politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour is paying a price for its elongated leadership conte

SandyRentool said:

So FPTP with only two candidates is a form of AV? I guess so.

You can only mark 'ONE' X on your ballot though!

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.

The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates

We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.

Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.

Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?

But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.

They did cast MANY votes.

But not ALL in the SAME round!

williamglenn said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.

The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates

We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.

Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.

Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?

But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.

I think you're being a bit obtuse. You can think of an exhaustive ballot as a form of AV in which the electorate gets a peak at the results before declaring their second preference.

But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

Was two separate FPTP ballots, with a third if you include the final membership (Dave v David).

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

So FPTP with only two candidates is a form of AV? I guess so.

You can only mark 'ONE' X on your ballot though!

You can put 1 next to your first preference and 2 next to your second preference. Any Returning Officer worth his salt would count it accordingly and redistribute your preference if required.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

That's an irrelevant point. A single voter can vote for more than one candidate in an exhaustive ballot process. The significant differences between this and AV are that the voters can see the lay of the land at each stage and can change their vote. Apart from that, AV just compresses the process into a single blind ballot.

HurstLlama said:

The_Apocalypse said:

HurstLlama said:

The_Apocalypse said:

HurstLlama said:

The_Apocalypse said:

HurstLlama said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@HurstLlama

My comment was less on the tax credit changes, and more on the general attitude I've seen from some Conservatives, so you can calm down now.

@JEO I bet most people are not happy to get sh*t wages. And on 'live to work' see my comment to HurstLlama.

If you don't want people to take the consequences of their own decisions you should just say so.

So in other words, if people are poor it's their own fault. Well, that's not what the Tories' said in May....

What the Tories said in May is no concern of mine, what a person does for a living and their level of income is mostly a factor of decisions they have made on top of the decisions their parents have made. Mr. Observer, gent of this parish, comes, from what he has posted on here, from a very modest background and now, also from what he has posted on here, earns a very substantial income. What decisions lay behind that change of circumstance? I dunno, ask him and those like him. I doubt the answer will be income support.

So you believe that if people are poor it's all their fault. A very Victorian view, if I may so. You must regret not only the existence of a welfare state, but also the NHS, state-funded education and so on. After all, self-reliant folk should be able to buy their own health insurance, and their own child's education, surely not?

Read Mr.Observer's post below.

I've read it. It doesn't appear to support your POV.

Try reading it again and think about what he said.

Now I am off for my afternoon walk. Thanks for the conversation.

P.S. In another post you complained about another poster putting words into your mouth, may I suggest you could, with some expectation of gain, do well to reflect on Matthew Chapter 7 verse 3.

On your last point: I'm not religious.

Being patronising doesn't really add to your argument.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.

The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates

We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.

Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.

Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?

But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.

They did cast MANY votes.

But not ALL in the SAME round!

A multi-round AV election isn't possible.

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.

The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates

We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.

Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.

Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?

But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.

They did cast MANY votes.

But not ALL in the SAME round!

No, they ALL voted in the SAME round.

They didn't cast all their votes in the same round!

Was two separate FPTP ballots, with a final membership FPTP round for Dave v. David.

antifrank said:

Quick quiz, no cheating. Who said this today?

"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.

On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.

Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."

Andy Burnham???

MrsB said:

The system the Tories use to elect their leader is called the exhaustive ballot. The system the Labour party are using is called the exhausting ballot.

I'll get my coat.

That was actually quite funny! (Sorry of I missed it, but who did you vote for, if at all)?

We've dropped Ballance and picked the Ginger run machine Jonny Bairstow, Prince of Yorkshire

I wish they'd pick Rashid. Give us more variation in attack, and from what Lyth and Bell are up to, we wouldn;t exactly be losing in the runs department.

williamglenn said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.

The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates

We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.

Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.

Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?

But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.

I think you're being a bit obtuse. You can think of an exhaustive ballot as a form of AV in which the electorate gets a peak at the results before declaring their second preference.

