bridge the need to win back middle England voters while at the same time winning back the lefties in Scotland. Not an easy task.

Amazing to think that only a year ago it was the Tories facing the supposed existential crisis of its right flank splitting with UKIP. So much can change in politics so quickly. Labour will be hoping thinks change as quickly for them.

Their biggest hope by 2020 will be an unpopular, tired Tory party and the electorate's desire for a change.

My money is still mainly on Cooper, but I'm covered if Kendal wins as well. I'm sticking to the view that front runners rarely win in the end.

Even five years ago, I thought Labour were very complacent, to think they had all their voters from 2010 in the bag, and they only needed one third of Lib Dems to win.

Fenster said:

I think Burnham as leader would be a big improvement on Ed Miliband. Miliband was too nerdy and wonkish from the start, I could never see him as PM (although the polls tested my nerve....). Burnham's problem - whether true or not - is being seen as the Union's choice - if the Tories get to paint him as continuity-Miliband then Labour have a problem.

I think Labour would be best served picking a female leader anyway. Kendall is new and interesting and Cooper has always been a classy, intelligent act. For starters it would be historic for Labour to elect a full-time female leader and a female would be harder for the Tory machine/right wing press to knock about.

If I were a Labour supporter I'd personally go with Yvette Cooper because - for all Kendall's merits - she will struggle to win much back in Scotland.

And therein lies Labour's starkest problem - finding a leader who can bridge the need to win back middle England voters while at the same time winning back the lefties in Scotland. Not an easy task.

That's a fair analysis. I think the English vote probably has to get priority, though - Scotland will remain very difficult until the SNP screw up, as all parties eventually do, and when push comes to shove the Scottish MPs aren't going to keep the Tories in office.

JEO said:

I think the mainstream membership has moved left after five years of cuts, however. I don't think David Miliband would be as popular with the membership now had he been accepting austerity for five years.

A bit surprised by that. My impression is that the membership has moved towards the centre, mainly because they're bored with constantly losing - cf. in different ways Danny565, Southam and Sandy Rentool here. The Corbyn campaign has a valedictory flavour about it - left-wing people think of the excitement they had with the Tony Benn insurgency, and enjoy the revisit, but I don't think anyone is treating it as a serious challenge. Mostly members see it as Andy=likeable and down to earth, Yvette=experienced and poised, Liz=might get floating votes. If Andy can add "might get floating votes" to his package with polls like these, he'll swing it.

It's important to try to visualise the position in 2020. The Tories will have a new leader, probably a mainstream "steady as we go" type like Hammond or May (if it's Boris, all bets are off as he'll either soar or crash), but a record of economic pain and a lot of quarrelling about Europe. We need have someone who can credibly say that they're not interested in all that European stuff, what matters is how the lives of ordinary people improve. Being seen as down to earth to going to be important - people gave Ed credit for being concerned about ordinary people, but not for really understanding them.

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

IA Pensioners always vote for the Tories, young people generally Labour and there is always a turnout gap, it is the middle aged who win elections

Neither my wife and I, nor many of our friends, all OAP's, vote Tory. Never have, never will.

(snip)

How do you know? This sounds rather like 'never kissed a Tory'. Are you sure that you're not so strident in your views that people just cough politely and say, "no, never"?

And if it is true, perhaps you should broaden your social horizons a little from your little echo chamber.

It is the 'never have. never will' bit that sounds particularly unbelievable.

logical_song said:

Financier said:

O/T Global dewarming?

Met Office’s Hadley Centre, which looks at long term forecasts, said there was a 15-20 per cent chance that we could match the temperatures last seen in 1645-1715 – sometimes called the Little Ice Age - when the River Thames froze over.

This could take place at some point within the next 40 years.

The prediction is based on counting sun spots – dark patches on the sun – that are hot spots and signs of increased solar activity.

The decrease in the sun’s heat is known as a ‘Maunder minimum’ after Walter Maunder - the astronomer who first noted sunspots were at their lowest during the cold period between 1645 and 1715.

Studies by the Met Office and others have found a decrease in sun spots - suggesting the sun may be going through a cooler phase.

The cooling effect is expected to be strongest in northern Europe, the UK and eastern parts of North America - particularly during winter. For example, for northern Europe the cooling is in the range -0.4 to -0.8 °C.

