politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters remaining solidly behind Corbyn
Comments
-
ISIS did begin in Syria, but they were formed from remnants of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Foxinsox, ISIS began in Syria. Without the Iraq war of Blair, it's perhaps unlikely they would've spread to Saddam's Iraq, but then, that country might also have been torn apart by the so-called Arab Spring.
0 -
"its a false choice"watford30 said:
That's obvious. But what would Cooper's response be?Alanbrooke said:Looks like Jezza gets his first foreign policy test.
Who will he back North or South Korea ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3204452/North-Korea-shells-South-Korean-military-unit-stationed-countries-shared-border.html0 -
The actions of the once mighty LP only come into clear focus when viewed through the lens of a quasi religion ; indeed , socialism as a belief in some ways like Christianity , but promising a heaven upon the earth ..the LP are like a dying Christian sect that was too orthodox , too ridged/inflexible and too unwilling to compromise ; indeed , their reaction to failure has been to retreat into more orthodoxy in the hope of being saved by purity and principle and Corbyn is clearly their messiah ...they remind me of a group of fundamentalists determined to deny the obvious truths of Evolution , a fatal purity methinks !0
-
b)DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
let them get on with it.
0 -
Mr. PB, welcome to pb.com.
If you do back Kendall, I'd advise against Cooper as second preference. Five years of identity politics wouldn't be a good thing.
Don't get me wrong, Burnham's a lightweight, but I'm not convinced Cooper is a good thing for either party or country.
Mr. JEO, but if Saddam had been toppled by the Arab Spring instead of the US/UK and others, that force might've been larger.0 -
DearPB,
Welcome.
I'd vote LK first - the sensible vote, and Jezza second - if that's what they want ...
But you've done your best.0 -
Hi @DearPB -DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
I'd recommend voting as follows:
1) Kendall
2) Corbyn
3) Cooper
This way you get to vote for who could well be the most effective opposition leader and can look all responsible in front of left wing friends, whilst benefitting the Tories.
It also freezes out Andy Burnham, who would surely be the worst possible choice for Labour.0 -
Do the decent thing and not vote.TOPPING said:
b)DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
let them get on with it.0 -
It'd be ironic if Conservative entryists ended up saving Labour from Corbyn.0
-
But that is my point Morris. Miliband didn't win and he deserved to lose.
Miliband was the Tories Hague. The 2001 Tory campaign was lazy and tired- 30 days to save the pound. As too was Labour's 2015 campaign. Corbyn will be Labour's IDS- someone completely and utterly unsuited to power and who will be dumped in a couple of years.
Who'll Labour go to after the Corbyn disaster will be interesting- will Labour pick a Michael Howard type and look at the 2020 election as damage limitation, or will they go for someone with more purpose and energy. It all depends on how ready fro government they are.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tyson, 'deserved' is an odd choice of word.
Many thought Miliband could get in, perhaps propped up by the SNP.0 -
I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.0 -
Mr. Tyson, harsh on Hague.
If Corbyn wins it will be interesting to see if Labour finally master the art of regicide.0 -
As I said yesterday Tories for Corbyn is a Myth.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
Most Tory sign ups will note vote Corbyn as no1 IMO
Re your strategy to stop Corbyn. Kendalls polling shows Burnham is the only one with a chance.0 -
It's possibly that the main sources of political cleavage have had their day at least with the mainstream public and that competence and occasionally a change of tone and some fresh faces with the most centrist possible outlook is what really runs the day.Innocent_Abroad said:
Why would anyone want to vote for "moderate social democracy"? It's boring and it ignores the basic rule that politics are about the sources of political cleavage, i.e. race, class and religion.
A survey last year showed that people increasingly are moving from valuing free speech to valuing not being offended, I think politics is doing the same, people want inoffensive politics done competently. As someone sitting politically on Dan Hannan's shoulder this is not how I would have it, but that's how it looks.
If Labour come up with a centrist, competent leader like Blair and the Tories don't they will win, if either side selects someone even a little away from the centre, or more than a tad challenging to the public's sensibilities, they will lose.
The bad news for lefties is that the public probably wants sopping wet Tories, but they want a new face and a new tone to it every now and again.
0 -
Incidentally, anyone interested in a game of Diplomacy?0
-
Ethically you shouldn't vote since you're a Tory.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
If you wish to harm Labour you should vote for an ABC candidate.0 -
Abstain. It would be immoral to vote in an internal Labour party election given your stated views.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?0 -
There are no good choices in the Middle East. If Gadaffi was still in power, we wouldn't have African migrants travelling through Libya - but we would have had plenty of refugees from his regime, as it crushed opposition in 2011.JEO said:
ISIS did begin in Syria, but they were formed from remnants of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Foxinsox, ISIS began in Syria. Without the Iraq war of Blair, it's perhaps unlikely they would've spread to Saddam's Iraq, but then, that country might also have been torn apart by the so-called Arab Spring.
Nor did IS begin the uprising against Assad in Syria. The war was well underway, and Assad had already lost control, by the time that IS came on the scene.
