politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s LAB gets to within 4% with ICM equalling the party

Roger said:

Early days but it's clear the public see qualities in the new Labour leadership not immediately apparent to posters on here.

kle4 said:

Roger said:

Early days but it's clear the public see qualities in the new Labour leadership not immediately apparent to posters on here.

It is not at all clear that is the case from any sort of evidence. As pointed out previously, even many of those predicting a never ending Tory hegemony as a result of Corbyn's leadership have often acknowledged he will, at some point, even see Labour leading in the polls.

Personally I think many of his views are distasteful, but that is not a deal breaker for most people even if they don't agree with him, as he has other qualities which enable him to present himself well, and that the biggest stumbling block is likely to be those around him rather that he himself.

ReggieCide said:

kle4 said:

Roger said:

Early days but it's clear the public see qualities in the new Labour leadership not immediately apparent to posters on here.

It is not at all clear that is the case from any sort of evidence. As pointed out previously, even many of those predicting a never ending Tory hegemony as a result of Corbyn's leadership have often acknowledged he will, at some point, even see Labour leading in the polls.

Personally I think many of his views are distasteful, but that is not a deal breaker for most people even if they don't agree with him, as he has other qualities which enable him to present himself well, and that the biggest stumbling block is likely to be those around him rather that he himself.

I have problems with your irony at times.

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OldKingCole said:

I suppose the real worry over Syria is not that there'll be a stand-off, or even fight between NATO and Russian forces but some sort of horrendous accident.

The real worry is you have a seriously f*cked off Saudi Arabia watching their terrorist progeny get slaughtered, and not doing very well directly fighting in Yemen either - terrified of losing control of the region to Shias, and eventually their own power. You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. And you have the world's feral (formerly) hegemonic superpower who've just been shat on from a great height by the 'Ruskies', who are in the process of making their 13 month 'anti-ISIS' campaign look like the utter sham it was/is, and are now staring the loss of world policeman status in the face. Powder keg doesn't even come close.

" You have Turkey who will stop at nothing to create a situation where they can dominate the region to recreate the Ottoman Empire. "

That is totally and utterly ridiculous. I think you'd need all Alcan's output for a year to make a tinfoil hat big enough.

Do you not think that Erdogan has neo-colonial ambitions?

I don't think so, no. Some say he does, but the evidence seems mightily thin. He has enough problems within his country as it stands, without importing new ones.

Like many people in this UK wrt the empire, he and others in his government seem to look back to the Ottoman times as glorious, even if they were far from such (the Ottoman empire suffered a prolonged strangulation over many years).

Some in the UK want to go back to the glory days of Empire when the country was great, for instance by reintroducing national service. That does not mean they want to invade India and a third of Africa. It's the same with some in the AKP: they want Turkey to move back towards Ottoman times domestically whilst still using the best of the modern world. That does not mean they're going to invade (militarily or economically) the old empire.

It's about religion and traditions.

At least that's my reading of it.

(Please realise I have to be a little careful in what I say about Turkish politics, but I will say things as I see them, even if I tone them down a little ... )

kle4 said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Moses_ said:

Speedy said:

chestnut said:

Libby Wiener ‏@LibbyWienerITV 1h1 hour ago
Heated exchanges at tonight's PLP. One backbencher reportedly shouting at Corbyn demanding to know where Labour stand on policies @itvnews

Libby Wiener ‏@LibbyWienerITV 56m56 minutes ago
If Corbyn thought his 1st PLP was bad, getting even rougher ride at his 2nd U-turn on fiscal charter dubbed 'a huge joke' by one MP@itvnews

By U-turn they mean that Corbyn has a different opinion from Harman.

Ok let's just back up a bit on this comment.

Yesterday Surbiton was claiming that there were and I quote "fissures and cracks" appearing in the Tories a a result of differences of opinion over the EU yet? ....yet , tonight you a fellow traveller dismiss such a claim when related to Labour in a similar situation?

M'Kay

We will ignore entirely then the quote / unquote "utter fecking shambles " how Ben ?Bradshore) described the PLP meeting. No cracks and fissures there ....Oh no sireee just a difference of opinion I guess Nothing to see here move along please.

