Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don Brind: Why having an “electable” leader matters so much

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don Brind: Why having an “electable” leader matters so much

The great chronicler of US presidential elections, Theodore White, tells the story of a Democratic candidate for minor office in New York who complained to the local party boss that the party had issued no publicity with his name on it. Go down to the harbour, he was told. Look at the Staten Island ferry. When it comes in to dock it drags harbour garbage in its wake.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,598
    1st like Corbyn
  • On Betfair, is there an easy way to see the last price traded on a particular bet? I realise the graph sort of indicates this but it's difficult to draw firm conclusions from.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,040
    foxinsoxuk said:
    » show previous quotes
    The Kulaks and other wreckers must be liquidated.

    Danczuk wants to overthrow the newly elected leader, Mann wants to redraw the rules because he doesnt like the democratic result and Kendall would just be a better Tory MP than a Lab one IMO

    Carry on talking Kulaks
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,040
    3rd like Burnham
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,040
    OK 4th like Liz
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,538
    "support for Corbyn is part of a shake-up that is happening across Europe."

    Support for JC is a reaction to the paucity of the alternatives on offer - like what is happening across Europe.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,040
    Burnham sounding all left wing on The World at One
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,127

    3rd like Burnham


    I think you mean: 3rd like Labour in 2020.

  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    OK 4th like Liz

    How about, 'unable to do your sums, like Labour"?

    ;-)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,873

    Burnham sounding all left wing on The World at One

    @GuidoFawkes: Burnham Backs Corbyn in Cooper Bunfight http://t.co/b5dkSIbCCI http://t.co/nBNFxp5Nqv
  • DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    "If Corbyn is hinting that he would stand down without completing a full term there is hope that Labour could yet go in to 2020 with a leader who is “electable”."

    Is he hinting this?

    Why would he suggest he would stand down?
  • Scott_P said:

    Burnham sounding all left wing on The World at One

    @GuidoFawkes: Burnham Backs Corbyn in Cooper Bunfight http://t.co/b5dkSIbCCI http://t.co/nBNFxp5Nqv
    Can I have a job in the shadow cabinet please Jeremy?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    Thank you for an interesting commentary.

    Thank you for the Runciman link. I found it interesting, but I don't think he's quite grasped the scale of the problem. Corbyn's admirers appear to be convinced he will do well at PMQs against Cameron, for example, because he is authentic. Never mind that he's not a great public speaker and has little experience of interacting with others live in debate. So there is an element of the wishful as well as the wilful about it (to coin Runciman's own phrase).

    On a more amusing note, I misread Steve Richards' article. He said that Gordon Brown was 'close to bankers'. I misread that a for an o. I was slightly surprised at the admission, although let's face it, it had long been rumoured!
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    “To keep the broad church intact Corbyn would have to disappoint those cheering now or preside over some form of schism.”
    If so, just like Obama. Remember his pledge to close down Gitmo minside 12 months?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited August 2015

    Scott_P said:

    Burnham sounding all left wing on The World at One

    @GuidoFawkes: Burnham Backs Corbyn in Cooper Bunfight http://t.co/b5dkSIbCCI http://t.co/nBNFxp5Nqv
    Can I have a job in the shadow cabinet please Jeremy?
    Burnham, shameless opportunist as his political career crashes off the track.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139

    "If Corbyn is hinting that he would stand down without completing a full term there is hope that Labour could yet go in to 2020 with a leader who is “electable”."

    Is he hinting this?

    Why would he suggest he would stand down?

    Possible excuse would be age. At 66 he could easily develop some illness or other that would impair his effectiveness as well.

    Besides, if the Labour left were Machiavellian (which they're not, so this is an unlikely scenario) Corbyn wins, radicalises the Labour party, ensures another (in his eyes) more plausible left wing candidate can win and then bows out in that person's favour.

    Only thing is, John Trickett is not plausible and it's difficult to reconcile the rest with the word 'candidate'.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,040

    3rd like Burnham

    Scott_P said:

    Burnham sounding all left wing on The World at One

    @GuidoFawkes: Burnham Backs Corbyn in Cooper Bunfight http://t.co/b5dkSIbCCI http://t.co/nBNFxp5Nqv
    Can I have a job in the shadow cabinet please Jeremy?
    Still hoping for 2nd pref from Jezza supporters
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,873
    @davieclegg: Did three vox pops of audience members on way in to Corbyn event. All had voted Yes in the referendum.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    On Betfair, is there an easy way to see the last price traded on a particular bet? I realise the graph sort of indicates this but it's difficult to draw firm conclusions from.

    It's on the ladder next to the graph isn't it?
  • Scott_P said:

    @davieclegg: Did three vox pops of audience members on way in to Corbyn event. All had voted Yes in the referendum.

    If, and it's a big if, Corbyn can restore the fortunes of the Scottish Labour Party, then he will achieve something I do think Burnham or Cooper can.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,410

    Burnham sounding all left wing on The World at One

    The man is fool.
  • isam said:

    On Betfair, is there an easy way to see the last price traded on a particular bet? I realise the graph sort of indicates this but it's difficult to draw firm conclusions from.

    It's on the ladder next to the graph isn't it?
    I thought that gave every trade on the market.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    Has the Women's test ended in a draw already ?!

    Still a day and a bit to go !
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Enthusiasm on the left is only matched by the panic on the right of the party.

    Talk of a coup by the losers is pathetic.

    and by the hilarity on the right of politics. The Tories feeling more confident about 2020 as time goes on, and the kippers gloating at the possibility of turning a collection of those Northern near misses into real seats next time thanks to Comrade Corbyn.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    isam said:

    On Betfair, is there an easy way to see the last price traded on a particular bet? I realise the graph sort of indicates this but it's difficult to draw firm conclusions from.

    It's on the ladder next to the graph isn't it?
    I thought that gave every trade on the market.
    On that page it also shows the last matched price
  • 3rd like Burnham

    Scott_P said:

    Burnham sounding all left wing on The World at One

    @GuidoFawkes: Burnham Backs Corbyn in Cooper Bunfight http://t.co/b5dkSIbCCI http://t.co/nBNFxp5Nqv
    Can I have a job in the shadow cabinet please Jeremy?
    Still hoping for 2nd pref from Jezza supporters
    Wouldn't that only be relevant if Corbyn doesn't make the top 2? I can't see that happening.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291
    It's all too late, isn't it? The Corbyn die is cast.