Saddam remaining in charge in Iraq probably was the lesser of two evils, but his government might just as easily be embroiled in civil war as many of the rest are.0 -
You could argue that putting in Corbyn will allow the long-term association between Islamists and the Left under such scrutiny, and do the Left such electoral damage, that it will prevent them doing it in future. That would be good for the country.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?0 -
I agree.JEO said:
You could argue that putting in Corbyn will allow the long-term association between Islamists and the Left under such scrutiny, and do the Left such electoral damage, that it will prevent them doing it in future. That would be good for the country.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?0 -
As you said it, seemed amusing at the time and really Labour should have made a much better job of ensuring protection against this sort of entryism, but you have, I suggest, made your point!rottenborough said:
Do the decent thing and not vote.TOPPING said:
b)DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
let them get on with it.0 -
It may do the Left damage. But it will help the Islamists and that is most definitely not for the good of the country.JEO said:
You could argue that putting in Corbyn will allow the long-term association between Islamists and the Left under such scrutiny, and do the Left such electoral damage, that it will prevent them doing it in future. That would be good for the country.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
0 -
With regard to Corbyn skeletons, it is surely in the Labour Party's interest to keep them in the closet until after 12 September. When Corbyn wins they can then release everything and force a resignation by Conference.
I think they then give Tom Watson a long stint as Acting Leader while he holds the party together, does a policy review and changes the Leadership election rules before having another go next summer.0 -
It's obvious, you should not vote because you are not a supporter of the Labour party. That's how you would expect others to behave towards your party.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?0 -
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.0 -
Whilst long standing Labour voters have been denied a say.Pulpstar said:What's more interesting about your vote, Mr @DearPB is that you as a former Tory council group leader have got past the vetting process.
The whole thing is a joke. It's quite extraordinary to think that only a few months ago, Labour were bidding to run the Country; now they can't even run a leadership vote fairly and squarely.0 -
DearPB said:
I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
(b) - It’s the only right thing to do.0 -
But surely the whole point of 3 quid members is that they are not legitimate supporters in the same way as the Tories let anyone vote in their open primaries. Lets face it, its only because the PLP was idiotic enough to let a rogue into the race that anyone cares, if it was just Burnham/Cooper running Labour would be incredibly relaxed about the Tories, SWP, CPGB-ML or Uncle Tom Cobley voting in the competition.SandyRentool said:
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.0 -
Well indeed; and there's other stuff on the internet that identifies me but it's all quite old. I've not stood for election in nearly a decade.Pulpstar said:What's more interesting about your vote, Mr @DearPB is that you as a former Tory council group leader have got past the vetting process.
Which raises the question - when do they ignore past involvement with other Parties - changing views is legitimate.
Those MPs who nominated Corbyn really were 'morons'. Their system prevented this by making MPs responsible for doing the vetting and they abdicated that responsibility. If they hadn't they wouldn't be in this position.0 -
I wouldn't bet on Watson holding the party together: his history shows he is rather better at splitting it.DearPB said:With regard to Corbyn skeletons, it is surely in the Labour Party's interest to keep them in the closet until after 12 September. When Corbyn wins they can then release everything and force a resignation by Conference.
I think they then give Tom Watson a long stint as Acting Leader while he holds the party together, does a policy review and changes the Leadership election rules before having another go next summer.
Could he really expect much support from the Blairite and other MPs who he briefed against and undermined during Brown's long descent to coronation?
If Watson is the answer, or even part of the answer, to Labour's problems, then they are really, really in deep trouble.
Which leaves a question: who in Labour is respected enough within the party: by the hard left, the Blairites, the centrists, the rank-and-file and the CIF'ers, to be able to pull them all together to form a concerted and necessary opposition to the government?0 -
Go ahead and vote.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
Ignore the Labourites telling you it's wrong. I suspect many of them would have no problem voting in a Tory leadership election, were it so incompetently managed, just to stir things up. Play the game by their rules.0 -
I don't think it will help the Islamists because it will force the Left to disassociate from them. That is long overdue.Cyclefree said:
It may do the Left damage. But it will help the Islamists and that is most definitely not for the good of the country.JEO said:
You could argue that putting in Corbyn will allow the long-term association between Islamists and the Left under such scrutiny, and do the Left such electoral damage, that it will prevent them doing it in future. That would be good for the country.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?0 -
Any system that disqualifies the most popular candidate with the party is flawed though IMODearPB said:
Well indeed; and there's other stuff on the internet that identifies me but it's all quite old. I've not stood for election in nearly a decade.Pulpstar said:What's more interesting about your vote, Mr @DearPB is that you as a former Tory council group leader have got past the vetting process.
Which raises the question - when do they ignore past involvement with other Parties - changing views is legitimate.