Let deselecting commence.

I should think Ben Bradshaw of all people is safe - being the only non Tory in the entire SW outside of Bristol, should be enough for him to have sufficient personal support locally no matter if he goes against the current national strain of Labour opinion.

GIN1138 said:

This is the same ICM that made and complete and utter pigs ear of the general election?

Cyclefree said:

MP_SE said:

JEO said:

MP_SE said:

Plato_Says said:

LOL http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11927050/Want-to-leave-the-EU-Thatll-be-31-quadrillion-please.html

Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.

Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.

I'm guessing he meant in total and accidentally said 'per person'? Still even on that basis, it doesn't square with 3000 or 300 per person. Combined with the 'quitters' kerfaffle the Remain campaign seems like an omnishambles at the moment.

According to Karren Brady, leaving the EU is "way too dangerous":

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/653515767477047296

I presume this June Sarpong character has been brought on board to appeal to the youth vote, except noone really remembers who she is:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/12/who-is-june-sarpong-twitter-isnt-sure-so-heres-everything-you-need-to-know-5435242/

Richard Reed of Innocent Smoothes then goes on to say "The 'Out' guys - or 'the Quitters' as we like to call them." Not suprising as he barely grasps how the EU functions (the regulations he is forced to comply with are actually made by the Codex Alimentarius Commission) so resorts to childish insults.

I hope the level of debate improves as this is just insulting to everyone who would like to vote in what is a serious matter.

ReggieCide said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

MP_SE said:

Plato_Says said:

LOL http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11927050/Want-to-leave-the-EU-Thatll-be-31-quadrillion-please.html

Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.

Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.

The £3000 was per family.
Agree that it's all nonsense though.
Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.

isam said:

GIN1138 said:

This is the same ICM that made and complete and utter pigs ear of the general election?

They didnt really

They released a poll around April 13 that had the Tories on 39 and Labour on 33 (OK it had UKIP on 7 which was obv v wrong)

The following week s ICM was 34/32 C/L

I noted all the ups and downs from polls from the time of that 2nd poll.. by the day before the GE the Conservatives were back at the level of April 13 on the whole, and Labour had fallen away markedly

The writing was on the wall for all who wanted to see it, guided by the polls... The Con Majority was foreseeable.. I curse myself that I was to blinkered to see it myself, although I did say to back Cons in every marginal and Con Minority

Cyclefree said:

That photo makes it look like one of those tedious Leadership workshops HR make you attend from time to time. All it needs is David Brent and a flip chart and it's every office worker's worst nightmare.

John_M said:

Roger said:

Early days but it's clear the public see qualities in the new Labour leadership not immediately apparent to posters on here.

Shame the PLP doesn't feel the same way.

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

I'm quite fascinated to see that there is a

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

"Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO.
Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.

Syria borders the Mediterranean anyway so still covered by Article 6, although of course Putin is not so stupid as to risk bombing from NATO in Syria and you are being ridiculous to even consider it.

The Falklands War is a totally different prospect, had the USSR shot down a British jet deliberately Reagan would have responded, he was not going to risk US blood defending a few penguins in the South Atlantic from Argentina

It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of Europe like the middle east, Syria is outside article 6.
Vietnam is also not covered by article 6 so the americans had to fight without NATO there.
Once upon a time the USA had numerous alliances to cover different areas, NATO covers just Europe and the North Atlantic. CENTO was for the middle east, SEATO was for the far east but they no longer exist, the ANZUS still exists though.

Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.

The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wrong. The Korean War was not covered either but we joined the US there but not in Vietnam, nothing to do with Article 6. If Russians deliberately shot down a British jet, a US jet or a French jet then US cruise missiles would hit Latakia end of conversation, which is why Putin is not even going to consider it

AndyJS said:

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

According to the latest Canadian polls, the Liberals are set to increase from 19% to something like 34% with most of that coming from the NDP. The Tories are actually on course to increase their support in Quebec and have an outside chance of coming first there.