    Sensible Labour MPs and activists now have to accept that reality and try to find ways of mitigating the damage (or leave politics altogether, which I imagine many will do). I don't really have many suggestions on the best way to do this - perhaps start by working with the remaining sane trade unionists? But I'm pretty sure that the Simon Danczuk approach is the wrong one; even more damaging for Labour than a Corbyn leadership itself will be the civil war which will follow.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Pulpstar said:

    Has the Women's test ended in a draw already ?!

    Still a day and a bit to go !

    I thought we all believed in equality... why not, The Test ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    Pulpstar said:

    Has the Women's test ended in a draw already ?!

    Still a day and a bit to go !

    Rain stopped play according to Cricinfo.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    On Betfair, is there an easy way to see the last price traded on a particular bet? I realise the graph sort of indicates this but it's difficult to draw firm conclusions from.

    It's on the ladder next to the graph isn't it?
    I thought that gave every trade on the market.
    On that page it also shows the last matched price
    Yes, I see that. Which is of some help (and lord knows how I missed it). But I was investigating what looks like a sweep of Jowell downwards and Khan up... couple with Abbott brought it to just 36.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Don Brind is talking total garbage.
    There is nothing to stop Jezza becoming more popular with the general public, who never pay much attention to policies anyway.

    All he has to do once he is ensconced as leader, is to appear genial on TV and talk quietly on radio. He will soon get the hoi polloi panting for him. The new fuhrer appeareth!
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    Scott_P said:

    @davieclegg: Did three vox pops of audience members on way in to Corbyn event. All had voted Yes in the referendum.

    If, and it's a big if, Corbyn can restore the fortunes of the Scottish Labour Party, then he will achieve something I do think Burnham or Cooper can.
    The problem is that even a substantial increase in vote share will only net them a handful of seats, given the sheer scale of the SNP's win last time.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The whole of Sussex and Kent are being swamped by rain/lightning strikes. Our Eastbourne Airbourne show has no flights today at all.

    It's clearing up now, but back later. I can't imagine it's safe to play cricket even when dry.
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Has the Women's test ended in a draw already ?!

    Still a day and a bit to go !

    Rain stopped play according to Cricinfo.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,974

    It's all too late, isn't it? The Corbyn die is cast.

    Sensible Labour MPs and activists now have to accept that reality and try to find ways of mitigating the damage (or leave politics altogether, which I imagine many will do). I don't really have many suggestions on the best way to do this - perhaps start by working with the remaining sane trade unionists? But I'm pretty sure that the Simon Danczuk approach is the wrong one; even more damaging for Labour than a Corbyn leadership itself will be the civil war which will follow.

    It’s the ranks of spin doctors, SPADs and the offspring of Party Grandees I feel sorry for.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,040
    Indigo said:

    Enthusiasm on the left is only matched by the panic on the right of the party.

    Talk of a coup by the losers is pathetic.

    and by the hilarity on the right of politics. The Tories feeling more confident about 2020 as time goes on, and the kippers gloating at the possibility of turning a collection of those Northern near misses into real seats next time thanks to Comrade Corbyn.
    Rochdale hopefully
  • JEO said:

    Scott_P said:

    @davieclegg: Did three vox pops of audience members on way in to Corbyn event. All had voted Yes in the referendum.

    If, and it's a big if, Corbyn can restore the fortunes of the Scottish Labour Party, then he will achieve something I do think Burnham or Cooper can.
    The problem is that even a substantial increase in vote share will only net them a handful of seats, given the sheer scale of the SNP's win last time.
    Frankly they'd still do well to even some of the shares out. As Dair and others have noted, second preferences in other types of election make very little difference when you're 48%+.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    Plato said:

    The whole of Sussex and Kent are being swamped by rain/lightning strikes. Our Eastbourne Airbourne show has no flights today at all.

    It's clearing up now, but back later. I can't imagine it's safe to play cricket even when dry.

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Has the Women's test ended in a draw already ?!

    Still a day and a bit to go !

    Rain stopped play according to Cricinfo.
    I don't know what Canterbury's drainage is like, but as you say if the weather's that bad it's hard to see the field drying out in time to resume.

    Bright sunshine here in Staffordshire!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,643
    edited August 2015
    After Michael Foot was elected leader in November 1980, Labour were ahead in the opinion polls for about 12 months, yet they still lost the next election badly. Will Corbyn put Labour ahead in the polls for 12 months after being elected? If he does it doesn't guarantee winning the next election, but if he stays behind the evidence is he could end up doing even worse than Foot did in 1983.

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,040
    Pulpstar said:

    Has the Women's test ended in a draw already ?!

    Still a day and a bit to go !

    Aye but got £200 on the draw at 3.5 this morning 2 mins before heavens opened. Canterbury look more appropriate for snorkling right now.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Ed Miliband = Enrico Dandolo?

    Dandolo was a remarkable man. Doge of Venice, blind, very old (I forget if he was in his 80s or 90s) yet diverted the Fourth Crusade to invade Byzantium (notably for being Christian) rather than the Holy Land.

    Byzantium fell and its empire was carved up between Latin potentates. It was recovered some time later, but never recovered its power, or status. It had also strategically lost the capability to resist the Turkish advance, which ultimately led not only to the city's fall, but the Turks going halfway across Europe.

    Miliband heroically defeated the Blairites (including his own brother). It was unexpected and, to an extent, impressive. But now look. Was the game worth the candle? Was his 2010 victory the most Pyrrhic since the Battle of Asculum?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,040

    Pulpstar said:

    Has the Women's test ended in a draw already ?!

    Still a day and a bit to go !

    Aye but got £200 on the draw at 3.5 this morning 2 mins before heavens opened. Canterbury look more appropriate for snorkling right now.
    Boo its stopped raining now
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139

    Ed Miliband = Enrico Dandolo?

    Dandolo was a remarkable man. Doge of Venice, blind, very old (I forget if he was in his 80s or 90s) yet diverted the Fourth Crusade to invade Byzantium (notably for being Christian) rather than the Holy Land.

    Byzantium fell and its empire was carved up between Latin potentates. It was recovered some time later, but never recovered its power, or status. It had also strategically lost the capability to resist the Turkish advance, which ultimately led not only to the city's fall, but the Turks going halfway across Europe.