This is because computer simulations predict a big fall in solar activity would disrupt winds and suck cold air southwards from the Arctic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136780/

It would be good to be given a partial breathing space by pure chance.

Not sure it would be "good" to have the kind of winter's they had in the depth's of the Little Ice Age!

Vastly more people will suffer and die in a colder period than will suffer and die in the relatively modest warming climate everyone is wringing their hands about,,,

Good morning, everyone.

Miss Plato, any idea how many were trained up?

Plato said:

Given that it'll take many decades for any supposed significant increase in temps to occur - people can MOVE!

Golly, how bizarre. Migration - what's that??!! Not just sitting there and drowning in 250yrs time.

GIN1138 said:

logical_song said:

Financier said:

O/T Global dewarming?

Met Office’s Hadley Centre, which looks at long term forecasts, said there was a 15-20 per cent chance that we could match the temperatures last seen in 1645-1715 – sometimes called the Little Ice Age - when the River Thames froze over.

This could take place at some point within the next 40 years.

The prediction is based on counting sun spots – dark patches on the sun – that are hot spots and signs of increased solar activity.

The decrease in the sun’s heat is known as a ‘Maunder minimum’ after Walter Maunder - the astronomer who first noted sunspots were at their lowest during the cold period between 1645 and 1715.

Studies by the Met Office and others have found a decrease in sun spots - suggesting the sun may be going through a cooler phase.

The cooling effect is expected to be strongest in northern Europe, the UK and eastern parts of North America - particularly during winter. For example, for northern Europe the cooling is in the range -0.4 to -0.8 °C.

This is because computer simulations predict a big fall in solar activity would disrupt winds and suck cold air southwards from the Arctic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136780/

It would be good to be given a partial breathing space by pure chance.

Not sure it would be "good" to have the kind of winter's they had in the depth's of the Little Ice Age!

Vastly more people will suffer and die in a colder period than will suffer and die in the relatively modest warming climate everyone is wringing their hands about,,,

Yeah.

Warm things up to 2C and... For most parts of the world it's manageable (if a little uncomfortable in places)

Cool things down by 2C in the major population regions of Europe, Asia and North America and your talking about tremendous hardship and suffering - Especially given "the west" is set on making heat and fuel as expensive as it possibly can.

Bit late, but a rambly round-up of some E3 stuff that caught my eye is up here:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/e3-round-up.html

Mostly Fallout 4.

Mr. Gin, giant icicles dangling from wind turbines will only enhance their efficiency

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/is-andy-burnham-most-likely-to-boost-labours-election-chances/

"Kendall scored highly among young voters, with 43% of the 18-24 year olds bracket believing she was Labour’s best electoral asset. Cooper is favoured among more women than men, while Burnham shows strong support in the North West."

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/its-not-voter-id-or-community-organising-its-a-question-of-how-we-do-both/ by Stella Creasey

calum said:

William Hill have opened the SLAB leader market - Kezia 1/7 and Ken 4/1.

That is depressing. From the little I have seen of her if Kezia is the answer SLAB are still asking the wrong questions.

DavidL said:

calum said:

William Hill have opened the SLAB leader market - Kezia 1/7 and Ken 4/1.

That is depressing. From the little I have seen of her if Kezia is the answer SLAB are still asking the wrong questions.

I couldn't agree more, Kezia did disclose during an interview at the weekend that SLAB have around 15,000 members, I've put £50 on Ken as Kezia is certainly the establishment candidate but how will she go down with the wider membership ?

OldKingCole said:

SquareRoot said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

IA Pensioners always vote for the Tories, young people generally Labour and there is always a turnout gap, it is the middle aged who win elections

Neither my wife and I, nor many of our friends, all OAP's, vote Tory. Never have, never will.

One matter which concerns us is what current Conservative policies will do to our children, grandchildren, and even worse, great-grandchildren.

Well OKC. A much better chance than under the warmonger Blair, bonkers Brown who busted Britain and then the unelectable, weird lefty Ed Miliband..

You should be damned grateful.

Jumping to conclusions again SqR!

