politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn: Winning the election but losing the argument?

FPT, but relevant to this one:

JC has drifted out a little bit on Betfair today: currently 1.44-1.45 compared with around 1.37-1.38 at lunchtime yesterday.

FPT

The #LabourPurge is going to backfire - it only has value if it will change the outcome, in which case there will be complaints no matter who wins.

Richard_Nabavi said:

The trouble is that Comrade Jeremy is winning the argument at the moment, or at least his supporters are not listening to any other arguments. More fool them, of course, but that's how it is.

Or, as this thread indicates, that both sides think that they are winning the argument and neither side is thinking about backing down.

Corbo driftage

Laid 1.37 last night and just matched backing 1.47

Good article Don. Made me smile.

Also made me want Brown back.

isam said:

Corbo driftage

Laid 1.37 last night and just matched backing 1.47

Twitchy market.

Dan is in apocalyptic mode...

@TelePolitics: If Jeremy Corbyn is Labour's leader there may not be a way back http://t.co/uu9Yw2X8do

Roger said:

Good article Don. Made me smile.

Also made me want Brown back.

If Brown is the answer you're asking the wrong question. It just shows how far and how fast Labour have fallen that Brown is now seen as an expert on election winning credibility.

Just spoke to friend about mandatory reselections - he said they'd be 'good' because they would 'help purge the blairites'.
If they're going for JC they may as well go all in.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

FPT, but relevant to this one:

JC has drifted out a little bit on Betfair today: currently 1.44-1.45 compared with around 1.37-1.38 at lunchtime yesterday.

There was (maybe still is) a YouGov poll on the Labour leadership election in the field yesterday.

Last two times the YouGov polls were released to the public, there were major price moves before the poll was formally released.

Add in Peter Kellner's performance the other day....

Trouble is, there is no-one snapping at Corbyn's heels. Even if Jezza falls back a bit, it really needs one of Cooper or Burnham to materially move forward. Hoping that the second and third preferences will come to their aid seems a forlorn hope.

@JEO

Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Consider the last sentence of Don's piece, which I think actually argues against the very point he's making:

You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.

That's basically saying that the moderate, 'Blairite' Labour figures are wrong, and that by implication there's some alternative set of credible policies, distinct from the government's, which don't 'damage millions of people' (as the ludicrous hyperbole common in Labour circles has it).

Unfortunately if there is any such alternative, it doesn't seem to have been advocated by Andy, Yvette or Liz in any coherent form. You can see how people who've convinced themselves that reality is some kind of Tory plot will end up going for the one candidate who does actually claim to offer an alternative.

Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

Corbyn's freedom from a megalomaniacal drive to be Labour leader and then PM is precisely why he is so desirable in those roles.

rcs1000 said:

@JEO

Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

Wouldn't surprise me if snowflake5 was Yvette. Both humourless, painfully earnest - and wrong.

snowflake also stopped posting around the time TSE pointed out for the first time that Yvette would never prosper because she had almost certainly fellated Ed Balls....

Scott_P said:

Dan is in apocalyptic mode...

@TelePolitics: If Jeremy Corbyn is Labour's leader there may not be a way back http://t.co/uu9Yw2X8do

"But I have a horrible, gut wrenching feeling that what the Labour Party is about to do can never be undone. "

He could be right (often is). Don Brind appears to think that this Corbyn era will only lead to a GE election loss in 2020. But all these new hard left people and the engaged union ones have radically altered the Labour party, forever.

Associating with anti-semites and people that welcome the death of our soldiers is not something easy to wash away. The stains remain as Macbeth discovered. It is far far worse than the foolish Conservatives that tolerated the anti-gay elements. The nasty party smear could be mild compared to what is about to hit the Labour party. Throw in reselections, CLP takeovers, purges etc etc and the Labour party may not exist as a national party in the 2020s.

I am Spartacus Yvette

In terms of motivation, inspiration, policies, canvassing and sheer number of hustings, Jeremy Corbyn has wiped the floor with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

He may never be PM, or even Labour leader, but he’s certainly highlighted the unfitness of the other three candidates to govern the country.

What more can this utter shambles have in store?

SimonStClare said:

In terms of motivation, inspiration, policies, canvassing and sheer number of hustings, Jeremy Corbyn has wiped the floor with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

He may never be PM, or even Labour leader, but he’s certainly highlighted the unfitness of the other three candidates to govern the country.

