Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s impending victory affects the Mayoral betting

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s impending victory affects the Mayoral betting

Mike ran a thread the other day looking for markets that might be affected by Jeremy Corbyn’s likely victory in the Labour leadership stakes. He highlighted NO in the EU betting where I’d agree odds of nearly 4/1 are tempting.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,648
    What, no comments yet?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Just two at the moment :)
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,237
    edited August 2015
    An absolutely first class political betting thread from TP - precisely the type of coverage which PB.com does, or frankly to be more more accurate, previously did best.
    Mike should sign him up immediately to write more pieces having this degree of prescience and quality, especially so now that Peter the Punter appears to have departed this parish.
    Btw, in stating above that " Labour’s candidate is being decided on the same ballot paper as the leadership", are we to take it that all Labour members are provided with a vote on who is to become their party's candidate for London's Mayor and not simply those who members who live within the Capital ...... surely that simply cannot be the case?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,510
    edited August 2015
    Very interesting post. I don't know much about this, but if you wanted to affect the price surely you'd be better off backing Tessa at conventional bookies rather than on an exchange. Could it not be the case that this punter wants to bet a lot of money on Tessa because you can (potentially) get more money down on Betfair?

    And I'm wondering why anyone would want to support Tessa through the use of betting markets? I understand why a US Presidential candidate would want to do it - to keep financial backers on board, but is that really applicable in this case?

    I think the logic that there is likely to be a lot of overlap between Corbyn and Kahn, but I wonder how many of the sign ups and affiliates in London are only interested in voting for Corbyn and aren't bothered about the Mayoral election.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519
    Maybe Diane Abbot will get chosen by the new voters
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,271
    edited August 2015
    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.
  • Superb work by Mr Price.

    We've had two excellent guest pieces in as many days.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,516
    Morning. Very good article from Mr Price, to add to Antifrank's yesterday. Let's see how much of that 4 grand is still there by lunchtime!
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    [snip]
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.[/snip]

    Will they? I'll happily concede that just because I don't care about whether a candidate has ovaries its possible others might. But does anyone? Really? Is there any evidence?

  • PaulyPauly Posts: 853
    Does a London Mayor have the authority to grant amnesty to illegals? (I don't think they should personally)
    Or is David Lammy clutching at straws...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    edited August 2015
    GeoffM said:

    [snip]
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.[/snip]

    Will they? I'll happily concede that just because I don't care about whether a candidate has ovaries its possible others might. But does anyone? Really? Is there any evidence?

    I think it's possible, actually. Apart from any other consideration, with Harman retiring and Cooper likely to be exiled to the back benches, Labour is suddenly going to look pretty bereft of women at the top (unless, God help them, Diane Abbott is given a senior brief). They would only have Kezia Dugdale, who is an irrelevance at the moment in political terms.

    If it were the Conservatives, I don't suppose people would notice. But it's not difficult to imagine all those feminists and their male allies carping about the fact that 40 years after the Conservatives elected a woman to lead them, Labour remains still very masculine in its leadership compared to their rivals - even though I believe I am right in saying the PLP has more women in it than the PCP despite being about 30% smaller overall. What message would they think that sent about their commitment to equality between the sexes?

    (It is also possible to construct an ethnic argument on those lines as well, of course.)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112
    Pauly said:

    Does a London Mayor have the authority to grant amnesty to illegals? (I don't think they should personally)
    Or is David Lammy clutching at straws...

    As far as I know he doesn't so it's just gesture politics. Boris has made the same gesture as Lammy, of course.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519
    GeoffM said:

    [snip]
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.[/snip]

    Will they? I'll happily concede that just because I don't care about whether a candidate has ovaries its possible others might. But does anyone? Really? Is there any evidence?

    It's an issue for perhaps one voter in thirty.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    Sean_F said:

    GeoffM said:

    [snip]
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.[/snip]

    Will they? I'll happily concede that just because I don't care about whether a candidate has ovaries its possible others might. But does anyone? Really? Is there any evidence?

    It's an issue for perhaps one voter in thirty.
    That's about the percentage of the electorate Labour will still appeal to by the time they've finished this leadership election.
  • Sean_F said:

    GeoffM said:

    [snip]
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.[/snip]

    Will they? I'll happily concede that just because I don't care about whether a candidate has ovaries its possible others might. But does anyone? Really? Is there any evidence?