The Canada poll average has the Liberals ahead with 34.7% to the Tories 31.7% and the NDP on 23.4%. That would produce a Liberal minority government with the Liberals on 134 seats, the Tories 119 and NDP 80. In Quebec Nanos today has the NDP ahead with 32.7%, the Liberals on 28.7%, the Bloc on 23.2% and the Tories on 14%. Given today's ICM has the Tories on 18% in Scotland the Quebec Tories are doing worse than their Tartan cousins!

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html
http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/20151011 Ballot TrackingE.pdf

That's a bit odd. The previous Quebec poll I saw from a few days ago had the Tories and the NDP on 28% in equal first place. How can they now be on 14%?

SeanT said:

I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.

It's either that or takeover by an unelectable Trotskyite clique that they all despise, and the death of Labour as a serious electoral force. Pretty high stakes.

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

I'm quite fascinated to see that there is a

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

"Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO.
Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.

Syria borders the Mediterranean anyway so still covered by Article 6, although of course Putin is not so stupid as to risk bombing from NATO in Syria and you are being ridiculous to even consider it.

The Falklands War is a totally different prospect, had the USSR shot down a British jet deliberately Reagan would have responded, he was not going to risk US blood defending a few penguins in the South Atlantic from Argentina

It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of E

Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.

The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wrong. The Korean War was not covered either but we joined the US there but not in Vietnam, nothing to do with Article 6. If Russians deliberately shot down a British jet, a US jet or a French jet then US cruise missiles would hit Latakia end of conversation, which is why Putin is not even going to consider it

Navy and airforces in and above the mediterrenean sea, not above land.
Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east.
Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?

When he opened with the worst ever leadership ratings, it could suggest Corbyn may defy conventional patterns and actually see some improvement in his personals later - the only way is up, it would seem - and so perhaps such a party figure is acceptable too.

I don't think that particularly likely myself, but I don't think it is entirely without reason to think if he sticks around for awhile, given known Tory troubles (as opposed to merely likely troubles) on the horizon, and his low starting position, that 4% is not that bad. After all, it is still true that for anti-Tories, there is nowhere else to go, in England at least.

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SeanT said:

I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.

It's either that or takeover by an unelectable Trotskyite clique that they all despise, and the death of Labour as a serious electoral force. Pretty high stakes.

The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.

The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/how-labours-left-can-push-out-centrist-mps-without-mandatory-reselection/

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

I'm quite fascinated to see that there is a

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

"Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO.
Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.

The Falklands War is a totally different prospect, had the USSR shot down a British jet deliberately Reagan would have responded, he was not going to risk US blood defending a few penguins in the South Atlantic from Argentina

It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of E

Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.

The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wrong. The Korean War was not covered either but we joined the US there but not in Vietnam, nothing to do with Article 6. If Russians deliberately shot down a British jet, a US jet or a French jet then US cruise missiles would hit Latakia end of conversation, which is why Putin is not even going to consider it

Navy and airforces in and above the mediterrenean sea, not above land.
Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east.
Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.

Yes and British jets are more likely to come into contact with the Russians over the Mediterranean given they will be operating in different areas of Syria. I repeat, if Russian jets downed a British, French or US jet US cruise missiles would inevitably hit Latakia but Putin is not stupid and would never allow that to happen

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SeanT said:

I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.

It's either that or takeover by an unelectable Trotskyite clique that they all despise, and the death of Labour as a serious electoral force. Pretty high stakes.

The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.

The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/how-labours-left-can-push-out-centrist-mps-without-mandatory-reselection/

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SeanT said:

I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.

It's either that or takeover by an unelectable Trotskyite clique that they all despise, and the death of Labour as a serious electoral force. Pretty high stakes.

The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.

The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/how-labours-left-can-push-out-centrist-mps-without-mandatory-reselection/

Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard

JEO said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

MP_SE said:

Plato_Says said:

LOL http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11927050/Want-to-leave-the-EU-Thatll-be-31-quadrillion-please.html

Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.

Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.

The £3000 was per family.
Agree that it's all nonsense though.
Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

I'm quite fascinated to see that there is a

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

"Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO.
Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.

The Falklands War is a totally different prospect, had the USSR shot down a British jet deliberately Reagan would have responded, he was not going to risk US blood defending a few penguins in the South Atlantic from Argentina

It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of E

Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.