More fundamentally - you can change your vote from round 1 to round 2 *even if your first selection is still in the race*

antifrank said:

Tissue_Price said:

antifrank said:

Quick quiz, no cheating. Who said this today?

"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.

On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.

Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."

*Buzz* Were they on TMS at the weekend?

You're no fun.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8033acf4-2c8d-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz3gRmsjkid

He did go on to say that he would be voting for In.

I thought it was a very well-argued piece.

Yes, it was. As I see it the potential problems for the pro-Europeans are (a) their support for UK entry into the Euro (b) the fact that being a good pro-European under Blair mostly seemed to involve obeying every EU diktat whilst Club Med cheerfully ignored them and (c) they have been too trusting in the EU to deliver their half of a bargain - qv. the CAP.

Think we might end up with another 55-45 result :-)

This has been a very helpful (from my perspective) conversation on here today. Thanks to all Tory posters for their explanations on benefits etc. I don't agree with you, but I do get the point you are making. I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making. I worry that lines in the sand harm too many blameless people and that long term this damages the society of which we are all a part. This is no doubt based on my own experience. I have seen people make lifestyle choices around benefits - they were doing it back in the 80s and clearly do it now - but my sense is that the vast majority access welfare because they have no other choice, not because of decisions they have made but because of what life has thrown at them. I am pretty certain that had I found myself unemployed today, I would not have had the time and space to get myself back on my feet in the way that I was able to back in the 90s during the time of the Major government. And that would have been a complete waste for me, my family and, as it turns out, for a lot of other people too.

Lennon said:

williamglenn said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

In all fairness to Labour, the Tory leadership election of 2005 lasted seven months and was conducted under a form of AV and that turned out brilliantly for the Tories.

The current Labour problems is more a reflection of the crapness of their candidates

We've been through this before. It's NOT a "form of AV". It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote.

Rod said last night it was, and he's very knowledgable about this topic.

Crosby? He's wrong in this case. I repeat: It's called an "Exhaustive Ballot". During each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

I dunno Sunil, sounds quite a lot like AV to me. Preferences and eliminations and all that. Surely the exact detail won't make much odds anyway?

But unlike AV, during each round, Tory MPs had only ONE vote. They could NOT vote for more than ONE candidate, as you can in AV.

With AV, you cast MANY votes in order of preference, depending on how many people are standing.

I think you're being a bit obtuse. You can think of an exhaustive ballot as a form of AV in which the electorate gets a peak at the results before declaring their second preference.

More fundamentally - you can change your vote from round 1 to round 2 *even if your first selection is still in the race*

...which you can't do in AV, as you cast your preferences all at once...

Tissue_Price said:

antifrank said:

Tissue_Price said:

antifrank said:

Quick quiz, no cheating. Who said this today?

"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.

On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.

Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."

*Buzz* Were they on TMS at the weekend?

You're no fun.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8033acf4-2c8d-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz3gRmsjkid

He did go on to say that he would be voting for In.

I thought it was a very well-argued piece.

Yes, it was. As I see it the potential problems for the pro-Europeans is (a) their support for UK entry into the Euro and (b) the fact that being a good pro-European under Blair mostly seemed to involve obeying every EU diktat whilst Club Med cheerfully ignored them and trusting the EU to deliver their half of a bargain - qv. the CAP.

Think we might end up with another 55-45 result :-)

Can we not call them pro-Europeans? I am not anti-the continent of Europe or the people that live there. I am merely against a supranational organisation that resides there.

MrsB said:

The system the Tories use to elect their leader is called the exhaustive ballot. The system the Labour party are using is called the exhausting ballot.

I'll get my coat.

Labour's system is stupid. The tories sensible.
There is nothing wrong with having a series of 'knock out ballots' - like the tories to get to a final two who also rank some level of confidence in elected MPs. Each ballot is different and the choices are clear.
But labour turn their ballot into a guessing game where you have no idea how effective any second preferences are going to be and who that second preference might in reality be campaingning against since everyone else is in the same boat.
The logic of the parliamentary party at least having some control is kicked into touch when the ty nominate someone they do not actually want to win!
If this is the way they run their own party then keep them away from running the country

TGOHF said:

Was this the 24hrs wot won it for Corbyn ?