    It's an issue for perhaps one voter in thirty.
    The women who dislike men and the men who dislike women cancel each other out, I suppose.

  • FPT The London Mayoral looks as though it will be the first election in England overtly placing more emphasis on race than class. This is the future, and it makes me glad to be in 66 and in no more than fair health, if that.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    SO: why do you believe that Khan would definitely lose? i prefer Jowell to him but am not convinced by Goldsmith. He can be arrogant and has not always interviewed well, especially when under pressure.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926
    Outstanding piece.

    I often feel that those who involve themselves heavily in political betting seem to invest a disproportionate amount of time given the returns available but it is made a lot more attractive when someone does all the hard work for you like this. Just a terrific piece of work.
  • Sean_F said:

    GeoffM said:

    [snip]
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.[/snip]

    Will they? I'll happily concede that just because I don't care about whether a candidate has ovaries its possible others might. But does anyone? Really? Is there any evidence?

    It's an issue for perhaps one voter in thirty.

    Not in Labour elections.

  • Cyclefree said:

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    SO: why do you believe that Khan would definitely lose? i prefer Jowell to him but am not convinced by Goldsmith. He can be arrogant and has not always interviewed well, especially when under pressure.

    Quotas.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,516
    Do Mr Burnham and Mrs Cooper not understand that hitting seven shades of shhh out of each other in public is not the way to win an election, especially not one under AV..?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11808589/Yvette-Cooper-Andy-Burnham-is-too-similar-to-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-must-step-aside.html

    Tony Blair must be looking on and wondering what is the monster that he created, if only for not clipping Brown's wings.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,926
    Cyclefree said:

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    SO: why do you believe that Khan would definitely lose? i prefer Jowell to him but am not convinced by Goldsmith. He can be arrogant and has not always interviewed well, especially when under pressure.
    I am not convinced by that either. According to the 2011 census 12.4% of the population of London was now Muslim. It's almost certainly higher by now. Thinking that a name like Goldsmith will not be a hindrance in such an electorate is naïve.

    People underestimate Boris' achievement in winning London for the Tories. Even given the Livingstone factor it was a remarkable achievement. I have yet to be convinced that Goldsmith is even close to being another Boris. Given the 2015 election results in London (in an election they lost badly) Labour should win the Mayoralty at a canter.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112

    Cyclefree said:

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    SO: why do you believe that Khan would definitely lose? i prefer Jowell to him but am not convinced by Goldsmith. He can be arrogant and has not always interviewed well, especially when under pressure.

    Quotas.

    Thank you. An issue for me too. Plus his friendship with Babar Ahmed - where he has not always been consistent or straightforward in his answers. Someone like Maajid Nawaz would be a much better choice. But Jowell would be ok. Her Berlusconi issues are floating around, of course. But the Olympics work was good.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,063
    Great analysis, Tissue Price. I have bet accordingly.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519

    Cyclefree said:

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    SO: why do you believe that Khan would definitely lose? i prefer Jowell to him but am not convinced by Goldsmith. He can be arrogant and has not always interviewed well, especially when under pressure.

    Quotas.

    Ethnic quotas may not be unpopular in London (obviously, they're unpopular in the UK as a whole),
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112
    edited August 2015
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    SO: why do you believe that Khan would definitely lose? i prefer Jowell to him but am not convinced by Goldsmith. He can be arrogant and has not always interviewed well, especially when under pressure.
    I am not convinced by that either. According to the 2011 census 12.4% of the population of London was now Muslim. It's almost certainly higher by now. Thinking that a name like Goldsmith will not be a hindrance in such an electorate is naïve.

    People underestimate Boris' achievement in winning London for the Tories. Even given the Livingstone factor it was a remarkable achievement. I have yet to be convinced that Goldsmith is even close to being another Boris. Given the 2015 election results in London (in an election they lost badly) Labour should win the Mayoralty at a canter.
    They should but it would be wrong for Goldsmith to lose because of a anti-semitism on the part of some of the electorate. Just as it would be wrong for a Muslim candidate to lose because of anti-Muslim prejudice.

    What I loathe about the identity politics adopted by Labour is precisely this - that they end up with candidates appealing to the worst aspects of the most extreme parts of groups defined by race or religion.