Those MPs who nominated Corbyn really were 'morons'. Their system prevented this by making MPs responsible for doing the vetting and they abdicated that responsibility. If they hadn't they wouldn't be in this position.0 -
If JC wins and then resigns in 2017/18, would DC still go early?0
-
OT: This oil price carnage is really hurting the russian rouble against the dollar. It'll probably ravage their economy alongside the political sanctions. I'd hate to be a Russian citizen right now.0
-
Harriet Harman's apparent desire to try and ban anyone from voting for Jeremy Corbyn was what pushed me over to send them my three quid. The Labour party's shambolic efforts in this election mean that they need to be stopped from gaining power in their current form at the next GE for sure. And I'm determined to help that effort.watford30 said:
Whilst long standing Labour voters have been denied a say.Pulpstar said:What's more interesting about your vote, Mr @DearPB is that you as a former Tory council group leader have got past the vetting process.
The whole thing is a joke. It's quite extraordinary to think that only a few months ago, Labour were bidding to run the Country; now they can't even run a leadership vote fairly and squarely.
Maybe with Jez in charge they'll have the internal blood letting they need to sort themselves out. With the Lib Dems routed, UKIP with one MP and the next GE 4 years away they'll have a serious chance at doing that.0 -
TBH, without Comrade Corbyn on the ballot - who'd have bothered to pay even £3 to join? There'd never be more than a handful of Tories4Burnham et al - and no SWPers or CPGB or Greenies.
It's precisely because some Moron Labour MPs gave a Loony Lefty a chance that all this kicked off.Indigo said:
But surely the whole point of 3 quid members is that they are not legitimate supporters in the same way as the Tories let anyone vote in their open primaries. Lets face it, its only because the PLP was idiotic enough to let a rogue into the race that anyone cares, if it was just Burnham/Cooper running Labour would be incredibly relaxed about the Tories, SWP, CPGB-ML or Uncle Tom Cobley voting in the competition.SandyRentool said:
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.0 -
It's the wisdom of crowds surely - and I chose PB rather than other places fairly carefully. Actually there is a clear emerging consensus around not voting.Pulpstar said:@DearPB Asking what to do on such a matter on this board will get you a hundred often contradictory responses.
At the end of the day it's up to you and your consciense ^_~
Though here's another idea - I'm going to a Conservative Party function tomorrow - we could raffle it........ ;->
0 -
Before the last couple of months names like Cruddas and Postie would have sprung to mind, but because they didnt jump to support Corbyn with the required alacrity they have already been branded Tories by the hard-left and the Owen Jones Tendency on CIF. I think the venom that has been displayed recently means that no one fills that role now.JosiasJessop said:Which leaves a question: who in Labour is respected enough within the party: by the hard left, the Blairites, the centrists, the rank-and-file and the CIF'ers, to be able to pull them all together to form a concerted and necessary opposition to the government?
0 -
I agree. Risking pomposity can I just say the fact that the question arises at all gives some hope.Jonathan said:
It's obvious, you should not vote because you are not a supporter of the Labour party. That's how you would expect others to behave towards your party.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?0 -
-
Do you have to claim to be a Labour supporter to vote at any stage in the signup process? I decided not to get involved so I do not know.SandyRentool said:
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.0 -
Mr. Financier, might make it more likely.
Cameron would feel comfortable anyone could beat Corbyn, and his would-be successors would be keen to get their own electoral victory in the history books.0 -
Although my view is for him/her not to vote, the logical extension of this is an end to tactical voting. It is surely analagous.watford30 said:
Go ahead and vote.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
Ignore the Labourites telling you it's wrong. I suspect many of them would have no problem voting in a Tory leadership election, were it so incompetently managed, just to stir things up. Play the game by their rules.0 -
Yes support the aims and objectives I think was the phrase.JEO said:
Do you have to claim to be a Labour supporter to vote at any stage in the signup process? I decided not to get involved so I do not know.SandyRentool said:
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.0 -
That's nonsense though, there are any number of potential candidates who might well have been more popular than Corbyn, a hard leftie with more charisma than a cardboard box maybe, but because of the system they weren't put forward by any PLP member. Corbyn is merely the most popular (probably) of the candidates that got through the current selection system.bigjohnowls said:
Any system that disqualifies the most popular candidate with the party is flawed though IMODearPB said:
Well indeed; and there's other stuff on the internet that identifies me but it's all quite old. I've not stood for election in nearly a decade.Pulpstar said:What's more interesting about your vote, Mr @DearPB is that you as a former Tory council group leader have got past the vetting process.
Which raises the question - when do they ignore past involvement with other Parties - changing views is legitimate.
Those MPs who nominated Corbyn really were 'morons'. Their system prevented this by making MPs responsible for doing the vetting and they abdicated that responsibility. If they hadn't they wouldn't be in this position.0 -
Mr Pulpstar, I suggest you wait to write off the LibDems until at least after their Autumn Conference. They’ve done well in local by-elections, at least in Endland & Wales since May so far, and there appear to be art least some activists who were unhappy, and therefore quiet, under the Coalition sharpening up their Focus leaflets again!0
-
Does anyone have data ready to hand for the number of male / female candidates by party for every GE since 1997? My Google-fu has not been good enough to find such a thing, if it exists.