    Miliband heroically defeated the Blairites (including his own brother). It was unexpected and, to an extent, impressive. But now look. Was the game worth the candle? Was his 2010 victory the most Pyrrhic since the Battle of Asculum?

    Mr Dancer, I'm going to be picky, but the second instance should be 'Constantinople'. The city was 'Constantinople' the empire was 'Byzantine' (aka 'Byzantium').
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926

    It's all too late, isn't it? The Corbyn die is cast.

    Sensible Labour MPs and activists now have to accept that reality and try to find ways of mitigating the damage (or leave politics altogether, which I imagine many will do). I don't really have many suggestions on the best way to do this - perhaps start by working with the remaining sane trade unionists? But I'm pretty sure that the Simon Danczuk approach is the wrong one; even more damaging for Labour than a Corbyn leadership itself will be the civil war which will follow.

    But what do you do? Leaders change parties. The tories of 2015 are a significantly different bunch from those of 2005. Cameron (and Osborne) have blended the membership in their own image: more metropolitan, more socially liberal, more centrist and at least slightly less obsessed about Europe. This has been achieved by losing some of the Europhobes to UKIP, promoting and encouraging people like them and setting a more inclusive tone (at least for people of their mindset; many Christians, for example, might feel somewhat ignored).

    It is absurd to think that Corbyn will not have the same effect. Blair famously was first elected on the 1983 suicide note but that was still the party of Healey and Mason amongst others. Which centrist/centre left hopeful is going to be tempted by a Corbyn Labour party? We have seen this already in the new members. The grassroots of Labour are going to change in a way that will enthuse some but discourage many from even being involved.

    If we accept, as per the SDP thread the other day, that the option of just starting again is unlikely to work the only sensible thing to do is find another career. And so the centre of the party swings further and further left.

    Parties have surprising institutional strength and Labour has a large bank of very, very safe seats but as Scotland shows, nothing is forever.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Doethur, synonyms! Constantinople is also correct. If I'd been obtuse I could've said Mikligard too (Istanbul would've been wrong, though).

    Besides, Constantinople was a new-fangled name.
  • Listening to Yvette Cooper today all she seems to say is that championing equality and diversity is her goal and that should she be elected, as she is a woman she would be labour's first woman prime minister. Is that it. The Country needs a viable opposition but it isn't going to get one for years. All the candidates are unsuitable and no doubt chaos will reign in the Labour party if Corbyn wins with judicial reviews on the floored election process and internal civil war.
  • correction flawed !!!!
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Indigo said:

    Enthusiasm on the left is only matched by the panic on the right of the party.

    Talk of a coup by the losers is pathetic.

    and by the hilarity on the right of politics. The Tories feeling more confident about 2020 as time goes on...
    Do they? Leading Conservatives remain very quiet, whilst Labour do whatever they're doing.


  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    Scott_P said:

    @davieclegg: Did three vox pops of audience members on way in to Corbyn event. All had voted Yes in the referendum.

    If, and it's a big if, Corbyn can restore the fortunes of the Scottish Labour Party, then he will achieve something I do think Burnham or Cooper can.
    The problem is that even a substantial increase in vote share will only net them a handful of seats, given the sheer scale of the SNP's win last time.
    Frankly they'd still do well to even some of the shares out. As Dair and others have noted, second preferences in other types of election make very little difference when you're 48%+.
    Not at the expense of losing dozens of seats in England and Wales.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Corbyn now has a 71% chance of winning, according to Ladbrokes' odds. http://t.co/zjgdVfJ0FE pic.twitter.com/5BvglqayUy

    — Ladbrokes Politics (@LadPolitics) August 13, 2015

    Can the punters be wrong, again?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,643
    edited August 2015
    The first by-election of this Parliament could be in Barrow & Furness if Corbyn is elected leader. John Woodcock said in April he would resign as an MP if Labour didn't support full Trident renewal. The Labour majority over the Tories was cut from 5,000 to 800 at the general election.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/04/john-woodcock-says-he-will-quit-as-mp-if-labour-dont-support-full-trident-renewal/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,598
    Burnham now clearly positioning for a decent shadow cabinet job under Corbyn.
  • JEO said:

    JEO said:

    Scott_P said:

    @davieclegg: Did three vox pops of audience members on way in to Corbyn event. All had voted Yes in the referendum.

    If, and it's a big if, Corbyn can restore the fortunes of the Scottish Labour Party, then he will achieve something I do think Burnham or Cooper can.
    The problem is that even a substantial increase in vote share will only net them a handful of seats, given the sheer scale of the SNP's win last time.
    Frankly they'd still do well to even some of the shares out. As Dair and others have noted, second preferences in other types of election make very little difference when you're 48%+.
    Not at the expense of losing dozens of seats in England and Wales.
    Well there's obviously a limit to the losses in England for that to make sense. But if Labour could gain a dozen in Scotland, and lose a dozen in England...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,228

    Burnham sounding all left wing on The World at One

    The man is fool.
    It may come as a shock, but Queen Anne has been under the weather....;-)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628

    It's all too late, isn't it? The Corbyn die is cast.

    Sensible Labour MPs and activists now have to accept that reality and try to find ways of mitigating the damage (or leave politics altogether, which I imagine many will do). I don't really have many suggestions on the best way to do this - perhaps start by working with the remaining sane trade unionists? But I'm pretty sure that the Simon Danczuk approach is the wrong one; even more damaging for Labour than a Corbyn leadership itself will be the civil war which will follow.

    There has to be a new party, doesn't there? If he wins.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    DavidL said:

    Parties have surprising institutional strength and Labour has a large bank of very, very safe seats but as Scotland shows, nothing is forever.

    Corbyn also exemplifies the sort of Labour politicians that is going to irritate the hell out of lot of northern working class kipper-waverers. His views on open door immigration, his lack of patriotism and his Islington professorial manner are almost exactly what Labour don't need to keep those seats. He wont be able to stiffen the sinews with any sort of roll back of union laws or other actions that might endear him to this otherwise hostile audience because he is in opposition, and their contempt for that unpatriotic, pro-immigration metropolitan smugness is not going to be brought off by a few promises of jam tomorrow.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    watford30 said:

    Indigo said:

    Enthusiasm on the left is only matched by the panic on the right of the party.