It might have been the 24hrs that lost it for Burnham.

''I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making.''

This is 100% correct Mr Observer. I think all politicians, but especially labour ones, need to do plenty of hard thinking on Welfare, and some aggressive re-defining.

In cutting benefits the tories are, as RN admitted, affecting some deserving low paid workers for a short time.

In defending the status quo, however, labour are also defending some pretty glaring anomalies and practices.

The_Apocalypse said:

taffys said:

''You've seen some of them, but quite why a modestly-paid worker in, say, Milton Keynes should be subsidising through her taxes the cleaning bill of City offices is a bit unclear, is it not?''

True I suppose, but it remains to be seen whether the private sector will be able to take up the tax credit slack, even when compelled to by law.

I think low paid workers are, in many cases, bloody amazing. It's difficult to praise them without sounding patronising.

Agreed. A lot of PB Tories react in a negative way to the accusation that the Tories don't care about the poor, but comments' on here today, hardly contradict that view. I'm beginning to think that some believe only middle class Tories, and rich 'wealth creators' contribute anything to this country.

The poor create the wealth of the rich.

SouthamObserver said:

This has been a very helpful (from my perspective) conversation on here today. Thanks to all Tory posters for their explanations on benefits etc. I don't agree with you, but I do get the point you are making. I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making. I worry that lines in the sand harm too many blameless people and that long term this damages the society of which we are all a part. This is no doubt based on my own experience. I have seen people make lifestyle choices around benefits - they were doing it back in the 80s and clearly do it now - but my sense is that the vast majority access welfare because they have no other choice, not because of decisions they have made but because of what life has thrown at them. I am pretty certain that had I found myself unemployed today, I would not have had the time and space to get myself back on my feet in the way that I was able to back in the 90s during the time of the Major government. And that would have been a complete waste for me, my family and, as it turns out, for a lot of other people too.

SO - I very much agree with your sentiments - however we all have to live according to the circumstances of the times. The problem always comes when overgenerous benefits, which should never have been given in the first place, have for economic necessity to be reduced or withdrawn. It did not happen in 2010, as it should have, due to there being a coalition.

It would appear that many agree that children, whilst a personal joy, are the economic responsibility of the parents and not the state. Personally I was always unhappy about child benefits - which were often not spent for the benefit of the children - and did not agree with child tax credits.

Other European countries only give any form of child support for the first three years of its life and seem to manage perfectly well.

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

So you voted in two different party elections this year?

''Personally I was always unhappy about child benefits - which were often not spent for the benefit of the children - and did not agree with child tax credits.''

The Philpott case showed the glaring weaknesses of that system.

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

Is this a temporary allegiance?

As OGH thinks "Burnham is fool", I guess he'll be voting for him to inflict the maximum harm....

Scott_P said:

williamglenn said:

The significant differences between this and AV are that the voters can see the lay of the land at each stage and can change their vote. Apart from that, AV just compresses the process into a single blind ballot.

No

In AV you can end up having voted for nobody. That is less likely (although technically feasible) in an exhaustive ballot

Not if you fulfill all your preferences you can't.

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

So I'll be the only PBer who won't be voting in the Labour leadership election ?

MarqueeMark said:

As OGH thinks "Burnham is fool", I guess he'll be voting for him to inflict the maximum harm....

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

So you voted in two different party elections this year?

Not so long ago I voted in a Tory open primary in Bedford to select their candidate for mayor. I always seem to back losers.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

So I'll be the only PBer who won't be voting in the Labour leadership election ?

I too am standing firm in the face of great temptation.

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF said:

Was this the 24hrs wot won it for Corbyn ?

Osborne looks to be making every announcement he can to give Corbyn the boost. Maybe the Treasury put a few million on him at 250-1?