The Tories enthusiastically supported Blair over Iraq; probably wouldn't even have a vote in the House on the matter! If they'd backed the late lamented Charlie Kennedy, with the Labour rebels, the Iraq War would probably, as far as the UK was concerned, have been someone else's fight!

Secondly the last election, as I've said before wasn't so much won by the Tories but lost by Labour in Scotland. And the SNP was used as a bogeyman by Crosby et al in marginal and LD seats, as Mr Mark has made plain.

Brown's big mistake of course was to trust the criminal banking fraternity.

I thought it a fair answer. Labour have screwed GBPLC royally and they are now suffering the consequences. As I said, you should be damned grateful the Tories are clearing up the mess left after 13 yrs of Labour misrule and doubly thankful the electorate were sensible enough to say no to Ed.

Talking of graphs, here's one:

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2015/01/blogs/free-exchange/20150131_woc808.png

You can see how the state pension creates a mass of pensioners on a sustainable but not generous income. Which is of course what it is designed to do.

Theuniondivvie said:

SquareRoot said:

Theuniondivvie said:

dr_spyn said:

Biting together.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136773/Sturgeon-link-vile-internet-trolls-revealed-SNP-leader-follows-bullies-Twitter-previously-met-one-them.html

The Cybernats will be ruing the day, or at least after The Mail.

Golly, is that the fourth time that piece has been linked to? Such a shame the term for a group of animals indulging in collective behaviour is forbidden. I guess I'll just have to stick with Daily Mail readers.

I think you have made it the fifth.

I think you don't know the difference between consciously linking to an article and quoting a post that links to same article. In the latter case the echo chamber is well into double figures.

There have been at least a couple of other SNP troll exposees that I have missed through not being around for a few days.

More "Quislings", I see.

Is there a single constituency in Scotland which didn't have an SNP official spearheading the abuse campaign?

It is all coming out, so why doesn't SNP-central just publish a list ? This way is just tedious.

DavidL said:

Plato said:

He's from Liverpool, donchaknow [this is my Andy Emoticon face]

Slackbladder said:

Financier said:

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/is-andy-burnham-most-likely-to-boost-labours-election-chances/

"Kendall scored highly among young voters, with 43% of the 18-24 year olds bracket believing she was Labour’s best electoral asset. Cooper is favoured among more women than men, while Burnham shows strong support in the North West."

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/its-not-voter-id-or-community-organising-its-a-question-of-how-we-do-both/ by Stella Creasey

'while Burnham shows strong support in the North West.'

Not really where he needs to be strong....

Ah but he is a bit more with it because he is an Evertonian. It is a bit like middle aged business men who choose Audis instead of BMWs to show how radically non conformist they are.

Not really. You choose your football team a long time before you hit middle age and in a place like Liverpool it will be a family thing. Going with Everton in the late 70s/early 80s was rather like going with Spurs now if you live in North London.

Financier said:

Kendall is the only one of the four offering any new ideas or even a spark of vision. The other three are just retreading old and failed policies and are not using their brains or even showing any evidence of having any.

The next debate could be interesting - anyone know when it is?

I agree. Kendall is the only one not circling the Labour plughole. Though Burnham is the best of the rest. Cooper is dire both presentationally and through her decade of underperformance as a minister.

I think there is a debate on Sunday Politics 19th July. There are plenty of hustings too.

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Plato said:

He's from Liverpool, donchaknow [this is my Andy Emoticon face]

Slackbladder said:

Financier said:

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/is-andy-burnham-most-likely-to-boost-labours-election-chances/

"Kendall scored highly among young voters, with 43% of the 18-24 year olds bracket believing she was Labour’s best electoral asset. Cooper is favoured among more women than men, while Burnham shows strong support in the North West."

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/its-not-voter-id-or-community-organising-its-a-question-of-how-we-do-both/ by Stella Creasey

'while Burnham shows strong support in the North West.'

Not really where he needs to be strong....

Ah but he is a bit more with it because he is an Evertonian. It is a bit like middle aged business men who choose Audis instead of BMWs to show how radically non conformist they are.

Not really. You choose your football team a long time before you hit middle age and in a place like Liverpool it will be a family thing. Going with Everton in the late 70s/early 80s was rather like going with Spurs now if you live in North London.

Mike Lyons and the 10 dwarfs.