    Livingstone was a master at this. It - and he - was loathsome and he deservedly lost. The fact that he is now backing Khan and bounding around with glee at the prospect of a Corbyn win is nothing but bad news for Londoners and Labour.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    edited August 2015
    Completely agree with Tissue Price.

    Also watch out for 6-4 Khan to get the nomination at traditional bookies.

    Back

    Zac Goldsmith 3.25 £125.00
    David Lammy 45.26 £27.00
    Diane Abbott 64.98 £6.00

    Lay

    Tessa Jowell 3.14 £56.00
    David Lammy 21 £26.32
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    SO: why do you believe that Khan would definitely lose? i prefer Jowell to him but am not convinced by Goldsmith. He can be arrogant and has not always interviewed well, especially when under pressure.

    Quotas.

    Ethnic quotas may not be unpopular in London (obviously, they're unpopular in the UK as a whole),
    What next? Quotas for religion or sex or sexuality or age? Or nationality? It's divisive nonsense on stilts.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited August 2015
    How do I know JC doesn't want to be PM? Because he hasn't endorsed any of the Deputy Leadership candidates (AFAIK). Brown may say that Labour must not become a "Party of protest" but that's exactly what's got people to join (or rejoin).

    I remember back in the 1970s being told that, whilst Labour might sometimes take office, the Tories were always in power. The experiece of 1997-2010 has confirmed that for many people - the only ones who disbelieve it seem to be the Tory activists on here!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519
    Cyclefree said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    SO: why do you believe that Khan would definitely lose? i prefer Jowell to him but am not convinced by Goldsmith. He can be arrogant and has not always interviewed well, especially when under pressure.

    Quotas.

    Ethnic quotas may not be unpopular in London (obviously, they're unpopular in the UK as a whole),
    What next? Quotas for religion or sex or sexuality or age? Or nationality? It's divisive nonsense on stilts.
    You don't have to persuade me. But, Labour's electorate in London may take a different view.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,873
    @theobertram: Andy Burnham is making it clear he won't take on Corbyn either in this contest or - more critically - if he wins.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sadiq Khan being mayor may well lead to an interesting byelection in Tooting, though it is possible that he may want to ride both horses.

    Tooting has become fairly marginal over the years, and would be a good test for Corbyn. If he cannot win a Lab marginal in London then where can he win?
  • Brilliant detective work, Tissue Price.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Good morning, everyone.

    Very good price, Mr. Price.

    Mr. F, hailing from the blessed realm of Yorkshire, I'm unfamiliar with why Londoners might consider racial quotas some sort of positive. It's despicable and indefensible. Why would some depraved lunatics consider it a good thing?

    Mr. Observer, bearing in mind the above caveat on my lack of knowledge about London, why do you think he's certain to lose? The contest, judging from graphs above, would be a little better for the blues than if Jowell were the candidate for Labour, but it's not an unbreakable Conservative lead by any stretch (and that's assuming Goldsmith gets the gig).
  • What an interesting piece. Bravo.
  • Sadiq Khan being mayor may well lead to an interesting byelection in Tooting, though it is possible that he may want to ride both horses.

    Tooting has become fairly marginal over the years, and would be a good test for Corbyn. If he cannot win a Lab marginal in London then where can he win?

    Labour would probably put up a Muslim candidate who doesn't speak English...

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,197
    Morning all, and thanks for the kind words below.

    are we to take it that all Labour members are provided with a vote on who is to become their party's candidate for London's Mayor and not simply those who members who live within the Capital ...... surely that simply cannot be the case?

    No, only London-resident members get that version of the ballot.
    tlg86 said:

    And I'm wondering why anyone would want to support Tessa through the use of betting markets? I understand why a US Presidential candidate would want to do it - to keep financial backers on board, but is that really applicable in this case?

    There's quite a bit of mileage in being seen as the favourite, and even more mileage in not being eclipsed as the favourite (as Andy Burnham may well testify).
    Pulpstar said:

    Completely agree with Tissue Price.

    Also watch out for 6-4 Khan to get the nomination at traditional bookies.