What more can this utter shamble have in store?

Yes in fairness Corbyn thoroughly deserves to win this contest, and is entitled to have a couple of years to test out his ideas. I can't see them attracting more than about 28% support with the public though.

https://twitter.com/seantduffy/status/634349685780705280

He's making a list
He's checking it twice
And then he's gonna purge all you Trotskyites
Man-Del-Son is coming to town.

Jonathan said:

SimonStClare said:

In terms of motivation, inspiration, policies, canvassing and sheer number of hustings, Jeremy Corbyn has wiped the floor with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

He may never be PM, or even Labour leader, but he’s certainly highlighted the unfitness of the other three candidates to govern the country.

What more can this utter shamble have in store?

Really?

Imagine a Boris-Osborne-May-Truss contest. Boris is likely to wipe the floor with the others in terms of interest and buzz.

Says absolutely nothing about the fitness of the other three to govern.

This is why the MPs won't be presenting Boris to the members. If only Labour had had a similar mechanism. Oh.

Jonathan said:

SimonStClare said:

In terms of motivation, inspiration, policies, canvassing and sheer number of hustings, Jeremy Corbyn has wiped the floor with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

He may never be PM, or even Labour leader, but he’s certainly highlighted the unfitness of the other three candidates to govern the country.

What more can this utter shamble have in store?

Really?

Imagine a Boris-Osborne-May-Truss contest. Boris is likely to wipe the floor with the others in terms of interest and buzz.

Says absolutely nothing about the fitness of the other three to govern.

Not nothing - if they cannot find a way to counter that interest and buzz, or be effective despite it, it says something about their inherent quality. The ABC trio have been variously bland, over cautious or bumbling, bar a few instances, and that does not speak well of them when they surely should know how to take on a Corbyn like figure.

I think there are two reasons the Prime Minister suitability element doesn't seem to be a main consideration for Labour members. 2020 seems like an eternity away, being strong opposition comes first and in theory you could have three years of Corbyn and still have nearly two whole years for a new leader to prepare for an election.
The second reason is after the poor result in the last election, the route back to power doesn't seem clear. No party being able to govern seems like the most realistic target for Labour and thus Labour could do pretty well but the leader still wouldn't become Prime Minister.

RodCrosby said:

JEO said:

RodCrosby said:

rcs1000 said:

@JEO

Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

You're supposed to ban yourself now. I got three months for saying that once....

Where did the rumour come from that this commenter was Cooper?

Are you trying to get me hanged?

I was unaware that the strict ban on discussing such matters had been lifted...

The ban has not been lifted...

But it is usually fairly easy for the admins to find out who posters are if we really care. (Which we don't, by and large.)

(If you wanted to give us no hints, then always access the site through Tor, and use a disposable email address.)

#labourpurge is top trending..

Oliver_PB said:

flightpath01 said:

Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

This is not true.

The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

Cutting the deficit and national debt has not remotely been a priority. Indeed, the national debt increased more under the first term under Osborne than it did under Darling, despite policies supposedly designed to cut the debt (e.g. the VAT increase, swathing government cuts)

The press, captured by the right, has failed to point out this obvious truth. This has allowed for the government to sound moderate by selling a lie while implementing a far-right agenda. The average person thinks 'austerity' has been used to cut the deficit - which is basically a lie.

The deficit has indeed been cut; from 11% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2010 to 4% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2015.

The national debt has of course increased over that period, because the deficit had not, for most of that period, been cut to the point where the national debt began falling as a percentage of GDP. Starting from an 11% deficit, the government would have had to implement enormous tax rises/and or spending cuts, to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from day one. I don't know whether or not you're arguing in favour of such a policy.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Scott_P said:

Dan is in apocalyptic mode...

@TelePolitics: If Jeremy Corbyn is Labour's leader there may not be a way back http://t.co/uu9Yw2X8do

"But I have a horrible, gut wrenching feeling that what the Labour Party is about to do can never be undone. "

He could be right (often is). Don Brind appears to think that this Corbyn era will only lead to a GE election loss in 2020. But all these new hard left people and the engaged union ones have radically altered the Labour party, forever.

Associating with anti-semites and people that welcome the death of our soldiers is not something easy to wash away. The stains remain as Macbeth discovered. It is far far worse than the foolish Conservatives that tolerated the anti-gay elements. The nasty party smear could be mild compared to what is about to hit the Labour party. Throw in reselections, CLP takeovers, purges etc etc and the Labour party may not exist as a national party in the 2020s.