The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wr

Navy and airforces in and above the mediterrenean sea, not above land.
Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east.
Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.

Yes and British jets are more likely to come into contact with the Russians over the Mediterranean given they will be operating in different areas of Syria. I repeat, if Russian jets downed a British, French or US jet US cruise missiles would inevitably hit Latakia but Putin is not stupid and would never allow that to happen

The middle of the mediterranian sea is not Syria, Cameron can bomb the sea as much as he likes.

ReggieCide said:

HYUFD said:

ReggieCide said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?

You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.

Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering

I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SeanT said:

I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.

It's either that or takeover by an unelectable Trotskyite clique that they all despise, and the death of Labour as a serious electoral force. Pretty high stakes.

The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.

The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/how-labours-left-can-push-out-centrist-mps-without-mandatory-reselection/

Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard

And Corbyn would still run and win again.
That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

ReggieCide said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

MP_SE said:

Plato_Says said:

LOL http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11927050/Want-to-leave-the-EU-Thatll-be-31-quadrillion-please.html

Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.

Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.

The £3000 was per family.
Agree that it's all nonsense though.
Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.

You really are an optimist. Justification for political claims? Whatever next.

SquareRoot said:

ReggieCide said:

HYUFD said:

ReggieCide said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?

You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.

Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering

I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.

Just as well as you believe polls. ICM got it wrong at the GE. They are supposed to have changed their methodology. In what way was it changed and what effect does this new polling have v the old method??????????????????????????. We should be told. I have seen nothing to convince me any poll is on the money about anything since GE 2015. Have you?

isam said:

Interesting story on front page of the times... Cameron was defending the links with Saudi prisons on last weeks Marr show

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/653685591687741441

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SeanT said:

I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.

It's either that or takeover by an unelectable Trotskyite clique that they all despise, and the death of Labour as a serious electoral force. Pretty high stakes.

The only one forced out in recent years was Blair and that was to fulfill the ambition of Brown and his henchmen. I just cannot see the Labour MPs acquiring the courage to act over Corbyn and McDonnell.

The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/how-labours-left-can-push-out-centrist-mps-without-mandatory-reselection/

Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard

And Corbyn would still run and win again.
That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.

You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules

And again you are wrong since the rules, specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii says:

“Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”.

There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn.
Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.

ReggieCide said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

ReggieCide said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

MP_SE said:

Plato_Says said:

LOL http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11927050/Want-to-leave-the-EU-Thatll-be-31-quadrillion-please.html

Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.

Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.

The £3000 was per family.
Agree that it's all nonsense though.
Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.

You really are an optimist. Justification for political claims? Whatever next.

Poor deluded fool that I am.
Seriously though, these assorted amounts of money that get thrown around really need to be challenged.

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

I'm quite fascinated to see that there is a

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

"Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

The above is the reason why the Falklands War were fought by Britain only, not by NATO.
Interestingly enough, Hawaii is also excluded from NATO coverage even if it's a US state.

The Falklands War is a totally different prospect, had the USSR shot down a British jet deliberately Reagan would have responded, he was not going to risk US blood defending a few penguins in the South Atlantic from Argentina

It covers forces in the mediterranean sea (navy), not the ones stationed inland outside of E

Lets hope that the PM has better knowledge of the boundaries of NATO affairs than you do, without offence.

The port of Latakia where the Russians are based in Syria is on the Mediterranean and the article quite clearly mentions aircraft so wr

Navy and airforces in and above the mediterrenean sea, not above land.
Britain is not covered by NATO in the middle east.
Every inch of Syria's territory and airspace is not covered by Article 6 of NATO, including ports.

Yes and British jets are more likely to come into contact with the Russians over the Mediterranean given they will be operating in different areas of Syria. I repeat, if Russian jets downed a British, French or US jet US cruise missiles would inevitably hit Latakia but Putin is not stupid and would never allow that to happen

The middle of the mediterranian sea is not Syria, Cameron can bomb the sea as much as he likes.

It is the area Russian jets are most likely to come into contact with UK jets, rather rendering your already ridiculous hypothetical redundant

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SeanT said:

I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.