    Talk of a coup by the losers is pathetic.

    and by the hilarity on the right of politics. The Tories feeling more confident about 2020 as time goes on...
    Do they? Leading Conservatives remain very quiet, whilst Labour do whatever they're doing.
    Of course, one should not interrupt an enemy while he is making a mistake, but I would suggest faces are rather less straight at private gatherings of the cognoscenti ;)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097

    JEO said:

    JEO said:

    Scott_P said:

    @davieclegg: Did three vox pops of audience members on way in to Corbyn event. All had voted Yes in the referendum.

    If, and it's a big if, Corbyn can restore the fortunes of the Scottish Labour Party, then he will achieve something I do think Burnham or Cooper can.
    The problem is that even a substantial increase in vote share will only net them a handful of seats, given the sheer scale of the SNP's win last time.
    Frankly they'd still do well to even some of the shares out. As Dair and others have noted, second preferences in other types of election make very little difference when you're 48%+.
    Not at the expense of losing dozens of seats in England and Wales.
    Well there's obviously a limit to the losses in England for that to make sense. But if Labour could gain a dozen in Scotland, and lose a dozen in England...
    That's bad news for them. The SNP will never support a Tory Gov't so whilst taking SNP seats is worthwhile for Labour, the real battle is with the Tories (As ever).
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    AndyJS said:

    The first by-election of this Parliament could be in Barrow & Furness if Corbyn is elected leader. John Woodcock said in April he would resign as an MP if Labour didn't support full Trident renewal. The Labour majority over the Tories was cut from 5,000 to 800 at the general election.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/04/john-woodcock-says-he-will-quit-as-mp-if-labour-dont-support-full-trident-renewal/

    Interesting one to watch. Woodcock got 18320 votes versus the Tory candidate's 17525, a fall for the former of 5.8%, the latter improving things by 4.2%.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,573
    ydoethur
    'There was a small surplus in 1951-52, not in 1951 itself. This was partly done by printing money to pay other bills, which meant the incoming government had to raise interest rates (it had also led to a major devaluation of the pound in the late 1940s). In 1970 there had been two years of surpluses, again partly by printing money which had required the infamous 'pocket or your purse' devaluation of 14.3%. '
    No - the Attlee Government ran a Budget Surplus in 1948/49 of £0.5bn - in 1949/50 of £0.8bn - in 1950/51 of £0.5bn - and in 1951/52 of £0.1bn.. Figures are from House of Commons Library.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Indigo, indeed, but he may also help Labour make the London breakthroughs they should've made this year.

    Just think, it's barely three months ago that we might, had the polls been right, have seen Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.

    One can only assume the prime concern of the Conservative Party is trying to stop David Cameron laughing so hard his head falls off.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,643
    watford30 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The first by-election of this Parliament could be in Barrow & Furness if Corbyn is elected leader. John Woodcock said in April he would resign as an MP if Labour didn't support full Trident renewal. The Labour majority over the Tories was cut from 5,000 to 800 at the general election.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/04/john-woodcock-says-he-will-quit-as-mp-if-labour-dont-support-full-trident-renewal/

    Interesting one to watch. Woodcock got 18320 votes versus the Tory candidate's 17525, a fall for the former of 5.8%, the latter improving things by 4.2%.
    The result was probably a reaction against the possibility of the SNP influencing defence policy rather than a comment on John Woodcock's abilities as an MP.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 6,278
    edited August 2015
    OK, I've found the poll that promoted the betting on Betfair:

    "Dame Tessa also has a clear lead over Khan among Labour supporters – 37% back her bid compared to 25% for Khan.

    Today’s poll suggests Jowell would beat likely Tory runner Zac Goldsmith by 53% to 47% in the final run-off.

    Mr Goldsmith is the preferred Tory candidate of 79% of Londoners and 83% of Tory members

    Goldsmith’s best chance of succeeding Boris Johnson as Mayor seems to rest with Labour picking Khan as its candidate, today’s poll suggests that in a contest between the two men Goldsmith would win by 54% to 46%."

    http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/new-poll-shows-londoners-want-tessa-jowell-in-city-hall/

    No figures for Abbott although another reported part - satisfaction among all voters, indiciates he is not far behind Khan.

    As before it's second preferences that might worry Jowell.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    Indigo said:

    DavidL said:

    Parties have surprising institutional strength and Labour has a large bank of very, very safe seats but as Scotland shows, nothing is forever.

    Corbyn also exemplifies the sort of Labour politicians that is going to irritate the hell out of lot of northern working class kipper-waverers. His views on open door immigration, his lack of patriotism and his Islington professorial manner are almost exactly what Labour don't need to keep those seats. He wont be able to stiffen the sinews with any sort of roll back of union laws or other actions that might endear him to this otherwise hostile audience because he is in opposition, and their contempt for that unpatriotic, pro-immigration metropolitan smugness is not going to be brought off by a few promises of jam tomorrow.
    Most people will just be extraordened that such a relic from the students' union could be in charge of a political party. And treat him with the contempt he (as a grown-up, rather than idealistic teenager) deserves.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,573

    ydoethur said:




    » show previous quotes






    '
    Justin, whatever the manifold and egregious faults of Tony Blair and George W. Bush, they were not mass killers bent on world domination and the genocide of racial groups they didn't approve of. It was perfectly possible to disagree flatly with their ideas and behaviour - I did - and it is possible to see them as hopelessly misguided and very unwise, but they are not actually evil to the extent that would justify taking up arms against them or working to sabotage or imperil our own armed forces.

    EDIT - and strange to reflect that the only person I met who fully supported the invasion was actually a Communist, who had been a great admirer of Khrushchev and regarded the Second Gulf War as a fully justified strike against an evil Fascist dictator'

    .I agree with most of that - but would not wish to see aggression by any country prevail. To condemn other countries for aggression and then proceed to turn a blind eye and say nothing when my own country does the same thing is nothing less than pure humbug and hypocrisy. For that reason, I wished to see the invading forces defeated in 2003. I did not wish UK forces any direct harm but any casualties I blame entirely on those who sent them there -a sentiment clearly shared by many relatives of the victims. At the end of the day, those being attacked had every right to defend themselves
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926
    Indigo said:

    DavidL said:

    Parties have surprising institutional strength and Labour has a large bank of very, very safe seats but as Scotland shows, nothing is forever.