I think this death of the Labour stuff is getting a bit overdone. Let's say it goes badly in 2020 and Corbyn loses 70 seats. Looking at Lab defence and who is in 2nd place my guess is this means 40 seats lost to Con, 20 to UKIP, 10 to LDs and maybe 1-2 to the Greens.

Despite everything Lab would still be in a clear 2nd place and the opposition. It's hard to see who could overhaul Lab from the present position. Eventually the public will be looking for a change and Lab are the only realistic alternative

Probably true - it's notable that only about half the 'death of labour' stuff is from Tories, the rest from Labour people, and both are probably over egging it for different reasons.

Labour won't die, but it might be very sick for 5 to 10 years.

@seant
I think if this was the 80's when the Trots were prepared to do the long yards to take control of the Labour party you could well be right.

But we are in the post naughties- to take over a constituency party requires effort. Many of the newbies who signed up for 3 quid- if they turned up to just one constituency meeting would be scared off.

This is the age of immediacy- social networking, the Voice. These new members will not have the staying power to change the fundamentals of the Labour party as a party that wants to govern.

All Labour is doing is having it's IDS moment. It needs to get it out of its system and thats that. All parties have these moments.





"But what if Labour's shift leftwards proves permanent? An influx of new members and activists from the Greens, TUSC, Stop the War, Respect, Hamas, ISIS, Plaid Cymru and the Khmer Rouge (Tamworth branch) will change the party forever. The members might never elect a centrist/centre leftist leader again. Meaning they will have no chance of ever winning a GE.

At some point the voters will seek an Opposition they CAN support, to replace the Tories, and if Labour look permanently unelectable....

I agree it is unlikely, but the death of Labour is far from impossible."

Oliver_PB said:

flightpath01 said:

Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

This is not true.

The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

Cutting the deficit and national debt has not remotely been a priority. Indeed, the national debt increased more under the first term under Osborne than it did under Darling, despite policies supposedly designed to cut the debt (e.g. the VAT increase, swathing government cuts)

The press, captured by the right, has failed to point out this obvious truth. This has allowed for the government to sound moderate by selling a lie while implementing a far-right agenda. The average person thinks 'austerity' has been used to cut the deficit - which is basically a lie.

I love posts like this. This exactly reflects Labour's economic strategy at the General Election: criticise the Tories for austerity, then criticise them for not doing it properly and fast enough, and then, on almost the eve of the election, admit you'd have to do a bit of that anyway, just more nicely than the Tories, without saying how or where.

Do you not realise how ludicrously inconsistent that is?

Sean_F said:

The deficit has indeed been cut; from 11% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2010 to 4% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2015.

Using percentage of GDP is highly misleading in this context. In recessions, GDP falls and government spending rises. You would naturally expect deficit as proportion of GDP to naturally decrease at the UK exited recession without any government intervention.

The national debt has of course increased over that period, because the deficit had not, for most of that period, been cut to the point where the national debt began falling as a percentage of GDP. Starting from an 11% deficit, the government would have had to implement enormous tax rises/and or spending cuts, to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from day one. I don't know whether or not you're arguing in favour of such a policy.

I don't have the figures at hand (I'm trying to find them to no avail) but I imagine raising VAT, not cutting income and corporation taxes and freezing pensions would have almost certainly had a greater effect on the deficit than the policies the government did carry out, and that's without swinging government spending cuts.

DavidL said:

Anyone who thinks that the death of the Labour party is inconceivable has simply not been paying attention to what has happened to SLAB.

All it takes is an alternative, not even a particularly credible one, and the edifice can come tumbling down.

I think Farage resignation post-EU referendum and Steven Woolfe or Suzanne Evans for UKIP leader could exploit this opportunity potentially.

Pro_Rata said:

deputy leader in this environment is a road to nowhere

Seems to me like it might be a swift road to the leadership.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Labour won't die, but it might be very sick for 5 to 10 years.

Completely agree. All parties need to be out of power to rejuvenate. Holding power is exhausting, particularly so for left wing parties which appear to be particularly scarred by the ideological compromises that being in government entails.

It seems that Labour requires a good three thumping election defeats to get its mojo back. The 70's was different because both the Tories and Labour acted like two heavyweight boxers clinging onto each other in the last round of a punch fest- i.e. they were both sick, until Thatcher turned up.