    Yes, good spot, plenty of other bets follow from this analysis. I'm increasingly of the opinion that Goldsmith is going to win, regardless of opponent or Labour leader.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    Somewhat O/T, but Jeremy Corbyn attempts to distance himself from Deir Yassan and Paul Eisen:
    The Labour leadership frontrunner said: “I have no contact now whatsoever with Paul Eisen and Deir Yassin Remembered. I did attend a number of events concerning Deir Yassin Remembered some years ago, I think two or three of them.” Deir Yassin was a Palestinian Arab village near Jerusalem where there was a historic massacre.
    The questions first arose after Eisen wrote a blog post, saying Corbyn had attended some of his annual commemorations and once got his chequebook out for the group. Corbyn said any donations would only have been throwing coins into a collection bucket at a meeting.
    “Fifteen years ago [Eisen] was not a Holocaust denier,” said the Labour leadership frontrunner. “Had he been a Holocaust denier, I would have had absolutely nothing to do with him. I was moved by the plight of people who had lost their village in Deir Yassin.”
    Except - he attended a meeting organised by Eisen in 2013, and Eisen had already been publicly exposed as a supporter of Ernst Zündel in 2005 by inter alia David Aaronivitch in the Times (non paywall version of the article here: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43881). I can't however find the specific date Eisen is thought to have had an Irving-style 'conversion' but given Holocaust deniers usually appear to have been deniers on the quiet for some years before coming out (cf Irving, Butz) a date of 2000 or earlier, around the time of the Irving libel case, if unconfirmed, is not improbable.

    It would appear that either Corbyn is lying or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Either way, it's rather worrying. But I don't suppose that either case would make any meaningful difference to his admirers, who will put it all down to media bias.
  • Sean_F said:

    Maybe Diane Abbot will get chosen by the new voters

    Might explain the cheer leading role that Abbot has been doing in the media for JC....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532

    How do I know JC doesn't want to be PM? Because he hasn't endorsed any of the Deputy Leadership candidates (AFAIK). Brown may say that Labour must not become a "Party of protest" but that's exactly what's got people to join (or rejoin).

    I remember back in the 1970s being told that, whilst Labour might sometimes take office, the Tories were always in power. The experiece of 1997-2010 has confirmed that for many people - the only ones who disbelieve it seem to be the Tory activists on here!

    By 2010 there was a 50% top tax rate and spending at almost 48% of GDP, hardly Tory
  • What an interesting piece. Bravo.

    How are we doing in the fantasy football ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    Except the places Corbyn polls best in are London and Scotland
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    What an interesting piece. Bravo.

    How are we doing in the fantasy football ?
    Fox's Ostriches are doing rather well! But the injured Hotspurs are the strongest team. They are holding up the whole table...
  • What an interesting piece. Bravo.

    How are we doing in the fantasy football ?
    Well I feel. My favourite greyhound betting strategy is in force.... v slow away, ran on.

    I just hope i'm not lapped first.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    "2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn"

    This is unlikely to be true. If you are sad/comitted to give £3 to Labour and live in London, you'll know who Khan is !

    No ballot paper still. Like waiting for christmas :D
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pulpstar said:

    "2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn"

    This is unlikely to be true. If you are sad/comitted to give £3 to Labour and live in London, you'll know who Khan is !

    No ballot paper still. Like waiting for christmas :D

    Me neither. Being vetted maybe? Though I think BJO has not had his yet either.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Pulpstar, maybe they've checked and found you to be a character of dubious nature.
  • HYUFD said:

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    Except the places Corbyn polls best in are London and Scotland

    Let's wait to see what results real elections produce.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721
    Scott_P said:

    @theobertram: Andy Burnham is making it clear he won't take on Corbyn either in this contest or - more critically - if he wins.

    Burnham is a follower, a sycophant, a 'yes' man... not a leader
  • Pulpstar said:

    "2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn"

    This is unlikely to be true. If you are sad/comitted to give £3 to Labour and live in London, you'll know who Khan is !

    No ballot paper still. Like waiting for christmas :D

    Jowell will be much better known among £3ers than Khan. These people have signed up for Corbyn, not Labour.

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,197

    Scott_P said:

    @theobertram: Andy Burnham is making it clear he won't take on Corbyn either in this contest or - more critically - if he wins.