The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/how-labours-left-can-push-out-centrist-mps-without-mandatory-reselection/

Depends, IDS won 60% of the Tory membership, Corbyn 59%, IDS was still toppled after the Tories came third in a by election in Brent East. If Labour came third in a by election behind UKIP, especially in a former Labour seat, and were still trailing in the polls MPs may have no choice but to pick Hilary Benn to be their Michael Howard

And Corbyn would still run and win again.
That's the whole point, Labour MP's can challenge Corbyn for the leadership but can't deny him running since the 35 MP threshold does not apply to the Leader.

You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules

And again you are wrong since the rules, specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii says:

“Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”.

There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn.
Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.

Yes, so Labour officials have interpreted that requirement for nominations to include the leader, nothing in that Clause explicitly eprecludes that

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

The Tories are also up on the general election though on 38%. Mori also had Labour on 34% in its first post Corbyn poll. Comres has reweighted since the election and has Labour unchanged on 30%. 34% is the score Kinnock got in 1992 when Major got a bigger majority than Cameron

On a GB basis - which is what the polls give us! - Kinnock polled 35.2% in 1992.

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

The Tories are also up on the general election though on 38%. Mori also had Labour on 34% in its first post Corbyn poll. Comres has reweighted since the election and has Labour unchanged on 30%. 34% is the score Kinnock got in 1992 when Major got a bigger majority than Cameron

On a GB basis - which is what the polls give us! - Kinnock polled 35.2% in 1992.

So Corbyn is still doing worse than Kinnock then

SquareRoot said:

ReggieCide said:

HYUFD said:

ReggieCide said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?

You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.

Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering

I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.

Just as well as you believe polls. ICM got it wrong at the GE. They are supposed to have changed their methodology. In what way was it changed and what effect does this new polling have v the old method??????????????????????????. We should be told. I have seen nothing to convince me any poll is on the money about anything since GE 2015. Have you?

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

The Tories are also up on the general election though on 38%. Mori also had Labour on 34% in its first post Corbyn poll. Comres has reweighted since the election and has Labour unchanged on 30%. 34% is the score Kinnock got in 1992 when Major got a bigger majority than Cameron

On a GB basis - which is what the polls give us! - Kinnock polled 35.2% in 1992.

So Corbyn is still doing worse than Kinnock then

Did someone say "we're alright"? Pretty sure I saw it upthread.

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SeanT said:

I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.

The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/how-labours-left-can-push-out-centrist-mps-without-mandatory-reselection/

Dard

the Leader.

You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules

There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn.
Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.

Yes, so Labour officials have interpreted that requirement for nominations to include the leader, nothing in that Clause explicitly eprecludes that

Nope the rules ( specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii.) are clear there can only be nominations to challenge Corbyn, his opponents will have to be nominated to challenge him not Corbyn.

Here it is again, it's in english: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”

Corbyn does not need to be nominated, his challengers need to, unnamed Labour officials or not the rules are in english and clear.

The first sentence says challengers need nominations, true. The second sentence says nominations are then required, it does not explicitly restrict that requirement to challengers so could also be interpreted to include the incumbent too in the event of a challenge and Labour officials have clearly done so

MarqueeMark said:

PMQs should be fun tomorrow.

"I've received a question from an Ed in Doncaster. He wonders if the Prime Minister can tell him what he ever did to deserve being replaced by the current Leader of the....oh, hang on, that shouldn't be in there.... "

I expect Cameron to have a go at Corbyn to condemn spitting - probably referencing McDonnell supporting it as a form of protest... Be a fun wedge to start driving between the two of them.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

ReggieCide said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

ReggieCide said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

MP_SE said:

Plato_Says said:

LOL http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11927050/Want-to-leave-the-EU-Thatll-be-31-quadrillion-please.html

Probably he meant to say “Being in the EU”, rather than “Being in Britain”. Still: a saving of £480 million a year for every person in the country. It sounded a remarkable figure. Had he got that right? Lord Rose led M&S to great commercial success, so he must know his sums. But, unless he’d misread his notes, he did appear to be suggesting that to leave the EU would cost the UK a total of £31 quadrillion a year. Written out in full, that number ends in 15 zeroes, and is just under 20,000 times bigger than the UK national debt.