    Corbyn also exemplifies the sort of Labour politicians that is going to irritate the hell out of lot of northern working class kipper-waverers. His views on open door immigration, his lack of patriotism and his Islington professorial manner are almost exactly what Labour don't need to keep those seats. He wont be able to stiffen the sinews with any sort of roll back of union laws or other actions that might endear him to this otherwise hostile audience because he is in opposition, and their contempt for that unpatriotic, pro-immigration metropolitan smugness is not going to be brought off by a few promises of jam tomorrow.
    I have little doubt that for some he will be a breath of fresh air; someone who is willing to think outside the box and be more imaginative. There is no doubt that the politics of small differences (the differences between Osborne and Balls were pretty much small change by the election) is tedious and uninspiring. But I really don't see how this gets Labour back into the mid 30s. Mid 20s is more likely.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    AndyJS said:

    watford30 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The first by-election of this Parliament could be in Barrow & Furness if Corbyn is elected leader. John Woodcock said in April he would resign as an MP if Labour didn't support full Trident renewal. The Labour majority over the Tories was cut from 5,000 to 800 at the general election.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/04/john-woodcock-says-he-will-quit-as-mp-if-labour-dont-support-full-trident-renewal/

    Interesting one to watch. Woodcock got 18320 votes versus the Tory candidate's 17525, a fall for the former of 5.8%, the latter improving things by 4.2%.
    The result was probably a reaction against the possibility of the SNP influencing defence policy rather than a comment on John Woodcock's abilities as an MP.
    Might he stand as an Independent?
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 487
    Back on the topic of Mr Brind's article, if none of the four that managed to attract 35 MPs nominations are "electable" then you might as well choose someone who would shake things up.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,643
    edited August 2015
    Indigo said:

    DavidL said:

    Parties have surprising institutional strength and Labour has a large bank of very, very safe seats but as Scotland shows, nothing is forever.

    Corbyn also exemplifies the sort of Labour politicians that is going to irritate the hell out of lot of northern working class kipper-waverers. His views on open door immigration, his lack of patriotism and his Islington professorial manner are almost exactly what Labour don't need to keep those seats. He wont be able to stiffen the sinews with any sort of roll back of union laws or other actions that might endear him to this otherwise hostile audience because he is in opposition, and their contempt for that unpatriotic, pro-immigration metropolitan smugness is not going to be brought off by a few promises of jam tomorrow.
    It was puzzling IMO that some commentators have been saying Corbyn could actually win back some Kippers who previously voted Labour. I can't see that happening except with a very insignificant number of voters.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,344
    watford30 said:

    AndyJS said:

    watford30 said:

    AndyJS said:

    The first by-election of this Parliament could be in Barrow & Furness if Corbyn is elected leader. John Woodcock said in April he would resign as an MP if Labour didn't support full Trident renewal. The Labour majority over the Tories was cut from 5,000 to 800 at the general election.

    http://labourlist.org/2015/04/john-woodcock-says-he-will-quit-as-mp-if-labour-dont-support-full-trident-renewal/

    Interesting one to watch. Woodcock got 18320 votes versus the Tory candidate's 17525, a fall for the former of 5.8%, the latter improving things by 4.2%.
    The result was probably a reaction against the possibility of the SNP influencing defence policy rather than a comment on John Woodcock's abilities as an MP.
    Might he stand as an Independent?
    Reading that article - his promise to resign if there is no full Trident renewal appears to be based on a premise of there being a Labour Government - so I'm not sure that it's valid is it?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926

    Mr. Indigo, indeed, but he may also help Labour make the London breakthroughs they should've made this year.

    Just think, it's barely three months ago that we might, had the polls been right, have seen Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.

    One can only assume the prime concern of the Conservative Party is trying to stop David Cameron laughing so hard his head falls off.

    I think we all kinda knew, at least on this site, that Labour were somewhat short of being ready to govern. But wow. When you look at what has happened since the country dodged a magazine of bullets on 7th May.

    Whelk stalls really don't come into it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    edited August 2015
    Mr. JS, if Corbyn fails to advance in the south, loses Midland marginals due to being far left, and loses parts of the north to UKIP (the nightmare scenario for Labour), what's left? Not enough for a government.

    Edited extra bit: Mr. L, I was deeply concerned by the lack of appropriate media censure for Miliband's insane price freeze even when it was announced (and especially when prices fell).

    If he'd become PM... just imagine. This government has flaws (especially around basic comprehension of the internet), but Miliband would've been a full-blown catastrophe.

    And Labour... I feel sympathy for it. The Labour Party now appears incapable of running the Labour Party. The electoral system's insane, but trying to depose a democratically elected leader the day after he's elected is as demented as organising an anti-government march a week or two after the General Election.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    "Londoners would be much happier with a gay mayor than a Muslim mayor, according to a new opinion poll.

    The poll reveals 31% of Londoners would be uncomfortable with a Muslim mayor, while 55% would be comfortable

    By contrast, 71% would be comfortable if the mayor was homosexual, compared to 16% who would be uncomfortable"

    http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-08-13/gay-mayor-or-muslim-mayor-which-would-you-prefer/
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,643
    edited August 2015

    Mr. JS, if Corbyn fails to advance in the south, loses Midland marginals due to being far left, and loses parts of the north to UKIP (the nightmare scenario for Labour), what's left? Not enough for a government.

    Edited extra bit: Mr. L, I was deeply concerned by the lack of appropriate media censure for Miliband's insane price freeze even when it was announced (and especially when prices fell).

    If he'd become PM... just imagine. This government has flaws (especially around basic comprehension of the internet), but Miliband would've been a full-blown catastrophe.

    And Labour... I feel sympathy for it. The Labour Party now appears incapable of running the Labour Party. The electoral system's insane, but trying to depose a democratically elected leader the day after he's elected is as demented as organising an anti-government march a week or two after the General Election.

    Labour have clearly overreacted to the election defeat. It was bad but it wasn't that bad, but they're behaving as if it was a total rout — as if they'd polled 25% and got 150 seats. They were only 6.6 percentage points behind the Tories compared to 7.6 in 1992 when the party was in a more positive mood despite it being the fourth election defeat in a row.
  • isam said:

    "Londoners would be much happier with a gay mayor than a Muslim mayor, according to a new opinion poll.