I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.

Tissue_Price said:

Pro_Rata said:

deputy leader in this environment is a road to nowhere

Seems to me like it might be a swift road to the leadership.

Acting leadership perhaps, but not a permanent stable leadership in anybody's reality other than Tom Watson's.

Pauly said:

DavidL said:

Anyone who thinks that the death of the Labour party is inconceivable has simply not been paying attention to what has happened to SLAB.

All it takes is an alternative, not even a particularly credible one, and the edifice can come tumbling down.

I think Farage resignation post-EU referendum and Steven Woolfe or Suzanne Evans for UKIP leader could exploit this opportunity potentially.

There is also the possibility of someone with a large amount of money announcing the formation of New Democrats, or some such, and seeing which Lab MPs start to think twice about their loyalty.

Your stuff about “moving might and main” to oppose the Tories is pure guff. The fact is that an Opposition that isn’t led by a potential Prime Minister and which isn’t seriously looking to replace the Government becomes a weak and ineffectual Opposition. You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.

The flaw in this argument is, when the government has a majority of just 6, it very much IS possible to stop Tory policies happening. All he has to do is whip up enough public outcry about various policies to force a few Tory MPs in marginal seats to go wobbly (in the way that UKIP did in the last parliament). But unfortunately, with the current leadership, grassroots members are sceptical of whether they can trust them to have the guts to try to make the arguments to apply that pressure, or indeed, after the Welfare Bill, not sure if they can trust them to even vote against Tory policies themselves.

Casino_Royale said:

Oliver_PB said:

flightpath01 said:

Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

This is not true.

The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

Cutting the deficit and national debt has not remotely been a priority. Indeed, the national debt increased more under the first term under Osborne than it did under Darling, despite policies supposedly designed to cut the debt (e.g. the VAT increase, swathing government cuts)

The press, captured by the right, has failed to point out this obvious truth. This has allowed for the government to sound moderate by selling a lie while implementing a far-right agenda. The average person thinks 'austerity' has been used to cut the deficit - which is basically a lie.

I love posts like this. This exactly reflects Labour's economic strategy at the General Election: criticise the Tories for austerity, then criticise them for not doing it properly and fast enough, and then, on almost the eve of the election, admit you'd have to do a bit of that anyway, just more nicely than the Tories, without saying how or where.

Do you not realise how ludicrously inconsistent that is?

That's because it's true.

It's not a tough concept to grasp:
1. Argue there's a need for deep austerity to cut the deficit

2. Implement swingeing cuts, while implementing large tax cuts and pension increases to ensure you fail to cut the deficit.

3. Return to 1.

Labour struggled to articulate this and the press had no interest in doing so. Reshaping government is ideological, yet the Conservatives never decided to argue their case, instead arguing the need for "austerity" and "cutting the deficit" instead, despite having little interest in balancing the books.

It's similar to policies by the GOP in the US, who run on a platform of 'fiscal competence' then cut taxes to unsustainable levels and run huge deficits to 'starve the beast'.

Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.

Barnesian said:

I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.

The lady who posted the Milibeard pic is now trolling the media quite amusingly:

https://twitter.com/GrainneMaguire/with_replies

Barnesian said:

I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.

I'd lay that if it didn't involve tieing up cash for a 5% return in 3 or 4 years. I think odds of 22-1 are skinny.

Oliver_PB said:

The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

Why would the Tories need cover for implementing their ideology? They got voted in with a majority precisely because that was the ideology that the electorate wanted.

People want a smaller state with lower spending, they also want the deficit to be reduced. The Tories are providing them with a double win.

I can't understand the lefty outrage at the Tories enacting policies from their manifesto on which they got voted into power.

Good afternoon, comrades.

It still seems bloody odd that a friend of Hamas could become Leader of the Opposition.

Spring time for UKIP? If Farage had toddled off it would be. Even with him, they have a perfect match for Corbyn's Labour when it comes to immigration.

tyson said:

Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.

Barnesian said:

I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.

Interesting. Pre-Corbynmania, I suggested that Burnham was Labour's IDS. Nothing I've seen in this leadership contest has caused me to revise that opinion upwards.

Mr. Simon, not only that, IDS' tactical shenanigans got him the leadership. Burnham's tactical shenanigans appear to have cost him the leadership, and, even if they haven't, he's had to lurch Lenin-ward.