politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn set to win on the first round according to sensation

JohnLoony said:

Judging by what a few people are saying on Twitter, some people seem to be under the impression that the Labour Party has said that it won't publish the details of the vote transfers in the AV election.

The question which it had been asked, and which it answered, was that it wouldn't count or announce separately the votes of how the Labour Party members voted, compared with how the recently-affiliated £3-paying supporters voted. There would be no reason to count them separately because they are all the same type of votes, of the same value, without there being separate sections like in the old electoral college.

There has never been any suggestion that the actual result of the election (i.e. the number of votes in each round of the AV election) would not be declared in full.

RodCrosby said:

He doesn't just want to win.

He's after Blair's 57% in 1994...

RodCrosby said:

Apropos of nothing.

I'm 50 next week.

Any advice from those who have survived this disaster?

RodCrosby said:

Apropos of nothing.

I'm 50 next week.

Any advice from those who have survived this disaster?

Indigo said:

JohnLoony said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

JohnLoony said:

(FPT)

JPJ2 said:

"sleepwalking into a one-party state"

More destruction of the English language.

A one party state is what China has-it means no other parties are allowed. Is that Britain? No it is not.

For the benefit of the people who have not been paying attention, the People's Republic of China has nine political parties.

Which are...?

Communist Party of China
Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang
China Democratic League
China Democratic National Construction Association
China Association for Promoting Democracy
Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party
Zhigongdang of China
Jiusan Society
Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

The first has 89 million members, and other second just over 53,000 !

Indigo said:

JohnLoony said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

JohnLoony said:

(FPT)

JPJ2 said:

"sleepwalking into a one-party state"

More destruction of the English language.

A one party state is what China has-it means no other parties are allowed. Is that Britain? No it is not.

For the benefit of the people who have not been paying attention, the People's Republic of China has nine political parties.

Which are...?

Communist Party of China
Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang
China Democratic League
China Democratic National Construction Association
China Association for Promoting Democracy
Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party
Zhigongdang of China
Jiusan Society
Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

The first has 89 million members, and other second just over 53,000 !

CD13 said:

Mr Crosby,

50 is nothing to worry about. It's 60 that suddenly jolts you - now that is old and you'll remember when you were 17, met someone in their 60s and decided they were ancient.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

"Comrades, this is your Leadership Candidate. It is an honour to speak to you today, and I am honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our motherland's most recent achievement. Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary — The Conservative Party. For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game and played it well. But today the game is different. We have the advantage. It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations! Well, they will tremble again — at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!

"Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party doesn't know our full potential. They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... Comradeship!

"A great day, Comrades! We sail into history!"

blackburn63 said:

Brilliant tweet from Mike Smithson about Burnham lending support, totally sums up how out of touch these people are, he genuinely thought Corbyn had no chance. This is a man who has lived and breathed politics, specifically the Labour Party, since his teens.

A lesson to all politicians here in terms of what happens when you surround yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear, Burnham's career is effectively over and he only has himself to blame.

RodCrosby said:

Apropos of nothing.

I'm 50 next week.

Any advice from those who have survived this disaster?

antifrank said:

@JananGanesh: Corbyn as Labour leader. No historic analogy does it justice. Not Foot, not IDS. Would be like Arsenal appointing Gunnersaurus as manager.

RodCrosby said:

Apropos of nothing.

I'm 50 next week.

Any advice from those who have survived this disaster?

ydoethur said:

antifrank said:

@JananGanesh: Corbyn as Labour leader. No historic analogy does it justice. Not Foot, not IDS. Would be like Arsenal appointing Gunnersaurus as manager.

Actually, come to think of it George Lansbury might be a sort of analogy, but not a very good one. He took over at a time when the party had been absolutely humiliated and destroyed - down to about 50 seats - and everyone in the party was desperate to hear the soothing message that they were right and people would realise that one day. He was also an old man and very popular at rallies around the country, considered 'transparently decent and honourable'.

However, there are two important differences: (1) Lansbury was already a senior member of the Labour party, and had served in government and (2) he was elected unopposed because he was pretty much the only plausible leader to hold his seat (that the realistically canvassed alternative was Oswald Mosley is some indication of how desperate the party was).

One thought does occur, however. He was the only Labour leader ever to be forced out in a coup, led by Ernest Bevin. This was because he was too left-wing, especially on rearmament, which he opposed on principle and committed Labour to opposing. As a result, Labour were not merely unelectable in their own right, but they were causing Baldwin, the de facto Prime Minister, to hesitate over rearming as well - which in 1935, was not the best thing that could be happening.