    The poll reveals 31% of Londoners would be uncomfortable with a Muslim mayor, while 55% would be comfortable

    By contrast, 71% would be comfortable if the mayor was homosexual, compared to 16% who would be uncomfortable"

    http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-08-13/gay-mayor-or-muslim-mayor-which-would-you-prefer/

    I wonder if the answer would be different if you asked "Would you be happy with Sadiq Khan..." or even "Would you be happy with Sadiq, a Muslim..." (or Syed Kamall, but his name recognition isn't great).
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,352
    MikeK said:

    Corbyn now has a 71% chance of winning, according to Ladbrokes' odds. http://t.co/zjgdVfJ0FE pic.twitter.com/5BvglqayUy

    — Ladbrokes Politics (@LadPolitics) August 13, 2015

    Can the punters be wrong, again?

    I know who hopes the punters are wrong again. Those who laid Corbyn on Betfair at odds of 100/1 and higher. They must be sweating, particularly the punter who laid Corbyn at 980/1 for £2.

    In total, £1,500 has been laid on Corbyn at odds of 100/1 or greater which will lose them£260,000 if Corbyn wins. Whoops! Those on the other side of these bets must be smiling.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Barnesian, I don't get why people would offer a lay at those odds.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur
    'There was a small surplus in 1951-52, not in 1951 itself. This was partly done by printing money to pay other bills, which meant the incoming government had to raise interest rates (it had also led to a major devaluation of the pound in the late 1940s). In 1970 there had been two years of surpluses, again partly by printing money which had required the infamous 'pocket or your purse' devaluation of 14.3%. '
    No - the Attlee Government ran a Budget Surplus in 1948/49 of £0.5bn - in 1949/50 of £0.8bn - in 1950/51 of £0.5bn - and in 1951/52 of £0.1bn.. Figures are from House of Commons Library.

    I don't have the PSBR figures to hand, annoyingly. What I do have are the national debt figures, which are as follows (in millions):

    1947 25,630
    1948 25,620
    1949 25,127 (roughly agrees with your figures)
    1950 25,802 (so that's the same figure but in reverse - are you sure it says surplus?)
    1951 25,921
    1952 25,890 (so £31 million, not 0.1 billion).

    (Source: Twentieth Century British Political Facts).

    But as I pointed out above, that was a bit of a con trick anyway. The Attlee government printed roughly £1.4 billion in the period 1947-51 in short term bills and paper credits to banks to finance its programmes, (source: Sidney Pollard, The Development of the British Economy 1914-1980 p. 242, cf. p. 245) which goes a long way towards accounting for both the surplus and the inflation/devaluation that Butler had to deal with in 1951.

    Osborne could pull the same con trick, but it would be very stupid of him. Printing money on a grand scale tends to cure the immediate problem at the expense of making matters worse later. In fact, it's arguable that the economy never quite got over the credit binge of Attlee until it went on a worse one in the 1960s under Maudling and then Callaghan.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,830
    While - as a recent candidate in a super-marginal - I don't entirely agree with Don's scepticism about Corbyn (I think it's more unpredictable than that, and in particular think the idea that he's not used to hostile debate is wildly mistaken), the risks are obvious, and I agree with the conclusion. The Braggins and Barnard report that Don links to is worth a read and carries some messages for all sides of the argument - essentially Labour-leaning people who didn't vote Labour felt we lacked vision and were too narrow in our appeal (which is IMO an argument for Corbyn) but thought we were anti-business, uninterested in aspiration and soft on immigration (which are arguments for a more centrist appeal).

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/271940748/Listening-to-Labour-s-Lost-Labour-Voters-bbm-Research-July-2015

    By the way, I'd advise PBers who have staken the house on Corbyn to have a saver on Cooper - in my opinion opinion the most likely challenger, and likely to be shown moving closer in the next poll. Corbyn should still win but I don't think it will be a walkover.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    Barnesian said:

    MikeK said:

    Corbyn now has a 71% chance of winning, according to Ladbrokes' odds. http://t.co/zjgdVfJ0FE pic.twitter.com/5BvglqayUy

    — Ladbrokes Politics (@LadPolitics) August 13, 2015

    Can the punters be wrong, again?
    I know who hopes the punters are wrong again. Those who laid Corbyn on Betfair at odds of 100/1 and higher. They must be sweating, particularly the punter who laid Corbyn at 980/1 for £2.

    In total, £1,500 has been laid on Corbyn at odds of 100/1 or greater which will lose them£260,000 if Corbyn wins. Whoops! Those on the other side of these bets must be smiling.

    What was the 980-1 person thinking ?

    Were they thinking ?
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,014

    Indigo said:

    Enthusiasm on the left is only matched by the panic on the right of the party.

    Talk of a coup by the losers is pathetic.

    and by the hilarity on the right of politics. The Tories feeling more confident about 2020 as time goes on, and the kippers gloating at the possibility of turning a collection of those Northern near misses into real seats next time thanks to Comrade Corbyn.
    Rochdale hopefully
    Wow - Labour supporter hopes the party loses a seat to the Tories. The lunatics have officially taken charge of the asylum.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,194
    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    MikeK said:

    Corbyn now has a 71% chance of winning, according to Ladbrokes' odds. http://t.co/zjgdVfJ0FE pic.twitter.com/5BvglqayUy

    — Ladbrokes Politics (@LadPolitics) August 13, 2015

    Can the punters be wrong, again?
    I know who hopes the punters are wrong again. Those who laid Corbyn on Betfair at odds of 100/1 and higher. They must be sweating, particularly the punter who laid Corbyn at 980/1 for £2.

    In total, £1,500 has been laid on Corbyn at odds of 100/1 or greater which will lose them£260,000 if Corbyn wins. Whoops! Those on the other side of these bets must be smiling.
    What was the 980-1 person thinking ?

    Were they thinking ?

    They've probably got an all-green book, or will at least have cut their losses. (As an aside, sometimes bets on "impossible" outcomes are used to move money between accounts, but that is beside the point.)
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    felix said:

    Indigo said:

    Enthusiasm on the left is only matched by the panic on the right of the party.