If not, where can I find details of candidates for all parties at the GE's? There was an excellent spreadsheet of such data before this last GE, but is there similar for past GE's?0 -
My take on that would be that the values you have signed up to - solidarity, social justice etc -are best served by consigning thoroughgoing socialism to the lunatic fringe, while it currently has a foothold on the Labour left.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.
A Corbyn victory may well create an opportunity for the rise of a purely Social Democrat / Liberal party in the UK. whether that is a recovering Lib Dems or something else.
A time for realpolitik?
Corbyn or Kendall-Corbyn would meet that end.
One analogy is that the best way to help international development may well be to reduce government funded and directed aid, and hence the aid budget, since free markets and commerce are many time more effective and less encouraging of corruption.0 -
I had a small pang and then thought I would vote as I was a Tony Tory.
Labour need to sort themselves out to be an effective Opposition - I joined the Tories to keep EdM out of office, not because of any particular ideological bent.
I voted for Corbyn then Kendall. The first to shock them out of this idiocy and the second to show support for a sensible Labourite.DearPB said:
It's the wisdom of crowds surely - and I chose PB rather than other places fairly carefully. Actually there is a clear emerging consensus around not voting.Pulpstar said:@DearPB Asking what to do on such a matter on this board will get you a hundred often contradictory responses.
At the end of the day it's up to you and your consciense ^_~
Though here's another idea - I'm going to a Conservative Party function tomorrow - we could raffle it........ ;->0 -
Any system that disqualifies the most popular candidate with the party is flawed though IMO
If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.
0 -
I think it shows how right wing the PLP has become compared to party members.Indigo said:
That's nonsense though, there are any number of potential candidates who might well have been more popular than Corbyn, a hard leftie with more charisma than a cardboard box maybe, but because of the system they weren't put forward by any PLP member. Corbyn is merely the most popular (probably) of the candidates that got through the current selection system.bigjohnowls said:
Any system that disqualifies the most popular candidate with the party is flawed though IMODearPB said:
Well indeed; and there's other stuff on the internet that identifies me but it's all quite old. I've not stood for election in nearly a decade.Pulpstar said:What's more interesting about your vote, Mr @DearPB is that you as a former Tory council group leader have got past the vetting process.
Which raises the question - when do they ignore past involvement with other Parties - changing views is legitimate.
Those MPs who nominated Corbyn really were 'morons'. Their system prevented this by making MPs responsible for doing the vetting and they abdicated that responsibility. If they hadn't they wouldn't be in this position.
0 -
But not too much. Or you'll be banned !bigjohnowls said:
Yes support the aims and objectives I think was the phrase.JEO said:
Do you have to claim to be a Labour supporter to vote at any stage in the signup process? I decided not to get involved so I do not know.SandyRentool said:
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.0 -
Toby Young seems to only have been asked why he wanted to be an associate memberbigjohnowls said:
Yes support the aims and objectives I think was the phrase.JEO said:
Do you have to claim to be a Labour supporter to vote at any stage in the signup process? I decided not to get involved so I do not know.SandyRentool said:
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03343/tories_for_corbyn_3343910b.jpg0 -
For people like me, no jokes or vile insinuations please flightpath, the only way labour would appeal is reviving the blue labour project that Cruddas and Glasman started five years ago, why on earth Miliband swerved away from that I don't know, but I doubt ukip would have got as much as 13% if he hadn't0
-
They added that after I'd registered.bigjohnowls said:
Yes support the aims and objectives I think was the phrase.JEO said:
Do you have to claim to be a Labour supporter to vote at any stage in the signup process? I decided not to get involved so I do not know.SandyRentool said:
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.
0 -
Given that Labour's aims are motherhood and apple pie...bigjohnowls said:
Yes support the aims and objectives I think was the phrase.JEO said:
Do you have to claim to be a Labour supporter to vote at any stage in the signup process? I decided not to get involved so I do not know.SandyRentool said:
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.0 -
You're good to go thenDearPB said:
They added that after I'd registered.bigjohnowls said:
Yes support the aims and objectives I think was the phrase.JEO said:
Do you have to claim to be a Labour supporter to vote at any stage in the signup process? I decided not to get involved so I do not know.SandyRentool said:
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.
0 -
Out of curiosity, what made you vote for IDS?DearPB said:
If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.0 -
Well, if the Tories ran a leadership election using the same model, these threads would be jam packed with Labour supporters cock-a-hoop at passing any vetting procedures, and pledging their votes for say Bill Cash, or Nigel Mills.TOPPING said:
Although my view is for him/her not to vote, the logical extension of this is an end to tactical voting. It is surely analagous.watford30 said:
Go ahead and vote.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
Ignore the Labourites telling you it's wrong. I suspect many of them would have no problem voting in a Tory leadership election, were it so incompetently managed, just to stir things up. Play the game by their rules.0 -
The interesting question, to my mind, is whether the unions realised all this when the electoral college was reformed. i.e. that the loss of their 33% share could be more than compensated for by the loss of the parliamentary 33% share... I think they did.DearPB said:If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.