Maybe Corbyn should remember that, if he becomes leader.

Financier said:

YouGov's Peter Kellner says “I would personally be astonished if Mr Corbyn does not end up as Labour’s leader"

Was he not equally astonished at the 2015 GE exit poll?

SouthamObserver said:

Please forgive the analogy, but I can't think of a better one ...

The Labour party is reaching the end of a long, self-satisfied wank. Soon it will ejaculate Jeremy Corbyn into the face of the British public; and will then be mystified about why everyone is revolted instead of cheering to the rafters.

Blair, Murdoch and the BBC will be blamed.

CD13 said:

The lemmings look to be scampering towards the cliff edge but they will pull back at the last moment. Either Yvette Burnham or Andy Cooper (the anodyne duo) will scrape in, leaving Labour to celebrate the diversity of the party.

david_herdson said:

blackburn63 said:

Brilliant tweet from Mike Smithson about Burnham lending support, totally sums up how out of touch these people are, he genuinely thought Corbyn had no chance. This is a man who has lived and breathed politics, specifically the Labour Party, since his teens.

A lesson to all politicians here in terms of what happens when you surround yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear, Burnham's career is effectively over and he only has himself to blame.

To be fair, everyone thought he had no chance and history would tend to confirm that. What's happening is not only without precedent but was without any real prior indication (hence the 100/1 price offered and not snapped up immediately).

Burnham's career is not necessarily over but his leadership ambitions may be. That said, even if he'd not lent (given, more accurately) Corbyn nominations, given his campaign since, he may well still have lost to Cooper.

ydoethur said:

CD13 said:

The lemmings look to be scampering towards the cliff edge but they will pull back at the last moment. Either Yvette Burnham or Andy Cooper (the anodyne duo) will scrape in, leaving Labour to celebrate the diversity of the party.

Well, I hope you're right. But that does rather require one of the two to give people an actual reason to vote for them, which so far they haven't (that's why they're struggling - Corbyn is at least making an effort to win).

They have 72 hours left to turn things around before the ballot papers go out. It's not looking good for them.

MikeL said:

Here we go - what did I say a couple of hours ago ..........

"David Cameron will fight 2020 election, senior Tories believe"

"Senior Conservatives say that they are convinced David Cameron will fight a third general election in 2020 because the “lure of power will be too strong”"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11795172/David-Cameron-will-fight-2020-election-senior-Tories-believe.html

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

antifrank said:

@JananGanesh: Corbyn as Labour leader. No historic analogy does it justice. Not Foot, not IDS. Would be like Arsenal appointing Gunnersaurus as manager.

Actually, come to think of it George Lansbury might be a sort of analogy, but not a very good one. He took over at a time when the party had been absolutely humiliated and destroyed - down to about 50 seats - and everyone in the party was desperate to hear the soothing message that they were right and people would realise that one day. He was also an old man and very popular at rallies around the country, considered 'transparently decent and honourable'.

However, there are two important differences: (1) Lansbury was already a senior member of the Labour party, and had served in government and (2) he was elected unopposed because he was pretty much the only plausible leader to hold his seat (that the realistically canvassed alternative was Oswald Mosley is some indication of how desperate the party was).

One thought does occur, however. He was the only Labour leader ever to be forced out in a coup, led by Ernest Bevin. This was because he was too left-wing, especially on rearmament, which he opposed on principle and committed Labour to opposing. As a result, Labour were not merely unelectable in their own right, but they were causing Baldwin, the de facto Prime Minister, to hesitate over rearming as well - which in 1935, was not the best thing that could be happening.

Maybe Corbyn should remember that, if he becomes leader.

Corbyn probably thinks Lansbury was right. It might be worth someone asking him; he's unusually willing to give honest answers at the moment, compared with other leading politicians.

SouthamObserver said:

Please forgive the analogy, but I can't think of a better one ...

The Labour party is reaching the end of a long, self-satisfied wank. Soon it will ejaculate Jeremy Corbyn into the face of the British public; and will then be mystified about why everyone is revolted instead of cheering to the rafters.

Blair, Murdoch and the BBC will be blamed.

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

More seriously, are we now becoming a one-Party state, and, if so, is that not what most successful countries (the USA being the obvious exception) are? Entrepreneurship requires freedom of speech & action, but perhaps not as much of even those as we like to think (look at Asian tigers) - it does not require more than one governmental party.