    Talk of a coup by the losers is pathetic.

    and by the hilarity on the right of politics. The Tories feeling more confident about 2020 as time goes on, and the kippers gloating at the possibility of turning a collection of those Northern near misses into real seats next time thanks to Comrade Corbyn.
    Rochdale hopefully
    Wow - Labour supporter hopes the party loses a seat to the Tories. The lunatics have officially taken charge of the asylum.
    That's not being a lunatic. That's putting moral decency ahead of partisanship.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,573
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur
    'There was a small surplus in 1951-52, not in 1951 itself. This was partly done by printing money to pay other bills, which meant the incoming government had to raise interest rates (it had also led to a major devaluation of the pound in the late 1940s). In 1970 there had been two years of surpluses, again partly by printing money which had required the infamous 'pocket or your purse' devaluation of 14.3%. '
    No - the Attlee Government ran a Budget Surplus in 1948/49 of £0.5bn - in 1949/50 of £0.8bn - in 1950/51 of £0.5bn - and in 1951/52 of £0.1bn.. Figures are from House of Commons Library.

    I don't have the PSBR figures to hand, annoyingly. What I do have are the national debt figures, which are as follows (in millions):

    1947 25,630
    1948 25,620
    1949 25,127 (roughly agrees with your figures)
    1950 25,802 (so that's the same figure but in reverse - are you sure it says surplus?)
    1951 25,921
    1952 25,890 (so £31 million, not 0.1 billion).

    (Source: Twentieth Century British Political Facts).

    But as I pointed out above, that was a bit of a con trick anyway. The Attlee government printed roughly £1.4 billion in the period 1947-51 in short term bills and paper credits to banks to finance its programmes, (source: Sidney Pollard, The Development of the British Economy 1914-1980 p. 242, cf. p. 245) which goes a long way towards accounting for both the surplus and the inflation/devaluation that Butler had to deal with in 1951.

    Osborne could pull the same con trick, but it would be very stupid of him. Printing money on a grand scale tends to cure the immediate problem at the expense of making matters worse later. In fact, it's arguable that the economy never quite got over the credit binge of Attlee until it went on a worse one in the 1960s under Maudling and then Callaghan.
    Perhaps you would like to consult the tables in www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05745
  • Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    MikeK said:

    Corbyn now has a 71% chance of winning, according to Ladbrokes' odds. http://t.co/zjgdVfJ0FE pic.twitter.com/5BvglqayUy

    — Ladbrokes Politics (@LadPolitics) August 13, 2015

    Can the punters be wrong, again?
    I know who hopes the punters are wrong again. Those who laid Corbyn on Betfair at odds of 100/1 and higher. They must be sweating, particularly the punter who laid Corbyn at 980/1 for £2.

    In total, £1,500 has been laid on Corbyn at odds of 100/1 or greater which will lose them£260,000 if Corbyn wins. Whoops! Those on the other side of these bets must be smiling.
    What was the 980-1 person thinking ?

    Were they thinking ?

    Their bank account not paying them 0.1%!?
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    watford30 said:

    Indigo said:

    Enthusiasm on the left is only matched by the panic on the right of the party.

    Talk of a coup by the losers is pathetic.

    and by the hilarity on the right of politics. The Tories feeling more confident about 2020 as time goes on...
    Do they? Leading Conservatives remain very quiet, whilst Labour do whatever they're doing.
    They are doing the decent thing and not making interventions on what is not their business.
    Its the Labour Party who have let the mad old man escape from the attic, where they have kept him hidden from the prying eyes of gullible suitors all these years. And now he may be about to burn the historic family house down. Well its too late for them to expect the MP for Rochester to rush blindly in to save them now.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    isam said:

    "Londoners would be much happier with a gay mayor than a Muslim mayor, according to a new opinion poll.

    The poll reveals 31% of Londoners would be uncomfortable with a Muslim mayor, while 55% would be comfortable

    By contrast, 71% would be comfortable if the mayor was homosexual, compared to 16% who would be uncomfortable"

    http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-08-13/gay-mayor-or-muslim-mayor-which-would-you-prefer/

    And I imagine many of the 16% will be Muslims themselves.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    edited August 2015

    Mr. Barnesian, I don't get why people would offer a lay at those odds.

    Whoever laid at 980-1 would have been previously heavily green on the field. Which means they may well have laid Andy Burnham or Chuka for alot for instance.

    Still a terrible lay, mind.

    Either that or they're an idiot.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,008
    Interesting article, Don, many thanks.

    It seems quite possible that all the people in the country who are keen on Mr Corbyn's approach have already signed up to vote in the leadership election. If they haven't signed up by now, they aren't that keen on a Labour party with Mr Corbyn's policies & won't be voting Labour at the next GE if the policies remain the same.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,329
    We are in very dangerous times. To have a loony left leader of the Labour party might suit the Tories, but it would be terrible for the country. The Govt needs to be called to account by someone who can carry his party. Corbyn cannot and will not, it'll be internal strife...
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Could someone tell me what Corbyn has said on immigration?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    edited August 2015
    justin124 said:


    .I agree with most of that - but would not wish to see aggression by any country prevail. To condemn other countries for aggression and then proceed to turn a blind eye and say nothing when my own country does the same thing is nothing less than pure humbug and hypocrisy. For that reason, I wished to see the invading forces defeated in 2003. I did not wish UK forces any direct harm but any casualties I blame entirely on those who sent them there -a sentiment clearly shared by many relatives of the victims. At the end of the day, those being attacked had every right to defend themselves

    I agree that people who are attacked have a right to defend themselves. But the person being attacked was Saddam Hussein, who far too many on the Labour left (Galloway) were willing to suck up to simply because he was not American. I will say in fairness to Corbyn I don't know of him supporting Saddam Hussein before 2003.

    Certainly any comparison of the British left to Willi Brandt is to my mind wholly inappropriate. Brandt and other German dissidents risked their lives, and the lives of their families. Labour opponents of Blair risked their careers (except that most of them didn't have careers - Cook and Short were both at the end of theirs).

    Remember also that the people of Iraq were initially very pleased to see Saddam ousted, until the American occupation turned into a worse shambles than the Ba'athi government had been. I don't think too many people in the occupies countries of Europe were pleased to see the Wehrmacht, although there were exceptions - the Ukrainians were delighted when the Germans showed up as they thought that they would get their farms back (they rapidly realised their mistake, but not rapidly enough to stop Stalin taking some pretty brutal reprisals in 1944-46).
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Not having most of the PLP with him doesn't help either.