Corbyn would be the first left winger to to wipe out the deficit if they did. (Brown followed tory spending plans if course)

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

So I'll be the only PBer who won't be voting in the Labour leadership election ?

I won't be voting either, but I'd advise Labour to vote for a woman. Yvette Cooper I'd go for..

I think there's mileage in Labour pushing the Tory anti-woman agenda; it's worth a bash. Considering their current malaise, they have to try something!

@Sunil I voted for Farron, of course.
Very very powerful public speaker. Manages to speak human. And knows what he stands for.
Lamb almost as good, but not as charismatic.
Labour have lost their way IMHO. Instead of knowing what they stand for and showing some leadership by setting out to convince the public, they are trying to follow the public, and as the public are a fickle lot capable of holding umpteen contradictory opinionssimultaneously between them, that means the Labour party bob about helplessly.

To those of you who are about to post something rude about Lib Dems and principles, the point about being in a coalition is that neither side can get exactly what it wants. Why not attack the Tories for giving in to us and going against their principles on tax thresholds, pension triple lock, apprenticeships, snoopers charter, Beecroft etc etc.
Since the Tories started governing by themselves they have scrapped the care cap that arose out of Dilnot while pretending they were listening to councils, scuppered social housing while pretending they are helping it, cut the incomes of the lowest earners in work while pretending they are introducing decent pay, cancelled a load of investment outside London, and set out creating more privileges for the better off, such as on inheritance tax, while restricting even further the rights of people to strike. And on top of all that, they are gaming the political system to try to ensure they are in government for perpetuity. And some of it they are doing purely to set political traps.
Some of you are celebrating all that. The Labour party has its head up its arse, and the SNP are only interested in using the situation to get independence for Scotland. Nobody knows what the NI MPs will do. Which leaves 8 Lib Dems and Caroline Lucas to counter them

I've depressed myself now. Think I'll go for a lie down.

Fenster said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

So I'll be the only PBer who won't be voting in the Labour leadership election ?

I won't be voting either, but I'd advise Labour to vote for a woman. Yvette Cooper I'd go for..

I think there's mileage in Labour pushing the Tory anti-woman agenda; it's worth a bash. Considering their current malaise, they have to try something!

Yes that will work. Yvette might become the first female Leader of the Opposition.. Err...

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

I wonder how long before one of those who thought your General Election vote swap was a wizard wheeze comes along to cry foul?

Labour are idiots. Do they REALLY need £3 that badly, that they will prostitute the identity of their next leader for it? I just find it bizarre that they didn't limit the vote to those who were members on election day.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

So I'll be the only PBer who won't be voting in the Labour leadership election ?

I won't be voting either - I need to atone for already voting for Labour once this year

You can atone by voting Corbyn, Burnham, Cooper and Kendall in that order.

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

I wonder how long before one of those who thought your General Election vote swap was a wizard wheeze comes along to cry foul?

Labour are idiots. Do they REALLY need £3 that badly, that they will prostitute the identity of their next leader for it? I just find it bizarre that they didn't limit the vote to those who were members on election day.

I know only three people who are members of the Labour Party - well, three people who will admit to it. One is a Green-ish nurse, another works for a charity and the other, my cousin, is a teacher. They're each voting for different people - the first for Corbyn, the second for Cooper, and the third for Burnham (well, unless he changes his mind - he was already cheering for Chuka and Tristram, so it wouldn't surprise me). I find this impossible to call - other than to guess that Burnham will be squeezed out after last night. If I were a member or supporter of a party for this dreadful election system, I would vote for one candidate as a protest.

Pretty bad how easy it is to vote - iirc the last Tory leadership election required pre-2005 election membership. Every Tory I knew, apart from my
Express reading Grandmother, voted Cameron. It was cut and dried.

MarqueeMark said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've now spent my £3 and have completed my registration to vote in the LAB leadership contest.

I wonder how long before one of those who thought your General Election vote swap was a wizard wheeze comes along to cry foul?

Labour are idiots. Do they REALLY need £3 that badly, that they will prostitute the identity of their next leader for it? I just find it bizarre that they didn't limit the vote to those who were members on election day.