Most of the successful Asian Tigers are what amount to beneficent dictatorships, leaders take decisive action with broadly popular support. What they lack in freedom they make up for in terms of discipline and decisiveness. When we need some national project to make the economy work, such as a new airport, we get lost in a couple of decades of wrangling and enquiry, where as in a lot of Asia the ruling party decides it needs to be done, and makes it happen very rapidly.

Granted it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but a lot of the populations appear to be happy by and large to give away significant freedoms in exchange for rampant prosperity and a comfortable lifestyle - the same deal was supposed implicitly on offer for us with the EU, except the upside kind of didn't happen

HYUFD said:

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

More seriously, are we now becoming a one-Party state, and, if so, is that not what most successful countries (the USA being the obvious exception) are? Entrepreneurship requires freedom of speech & action, but perhaps not as much of even those as we like to think (look at Asian tigers) - it does not require more than one governmental party.

Most of the successful Asian Tigers are what amount to beneficent dictatorships, leaders take decisive action with broadly popular support. What they lack in freedom they make up for in terms of discipline and decisiveness. When we need some national project to make the economy work, such as a new airport, we get lost in a couple of decades of wrangling and enquiry, where as in a lot of Asia the ruling party decides it needs to be done, and makes it happen very rapidly.

Granted it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but a lot of the populations appear to be happy by and large to give away significant freedoms in exchange for rampant prosperity and a comfortable lifestyle - the same deal was supposed implicitly on offer for us with the EU, except the upside kind of didn't happen

India is no one party state it has more parties than the UK nor is Japan or South Korea

Only China really and dominated by factions

The U.S. Republicans have lost more recent general elections than Labour

CD13 said:

Mr Observer's simile is rude but apt. Eventually Labour will rue the day, but the question is whether it's before or after the votes are cast. I still think it will be before.

Morris_Dancer said:

However, we should recall that polls can be wrong. Such as in the UK General Election this year. Or the Greek referendum. Or the Israeli election.

Morris_Dancer said:

It's more stupid than Varro at Cannae. What were they thinking?

kle4 said:

U

MikeL said:

Here we go - what did I say a couple of hours ago ..........

"David Cameron will fight 2020 election, senior Tories believe"

"Senior Conservatives say that they are convinced David Cameron will fight a third general election in 2020 because the “lure of power will be too strong”"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11795172/David-Cameron-will-fight-2020-election-senior-Tories-believe.html

Well, it was a different time and expecting different circumstances when he said he would not stay on.

Assuming he does not leave after the EU ref, it depends if Osborne stays loyal and the others do not kick up a fuss behind the scenes. I figured if he were to stay on the most likely scenario would be he announced he intended to go in a year or something, the public reaction to potential successors looked bad and so 'for the good of the party' he'd stay on. We'll see.

SouthamObserver said:

Please forgive the analogy, but I can't think of a better one ...

The Labour party is reaching the end of a long, self-satisfied wank. Soon it will ejaculate Jeremy Corbyn into the face of the British public; and will then be mystified about why everyone is revolted instead of cheering to the rafters.

Blair, Murdoch and the BBC will be blamed.

alex. said:

IMO the only hope for Labour (and the country) is that at this late stage the other three candidates come together and two agree to swallow their pride and withdraw from the contest. For all the theoretical arguments about how it doesn't matter if they all stay in because their votes can transfer between each other, in practice it is very difficult to win an election solely on an "anyone but" prospectus. This election is no longer for Labour about electing the best leader, it is about preventing Corbyn winning. And to do that i think the opposition has to have one candidate to rally behind.

david_herdson said:

alex. said:

IMO the only hope for Labour (and the country) is that at this late stage the other three candidates come together and two agree to swallow their pride and withdraw from the contest. For all the theoretical arguments about how it doesn't matter if they all stay in because their votes can transfer between each other, in practice it is very difficult to win an election solely on an "anyone but" prospectus. This election is no longer for Labour about electing the best leader, it is about preventing Corbyn winning. And to do that i think the opposition has to have one candidate to rally behind.

1. The reason votes don't transfer cleanly between the non-Corbyn candidates is the same reason that strategy would fail. Some Burnham / Cooper votes would go to Corbyn anyway.
2. It's probably too late. I don't know the precise rules about withdrawal but even if they can theoretically do it, the ballot papers will almost certainly have already been printed.
3. Corbyn is likely to win on the first round with four candidates, so what the rest do is shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
4. In the extremely unlikely event that it is possible, were done and achieved, the left of the Labour party would scream electoral robbery and may well regard the new leader and his/her whip as illegitimate. It may well lead to a full split, including unions and their money.

No, for Labour's future, the other three have to stick it out now.