    We are in very dangerous times. To have a loony left leader of the Labour party might suit the Tories, but it would be terrible for the country. The Govt needs to be called to account by someone who can carry his party. Corbyn cannot and will not, it'll be internal strife...

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    He's very keen on it.
    JEO said:

    Could someone tell me what Corbyn has said on immigration?

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,643
    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    MikeK said:

    Corbyn now has a 71% chance of winning, according to Ladbrokes' odds. http://t.co/zjgdVfJ0FE pic.twitter.com/5BvglqayUy

    — Ladbrokes Politics (@LadPolitics) August 13, 2015

    Can the punters be wrong, again?
    I know who hopes the punters are wrong again. Those who laid Corbyn on Betfair at odds of 100/1 and higher. They must be sweating, particularly the punter who laid Corbyn at 980/1 for £2.

    In total, £1,500 has been laid on Corbyn at odds of 100/1 or greater which will lose them£260,000 if Corbyn wins. Whoops! Those on the other side of these bets must be smiling.
    What was the 980-1 person thinking ?

    Were they thinking ?

    Do you have to hand over the money first with a bet like that? I guess you do, otherwise you might disappear and never pay up.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,305

    Ed Miliband = Enrico Dandolo?



    Miliband heroically defeated the Blairites (including his own brother). It was unexpected and, to an extent, impressive. But now look. Was the game worth the candle? Was his 2010 victory the most Pyrrhic since the Battle of Asculum?

    You can't get a more Pyrrhic victory than Asculum. It was a victory and the commander was Pyrrhus. Also the Romans were only held back temporarily. Miliband seems to have done a lot more damage to the Blairites. He may even have finished them off. But I enjoyed the comparison.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    JEO said:

    isam said:

    "Londoners would be much happier with a gay mayor than a Muslim mayor, according to a new opinion poll.

    The poll reveals 31% of Londoners would be uncomfortable with a Muslim mayor, while 55% would be comfortable

    By contrast, 71% would be comfortable if the mayor was homosexual, compared to 16% who would be uncomfortable"

    http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-08-13/gay-mayor-or-muslim-mayor-which-would-you-prefer/

    And I imagine many of the 16% will be Muslims themselves.
    At least 12% of Londoners are Muslims, so I'd guess at least half of the 16%
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    edited August 2015
    DavidL said:

    Mr. Indigo, indeed, but he may also help Labour make the London breakthroughs they should've made this year.

    Just think, it's barely three months ago that we might, had the polls been right, have seen Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.

    One can only assume the prime concern of the Conservative Party is trying to stop David Cameron laughing so hard his head falls off.

    I think we all kinda knew, at least on this site, that Labour were somewhat short of being ready to govern. But wow. When you look at what has happened since the country dodged a magazine of bullets on 7th May.
    Whelk stalls really don't come into it.
    I think this is one of two key points to take away from all this.
    The other is that the damage is already done, no matter who wins. As I say below - the madwoman has been let out of the attic.

    BTW - the real tragedy for the Conservatives is that Burnham will not win under any circumstances. Sad.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    AndyJS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    MikeK said:

    Corbyn now has a 71% chance of winning, according to Ladbrokes' odds. http://t.co/zjgdVfJ0FE pic.twitter.com/5BvglqayUy

    — Ladbrokes Politics (@LadPolitics) August 13, 2015

    Can the punters be wrong, again?
    I know who hopes the punters are wrong again. Those who laid Corbyn on Betfair at odds of 100/1 and higher. They must be sweating, particularly the punter who laid Corbyn at 980/1 for £2.

    In total, £1,500 has been laid on Corbyn at odds of 100/1 or greater which will lose them£260,000 if Corbyn wins. Whoops! Those on the other side of these bets must be smiling.
    What was the 980-1 person thinking ?

    Were they thinking ?
    Do you have to hand over the money first with a bet like that? I guess you do, otherwise you might disappear and never pay up.

    Yes, you need to have all £1960 upfront.

    Whoever laid it would have been heavily involved and may previously have had a healthy position on Jeremy by virtue of laying other candidates. Which they promptly undid.

    The person who laid at 980 may not neccesarily have made an underwater book mind, if they went back in again heavily enough at a lower price.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur
    'There was a small surplus in 1951-52, not in 1951 itself. This was partly done by printing money to pay other bills, which meant the incoming government had to raise interest rates (it had also led to a major devaluation of the pound in the late 1940s). In 1970 there had been two years of surpluses, again partly by printing money which had required the infamous 'pocket or your purse' devaluation of 14.3%. '
    No - the Attlee Government ran a Budget Surplus in 1948/49 of £0.5bn - in 1949/50 of £0.8bn - in 1950/51 of £0.5bn - and in 1951/52 of £0.1bn.. Figures are from House of Commons Library.

    I don't have the PSBR figures to hand, annoyingly. What I do have are the national debt figures, which are as follows (in millions):

    1947 25,630
    1948 25,620
    1949 25,127 (roughly agrees with your figures)
    1950 25,802 (so that's the same figure but in reverse - are you sure it says surplus?)
    1951 25,921
    1952 25,890 (so £31 million, not 0.1 billion).

    (Source: Twentieth Century British Political Facts).

    But as I pointed out above, that was a bit of a con trick anyway. The Attlee government printed roughly £1.4 billion in the period 1947-51 in short term bills and paper credits to banks to finance its programmes, (source: Sidney Pollard, The Development of the British Economy 1914-1980 p. 242, cf. p. 245) which goes a long way towards accounting for both the surplus and the inflation/devaluation that Butler had to deal with in 1951.

    Osborne could pull the same con trick, but it would be very stupid of him. Printing money on a grand scale tends to cure the immediate problem at the expense of making matters worse later. In fact, it's arguable that the economy never quite got over the credit binge of Attlee until it went on a worse one in the 1960s under Maudling and then Callaghan.
    Perhaps you would like to consult the tables in www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05745
    Thank you. I have checked. I think the 1949 figure is a misprint and should be without the minus sign. For the rest, they appear to be simply rounded up rather than rounded off, which is where our disagreement seems to have originated.

    Interesting to note that the two years of Conservative surplus were also where Lawson and then Major pulled similar con tricks, although in their case it was to enter the ERM.
Sign In or Register to comment.