It may be the same thinking that gave us open primaries for candidate selection.

All because there was no limit on how many kids the state funded and (then) no cap on benefits.

I read some of the kids were packed in like sardines in the clothes they wore during the day.

Don;t tell me all the money was going on them.

JEO said:

SouthamObserver said:

This has been a very helpful (from my perspective) conversation on here today. Thanks to all Tory posters for their explanations on benefits etc. I don't agree with you, but I do get the point you are making. I guess I think that there is a lot of grey and a lot of nuance around welfare and that this needs to be reflected in policy making. I worry that lines in the sand harm too many blameless people and that long term this damages the society of which we are all a part. This is no doubt based on my own experience. I have seen people make lifestyle choices around benefits - they were doing it back in the 80s and clearly do it now - but my sense is that the vast majority access welfare because they have no other choice, not because of decisions they have made but because of what life has thrown at them. I am pretty certain that had I found myself unemployed today, I would not have had the time and space to get myself back on my feet in the way that I was able to back in the 90s during the time of the Major government. And that would have been a complete waste for me, my family and, as it turns out, for a lot of other people too.

Thank you for this post. It does you credit. It also gets us to the point where we can debate the more detailed nuances of policy for the common good, rather than screaming at each other and pretending the other side holds an absolute position.

I completely understand the concerns about reducing incomes on working people who are not earning much, even if some of them are not working full time. But politics is the world of making difficult trade-offs, and the well-being of such workers has to be balanced against any poor incentives it provides them, in addition to not spend beyond our means as a nation. I think George Osborne is there, or thereabouts, although there is room for improvement. Personally, I think the council housing system is a mess, and there's ample room for efficiency savings or getting more revenue there, which could provide funds to lessen the impact on the working poor.

Hear, hear!

Your arguments always rise above the Labour rabble, SO.

Incidentally, I find the most vocal supporters of welfare are often those who have never encountered it themselves. Those who have tend to be quiet but not unthinking supporters. The most vocal opponents of the status quo I've encountered, and I include myself in this, are those who see their own extended families and friends use the state to make lifestyle decisions whilst they work. I think, in a way, my own railing against it owes something to the melancholy mix of shame, sadness and distaste I feel about this.

England ladies beat the Aussies by 4 wickets with 4 overs to spare in their 1 dayer.

Casino_Royale said:

I'm not registering to vote in the Labour leadership election either. I don't want to run the slightest risk that someone somewhere might think that I'm a supporter of the Labour Party.

Nor do I wish to give them £3 or receive their emails from now until eternity or have any modicum of responsibility for the result. I also don't think it's the right thing to do.

Labour need to make their own decision and own this.

I'm with you, CR. Presumably as it is Labour, they need to own it and weaponise it, too?

:-)

antifrank said:

I'm not voting in the Labour leadership election, nor am I in the slightest bit tempted to do so. It's not my business.

Ditto. - I regarded The James Kirkup article in the Telegraph as a wind-up – not a call to arms.

antifrank said:

Quick quiz, no cheating. Who said this today?

"Any feasible future for the eurozone will require a much closer union in fiscal, banking and monetary policy. While the UK will thankfully stand outside those arrangements, that undoubtedly makes it harder to maintain influence and prevent the decisions of the eurozone from damaging British interests.

On top of that, increasing labour mobility is becoming ever more necessary as a means of adjustment for under-developed EU countries, just when open migration is becoming increasingly unsustainable — politically and economically — in the UK and elsewhere.

Given all those concerns, I understand the viewpoint of pessimists who cannot see an acceptable future for Britain within Europe. I also agree with Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on the need for reforms of the single market, labour mobility and benefits, as difficult as they will be to deliver."

I didn't know, so I cheated.

I was very surprised at the answer.

Great post from @SouthamObserver and equally great reply from @JEO below.

Unsurprisingly politics works best when things are thought through and discussed politely, rather than the overemphasis of tiny differences and the use of exaggerated language to make minor points.