PS EDIT: I'm a (b) but wouldn't judge anyone for taking advantage. Pisspoor election design deserves to be punished pour encourager les autres.0 -
I could vote Farron LD if the alternative were a Kendall supporting MP.OldKingCole said:Mr Pulpstar, I suggest you wait to write off the LibDems until at least after their Autumn Conference. They’ve done well in local by-elections, at least in Endland & Wales since May so far, and there appear to be art least some activists who were unhappy, and therefore quiet, under the Coalition sharpening up their Focus leaflets again!
Probably wont though.
0 -
Nothing that comes out about Nigel Farage has any impact on his supporters. Why would you expect any revelations about Corbyn to have any impact on his?
The vast majority of people make up their minds on instinct and then once they have committed, it takes an awful lot to shift them. True of politics, but also true of other things, such as climate change, capital punishment, evolution and which is the best football team.0 -
You had to declare that you supported the aims and values of the Labour party, whatever they may be. As things stand, the front runner's aims and values are not shared by the majority of the MPs he aspires to lead. It's beutifully ironic.JEO said:
Do you have to claim to be a Labour supporter to vote at any stage in the signup process? I decided not to get involved so I do not know.SandyRentool said:
You are not a legitimate Labour supporter and so, like others on this forum, have no business voting in the Labour leadership election.DearPB said:I like the last two pieces of advice. I've always voted expressively rather than implementationally. I voted for IDS for crying out loud; and I couldn't bring myself to tactically vote Labour at a GE to keep Respect out (though thank goodness Labour won anyway).
Kendall then Corbyn allows me to vote expressively and then have fun afterwards!
Though I confess I still edge toward abstention.
0 -
I agree that it's long overdue. But I'm not at all confident that the Left will disassociate from them. After all, anyone with a brain and some moral sense would have realised quite some time ago how revolting the Islamists are and, yet, the Left have not disassociated themselves at all and got closer despite the most appalling and repeated atrocities. Some on the Left found it hard to disassociate themselves from Communism long after the revelations of its crimes. See, for instance, that booby, Hobsbawm, fawned over by all and sundry despite his repeated apologias for the Soviet system.JEO said:
I don't think it will help the Islamists because it will force the Left to disassociate from them. That is long overdue.Cyclefree said:
It may do the Left damage. But it will help the Islamists and that is most definitely not for the good of the country.JEO said:
You could argue that putting in Corbyn will allow the long-term association between Islamists and the Left under such scrutiny, and do the Left such electoral damage, that it will prevent them doing it in future. That would be good for the country.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
The Islamists will be strengthened because it will make it that much harder for non-Islamist Muslims to challenge them, for local and other authorities to take steps to miminise and eliminate their influence within schools, for instance, etc. These are people to whom not even an inch should be conceded, ever.
0 -
I think Tom Watson can hold them together with an iron fist and because they'll know they need to stick together.JosiasJessop said:
I wouldn't bet on Watson holding the party together: his history shows he is rather better at splitting it.DearPB said:With regard to Corbyn skeletons, it is surely in the Labour Party's interest to keep them in the closet until after 12 September. When Corbyn wins they can then release everything and force a resignation by Conference.
I think they then give Tom Watson a long stint as Acting Leader while he holds the party together, does a policy review and changes the Leadership election rules before having another go next summer.
Could he really expect much support from the Blairite and other MPs who he briefed against and undermined during Brown's long descent to coronation?
If Watson is the answer, or even part of the answer, to Labour's problems, then they are really, really in deep trouble.
Which leaves a question: who in Labour is respected enough within the party: by the hard left, the Blairites, the centrists, the rank-and-file and the CIF'ers, to be able to pull them all together to form a concerted and necessary opposition to the government?0 -
Quite.
I'd be astonished if the unions didn't do some very careful war-gaming of this whole scenario before agreeing.Tissue_Price said:
If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.DearPB said:Any system that disqualifies the most popular candidate with the party is flawed though IMO
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.
The interesting question, to my mind, is whether the unions realised all this when the electoral college was reformed. i.e. that the loss of their 33% share could be more than compensated for by the loss of the parliamentary 33% share... I think they did.
PS EDIT: I'm a (b) but wouldn't judge anyone for taking advantage. Pisspoor election design deserves to be punished pour encourager les autres.0 -
Very true. There are still 8% clinging loyally to an ex-parrot.MrsB said:Nothing that comes out about Nigel Farage has any impact on his supporters. Why would you expect any revelations about Corbyn to have any impact on his?
The vast majority of people make up their minds on instinct and then once they have committed, it takes an awful lot to shift them. True of politics, but also true of other things, such as climate change, capital punishment, evolution and which is the best football team.0 -
No. I would have joined to vote for Ken Clarke maybe.watford30 said:
Well, if the Tories ran a leadership election using the same model, these threads would be jam packed with Labour supporters cock-a-hoop at passing any vetting procedures, and pledging their votes for say Bill Cash, or Nigel Mills.TOPPING said:
Although my view is for him/her not to vote, the logical extension of this is an end to tactical voting. It is surely analagous.watford30 said:
Go ahead and vote.DearPB said:I find myself torn. I'm a longstanding Tory member and activist, and a former Conservative Council Leader. I'm also a registered supporter of the Labour Party, and my ballot paper has arrived.