Maybe he meant £480? Although I believe he quoted £300 earlier on today and £3,000 yesterday. Not off to a great start.

The £3000 was per family.
Agree that it's all nonsense though.
Would love to see some justification for all these figures thrown around.

You really are an optimist. Justification for political claims? Whatever next.

Poor deluded fool that I am.
Seriously though, these assorted amounts of money that get thrown around really need to be challenged.

I can, to some extent, understand their reluctance. Why go to all that bother when no one is going to believe what you say anyway.

justin124 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?

In 1975 following Thatcher's election as leader Labour often led in the polls!

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SeanT said:

I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.

The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/how-labours-left-can-push-out-centrist-mps-without-mandatory-reselection/

Dard

the Leader.

You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules

There can be an annual challenge against Corbyn, potential challengers need to be nominated to challenge Corbyn.
Corbyn is not the one who needs the 20% of the PLP since he won't challenge himself.

Yes, so Labour officials have interpreted that requirement for nominations to include the leader, nothing in that Clause explicitly eprecludes that

Nope the rules ( specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii.) are clear there can only be nominations to challenge Corbyn, his opponents will have to be nominated to challenge him not Corbyn.

Here it is again, it's in english: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”

Corbyn does not need to be nominated, his challengers need to, unnamed Labour officials or not the rules are in english and clear.

The first sentence says challenger

Nominations are required to challenge the leader, if there is a challenge Corbyn does not require to be nominated to challenge himself since he is already leader.

The unnamed Labour officials need to read their own rule book for God's sake, Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii:
http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Rule-Book-2013.pdf

The only thing we know about those unnamed Labour officials is that they don't know english.

HYUFD said:

ReggieCide said:

HYUFD said:

ReggieCide said:

HYUFD said:

ReggieCide said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What has the world come to that during a new Opposition Leaders honeymoon being only 4% behind is considered good news?

You have to take into account who the new Labour leader is. To my mind 4% is extraordinary given that circumstance.

Why? He has not shifted one net Tory voter to Labour, he has simply picked up some Greens and LDs, hardly earthshattering

I stick by my post. I believe it is extraordinary that Corbyn only lags by 4% given who he is, what he says, who supports him. It is an observation with the inference that I would have expected him to lag by much more. "Extraordinary" works both ways.

IDS even led Labour in a few 2003 polls, now that really was 'extraordinary'
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005

It may have something to do with my politics but I don't think IDS is as toxic as JC nor, more debatably, as incompetent.

IDS was taken even less seriously than Corbyn

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

SeanT said:

I suspect, increasingly, that Labour MPs will find some way to remove Corbyn and McDonnell in the next 18 months. They will change the rules. They will cheat. They will tell the membership to go jump.

The membership will eat the MP's alive if they somehow manage to overthrow Corbyn, thanks to the boundary changes and the reduction of the number of MP's:

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/how-labours-left-can-push-out-centrist-mps-without-mandatory-reselection/

Dard

the Leader.

You are wrong there as Labour officials have said that it does and they, not Corbyn, interpret the rules

T challenge himself.

at

Nope the rules ( specifically Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii.) are clear there can only be nominations to challenge Corbyn, his opponents will have to be nominated to challenge him not Corbyn.

Here it is again, it's in english: “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case nominations must be supported by 20% of the Commons members of the PLP”

Corbyn does not need to be nominated, his challengers need to, unnamed Labour officials or not the rules are in english and clear.

The first sentence says challenger

Nominations are required to challenge the leader, if there is a challenge Corbyn does not require to be nominated to challenge himself since he is already leader.

The unnamed Labour officials need to read their own rule book for God's sake, Chapter 4, Clause II, rule 2 B ii:
http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Rule-Book-2013.pdf

The only thing we know about those unnamed Labour officials is that they don't know english.

There is nothing that precludes a challenged incumbent from also being required to get 20% of MPs to nominate him in that Clause and Peter Mandelson certainly will do so!