There was a time that voting for Jeremy Corbyn was funny; it doesn't seem so funny anymore. I'm seeking PB's advice on a genuine ethical question. Should I:
a) Vote Corbyn - to hell with them
b) Not vote - it's their handcart they can do what they like with it
c) Vote Kendall 1 Cooper 2, because Kendall would do least damage to the country and Cooper is the only grown up in the race?
Ignore the Labourites telling you it's wrong. I suspect many of them would have no problem voting in a Tory leadership election, were it so incompetently managed, just to stir things up. Play the game by their rules.0 -
BBC - Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to use the backing of party members to force Labour MPs to support his agenda if he is elected leader.
Calling for "real democracy", the left-winger said MPs should not "stand in the way" of "empowering party members".
Mr Corbyn defended his own rebellions, saying they had been "principled".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34000994
0 -
@Bigjohnowls Ben Bradshaw is in Derby on Friday btw.0
-
Actually I agree although he may be less popular with Rupert than even JezzaDearPB said:
I think Tom Watson can hold them together with an iron fist and because they'll know they need to stick together.JosiasJessop said:
I wouldn't bet on Watson holding the party together: his history shows he is rather better at splitting it.DearPB said:With regard to Corbyn skeletons, it is surely in the Labour Party's interest to keep them in the closet until after 12 September. When Corbyn wins they can then release everything and force a resignation by Conference.
I think they then give Tom Watson a long stint as Acting Leader while he holds the party together, does a policy review and changes the Leadership election rules before having another go next summer.
Could he really expect much support from the Blairite and other MPs who he briefed against and undermined during Brown's long descent to coronation?
If Watson is the answer, or even part of the answer, to Labour's problems, then they are really, really in deep trouble.
Which leaves a question: who in Labour is respected enough within the party: by the hard left, the Blairites, the centrists, the rank-and-file and the CIF'ers, to be able to pull them all together to form a concerted and necessary opposition to the government?0 -
I'm glad you asked! Partly Europe obviously (though I'll be voting to stay in I expect), and partly for the same reason that a lot of Labour supporters will vote for Corbyn. I knew that the Tories weren't going to win the 2005 GE no matter what, so I figured I might as well be happy.Plato said:Out of curiosity, what made you vote for IDS?
DearPB said:
If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.
And if I was a Labour supporter looking at Cooper, Kendall and Burnham, I might think b*gger it - Corbyn will give me something to cheer every now and then.0 -
Mr. StClare, only through total obedience to the Supreme Leader can democracy win!0
-
I'm finding his notion of *democracy* rather intriguing. We've just had a GE. Those MPs represent an awful lot of people who voted for them.
This is all now being trumped by Comrade Corbyn's entryists and their fellow travelers in the full membership.
It's like the Tea Party taking over the GOP and insisting that all the rest of the Congress follow along like sheep.SimonStClare said:BBC - Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to use the backing of party members to force Labour MPs to support his agenda if he is elected leader.
Calling for "real democracy", the left-winger said MPs should not "stand in the way" of "empowering party members".
Mr Corbyn defended his own rebellions, saying they had been "principled".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-340009940 -
Are you going?Pulpstar said:@Bigjohnowls Ben Bradshaw is in Derby on Friday btw.
I have already voted for Watson so probably wont
These rallies are all too late most have voted.
You had your E mail yet.
If not should be today or tomorrow i reckon0 -
Out of curiosity, why are you expecting to vote to stay in?DearPB said:
I'm glad you asked! Partly Europe obviously (though I'll be voting to stay in I expect), and partly for the same reason that a lot of Labour supporters will vote for Corbyn. I knew that the Tories weren't going to win the 2005 GE no matter what, so I figured I might as well be happy.Plato said:Out of curiosity, what made you vote for IDS?
DearPB said:
If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.
And if I was a Labour supporter looking at Cooper, Kendall and Burnham, I might think b*gger it - Corbyn will give me something to cheer every now and then.
0 -
A fascinating comparison there. Many thanx for that.
Hope you stick around PB after voting or not.DearPB said:
I'm glad you asked! Partly Europe obviously (though I'll be voting to stay in I expect), and partly for the same reason that a lot of Labour supporters will vote for Corbyn. I knew that the Tories weren't going to win the 2005 GE no matter what, so I figured I might as well be happy.Plato said:Out of curiosity, what made you vote for IDS?
DearPB said:
If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.
And if I was a Labour supporter looking at Cooper, Kendall and Burnham, I might think b*gger it - Corbyn will give me something to cheer every now and then.0 -
1) Because I'll look at those campaigning to get out and they'll frighten me.Pauly said:
Out of curiosity, why are you expecting to vote to stay in?DearPB said:
I'm glad you asked! Partly Europe obviously (though I'll be voting to stay in I expect), and partly for the same reason that a lot of Labour supporters will vote for Corbyn. I knew that the Tories weren't going to win the 2005 GE no matter what, so I figured I might as well be happy.Plato said:Out of curiosity, what made you vote for IDS?
DearPB said:
If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.
And if I was a Labour supporter looking at Cooper, Kendall and Burnham, I might think b*gger it - Corbyn will give me something to cheer every now and then.
2) I'm a Conservative - I don't like change and I worry about unintended consequences.0 -
All I want to know is how Corbyn’s ‘real’ democracy, is different from the normal run of the mill kind we had last May – Or does that not count in Jeremy’s world view?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. StClare, only through total obedience to the Supreme Leader can democracy win!
0 -
How do you feel about known Lib Dems voting in the Labour leadership election ?MrsB said:@DeaPB
Ask yourself how you would feel if a Labour supporter managed to cheat their way to voting in a Conservative leadership contest.
Little as I love the Tories, I would have hoped a former Tory council leader had higher moral standards than this.0 -
I've been hanging around here for many years - just not commented since - well since I was a Councillor I guess; 10 years ago!Plato said:A fascinating comparison there. Many thanx for that.
Hope you stick around PB after voting or not.DearPB said:
I'm glad you asked! Partly Europe obviously (though I'll be voting to stay in I expect), and partly for the same reason that a lot of Labour supporters will vote for Corbyn. I knew that the Tories weren't going to win the 2005 GE no matter what, so I figured I might as well be happy.Plato said:Out of curiosity, what made you vote for IDS?
DearPB said:
If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.
And if I was a Labour supporter looking at Cooper, Kendall and Burnham, I might think b*gger it - Corbyn will give me something to cheer every now and then.0 -
If we stay in there will be inevitable changes - a push towards ever closer union. I worry about the unintended consequences of this, as a Conservative.DearPB said:
1) Because I'll look at those campaigning to get out and they'll frighten me.Pauly said:
Out of curiosity, why are you expecting to vote to stay in?DearPB said:
I'm glad you asked! Partly Europe obviously (though I'll be voting to stay in I expect), and partly for the same reason that a lot of Labour supporters will vote for Corbyn. I knew that the Tories weren't going to win the 2005 GE no matter what, so I figured I might as well be happy.Plato said:Out of curiosity, what made you vote for IDS?
DearPB said:
If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.
And if I was a Labour supporter looking at Cooper, Kendall and Burnham, I might think b*gger it - Corbyn will give me something to cheer every now and then.
2) I'm a Conservative - I don't like change and I worry about unintended consequences.
The campaign is what matters not the campaigner - the argument not the arguer. Attack the ball not the man.
0 -
I reckon Cooper thinks 7th May was a "false choice"SimonStClare said:
All I want to know is how Corbyn’s ‘real’ democracy, is different from the normal run of the mill kind we had last May – Or does that not count in Jeremy’s world view?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. StClare, only through total obedience to the Supreme Leader can democracy win!
Perhaps Ed lost narrowly because she couldn't decide who to vote for?0 -
Mr. PB, I hope you reconsider on the EU referendum.
The choice is not between Farage and Cameron, it's between leaving the EU or submitting to ever closer union.0 -
In an ideal world I'd vote in, but the EU's failure to grasp reality over Greece in particular (It's debt needs to be written off, and it should return to the drachma in order to grow again) leaves me very cold right now.Pauly said:
If we stay in there will be inevitable changes - a push towards ever closer union. I worry about the unintended consequences of this, as a Conservative.DearPB said:
1) Because I'll look at those campaigning to get out and they'll frighten me.Pauly said:
Out of curiosity, why are you expecting to vote to stay in?DearPB said:
I'm glad you asked! Partly Europe obviously (though I'll be voting to stay in I expect), and partly for the same reason that a lot of Labour supporters will vote for Corbyn. I knew that the Tories weren't going to win the 2005 GE no matter what, so I figured I might as well be happy.Plato said:Out of curiosity, what made you vote for IDS?
DearPB said:
If they restricted the electorate to those who were fully paid up members on the day the last leader resigned then they can let anyone run; if they're going to open up to every Tom, Dick and Tory then they need to make sure MPs only put in front of the wider electorate those who would be acceptable to the Parliamentary Party.
There was a time when Ann Widdecombe could have won a leadership election amongst Tory Party members (shiver down spine) but fortunately the MPs wouldn't have allowed it.
And if I was a Labour supporter looking at Cooper, Kendall and Burnham, I might think b*gger it - Corbyn will give me something to cheer every now and then.
2) I'm a Conservative - I don't like change and I worry about unintended consequences.
The campaign is what matters not the campaigner - the argument not the arguer. Attack the ball not the man.0 -
The whole point of the £3 fee was to allow anyone to vote for the next Labour leader, especially those who were not traditional Labour supporters. Seems perfectly sensible for Tories to vote for Liz as their first choice.
"Labour’s interim leader, Harriet Harman, has announced that any registered voter will be able to help choose the party’s next leader for a £3 fee....
In a speech at Labour HQ in London, Harman said she wanted to “let the public in” to the contest, and said that people who were not party members or affiliated supporters through a union or Labour-linked organisation would be able to vote.
She said: “Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register – can become a registered supporter, pay £3 and have a vote to decide our next leader. This is the first time a political party in this country has opened up its leadership contest in this way and I think there will be a real appetite for it out there.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/labour-leadership-election-fee-harriet-harman0 -
@stephentall: To be fair I cunningly disguised my identity by using my own name as a former LibDem cllr & @libdemvoice editor https://t.co/IXCuDVK2rTMrsB said:@DeaPB
Ask yourself how you would feel if a Labour supporter managed to cheat their way to voting in a Conservative leadership contest.
Little as I love the Tories, I would have hoped a former Tory council leader had higher moral standards than this.0 -
As that is where his mandate will have come from, I can fully understand that approach.SimonStClare said:BBC - Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to use the backing of party members to force Labour MPs to support his agenda if he is elected leader.
Calling for "real democracy", the left-winger said MPs should not "stand in the way" of "empowering party members".
Mr Corbyn defended his own rebellions, saying they had been "principled".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34000994
He has limited support on the Labour parliamentary benches, so has to use whatever mechanism he can to ensure that the will of his supporters is not thwarted by 'the resistance'
All the talk of instant coups on the part of Labour backbenchers is, to my mind, more undemocratic than Corbyn setting up the system to allow party members to set the policy agenda for the party as a whole0 -
I'm assuming the "higher moral standards" thing is ironic?MrsB said:@DeaPB
Ask yourself how you would feel if a Labour supporter managed to cheat their way to voting in a Conservative leadership contest.
Little as I love the Tories, I would have hoped a former Tory council leader had higher moral standards than this.
Actually I wouldn't care a jot if a Labour supporter voted in a Tory Leadership election. Because we have a system that stops unreconstructed extremists from getting out to the membership. In the open elections we've had, Labour supporters could have voted for:
- IDS or Clarke; so either it would have made no difference or they'd have saved us from ourselves
- Then the MPs had the sense not to let us get it wrong twice on the trot and installed Howard
- Davis or Cameron; Davis may have proven himself to be a little bit bonkers but at least he's sound on civil liberties.0 -
I am cool about anyone who wants to vote being able to.Pulpstar said:
How do you feel about known Lib Dems voting in the Labour leadership election ?MrsB said:@DeaPB
Ask yourself how you would feel if a Labour supporter managed to cheat their way to voting in a Conservative leadership contest.
Little as I love the Tories, I would have hoped a former Tory council leader had higher moral standards than this.
I always see LAB/LD supporters as interchangeable TBH.
Bit more of a stretch for some PB Tories IMO but people like yourself and TSE aren't too far away from the views of one of the candidates.
A bit like me with Ken Clarke. One of the best SOS for Health I ever worked for.
0 -
England win the toss and put the Aussies in.
Looks a great pitch to bowl on0 -
@rosieatlarge: Well now this is awkward. You go on television to talk enthusiastically about being a Labour member and then they reject your membership.
@rosieatlarge: I know Rachel Reeves said Labour weren't the party of people on benefits but I didn't know we'd been actively disbarred.
Whoever wins, this election has been a disaster from start to finish (thanks Ed)
Years of recriminations (and maybe legal wrangling) to come0 -
@bigjohnowls Check your inbox.0
-
Well quite.JonathanD said:
The whole point of the £3 fee was to allow anyone to vote for the next Labour leader, especially those who were not traditional Labour supporters. Seems perfectly sensible for Tories to vote for Liz as their first choice.
"Labour’s interim leader, Harriet Harman, has announced that any registered voter will be able to help choose the party’s next leader for a £3 fee....
In a speech at Labour HQ in London, Harman said she wanted to “let the public in” to the contest, and said that people who were not party members or affiliated supporters through a union or Labour-linked organisation would be able to vote.
She said: “Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register – can become a registered supporter, pay £3 and have a vote to decide our next leader. This is the first time a political party in this country has opened up its leadership contest in this way and I think there will be a real appetite for it out there.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/labour-leadership-election-fee-harriet-harman0 -
IIRC MrsB is a LD councilor.DearPB said:
I'm assuming the "higher moral standards" thing is ironic?MrsB said:@DeaPB
Ask yourself how you would feel if a Labour supporter managed to cheat their way to voting in a Conservative leadership contest.
Little as I love the Tories, I would have hoped a former Tory council leader had higher moral standards than this.
Actually I wouldn't care a jot if a Labour supporter voted in a Tory Leadership election. Because we have a system that stops unreconstructed extremists from getting out to the membership. In the open elections we've had, Labour supporters could have voted for:
- IDS or Clarke; so either it would have made no difference or they'd have saved us from ourselves
- Then the MPs had the sense not to let us get it wrong twice on the trot and installed Howard
- Davis or Cameron; Davis may have proven himself to be a little bit bonkers but at least he's sound on civil liberties.0