    Burnham is a follower, a sycophant, a 'yes' man... not a leader
    "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 912
    edited August 2015
    ydoethur said:

    Somewhat O/T, but Jeremy Corbyn attempts to distance himself from Deir Yassan and Paul Eisen:

    The Labour leadership frontrunner said: “I have no contact now whatsoever with Paul Eisen and Deir Yassin Remembered. I did attend a number of events concerning Deir Yassin Remembered some years ago, I think two or three of them.” Deir Yassin was a Palestinian Arab village near Jerusalem where there was a historic massacre.
    The questions first arose after Eisen wrote a blog post, saying Corbyn had attended some of his annual commemorations and once got his chequebook out for the group. Corbyn said any donations would only have been throwing coins into a collection bucket at a meeting.
    “Fifteen years ago [Eisen] was not a Holocaust denier,” said the Labour leadership frontrunner. “Had he been a Holocaust denier, I would have had absolutely nothing to do with him. I was moved by the plight of people who had lost their village in Deir Yassin.”
    Except - he attended a meeting organised by Eisen in 2013, and Eisen had already been publicly exposed as a supporter of Ernst Zündel in 2005 by inter alia David Aaronivitch in the Times (non paywall version of the article here: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43881). I can't however find the specific date Eisen is thought to have had an Irving-style 'conversion' but given Holocaust deniers usually appear to have been deniers on the quiet for some years before coming out (cf Irving, Butz) a date of 2000 or earlier, around the time of the Irving libel case, if unconfirmed, is not improbable.

    It would appear that either Corbyn is lying or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Either way, it's rather worrying. But I don't suppose that either case would make any meaningful difference to his admirers, who will put it all down to media bias.

    The simple fact is the vast majority of the UK are either completely indifferent to Israel/Palestine or see Israel as a vile intransigent racist bully steadily dispossessing a helpless people. This Israel-first attitude that happily swallows the clear and obviously tired boy-who-cried-wolf strategy of smearing anyone who publically advocates for the pro-Palestinian cause as anti-semitic, pointing to a few nutters, is confined to a tiny establishment echo chamber.

    Note that polls show about 70% + of the UK have negative views of Israel, and I imagine most of them would give the establishment/israel love in and its predictable smears short shrift.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    Scott_P said:

    @theobertram: Andy Burnham is making it clear he won't take on Corbyn either in this contest or - more critically - if he wins.

    Burnham is a follower, a sycophant, a 'yes' man... not a leader
    He's also got all of Corbyn's voters second preferences.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,873
    @StigAbell: Can any of us honestly say, hand on heart, we have never given money to an anti-Semitic holocaust denier? #JezWeCan
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    Indy editorial slams dishonest Cameron's plans to deceive the public on EU negotiations

    "The plan, apparently, is for Cameron to have a “big row with the French” in February, which will be “choreographed” so that, when it is over, the Prime Minister will be able to claim that the terms of EU membership have been “renegotiated”. On that basis, he will call for a vote to say “yes” to continued membership of the bloc. The French are reportedly as anxious as Cameron is to keep Britain within the EU, so can be relied upon to play their part...

    But this is a childish way to handle relations with Europe. How much more honest Cameron would be if he were to admit that the EU is a complicated, flawed structure in which change comes at a snail’s pace – yet, for all its faults, we are better off in than out."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/doublespeak-deciphered-andrew-lansley-dares-to-reveal-the-truth-about-david-camerons-eu-plan-10459808.html
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    Pulpstar said:

    "2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn"

    This is unlikely to be true. If you are sad/comitted to give £3 to Labour and live in London, you'll know who Khan is !

    No ballot paper still. Like waiting for christmas :D

    Me neither. Being vetted maybe? Though I think BJO has not had his yet either.
    Make sure you post a picture on line. Since he did last time, I'm sure Mr Smithson will.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,063
    JWisemann said:

    ydoethur said:

    Somewhat O/T, but Jeremy Corbyn attempts to distance himself from Deir Yassan and Paul Eisen:

    The Labour leadership frontrunner said: “I have no contact now whatsoever with Paul Eisen and Deir Yassin Remembered. I did attend a number of events concerning Deir Yassin Remembered some years ago, I think two or three of them.” Deir Yassin was a Palestinian Arab village near Jerusalem where there was a historic massacre.
    The questions first arose after Eisen wrote a blog post, saying Corbyn had attended some of his annual commemorations and once got his chequebook out for the group. Corbyn said any donations would only have been throwing coins into a collection bucket at a meeting.
    “Fifteen years ago [Eisen] was not a Holocaust denier,” said the Labour leadership frontrunner. “Had he been a Holocaust denier, I would have had absolutely nothing to do with him. I was moved by the plight of people who had lost their village in Deir Yassin.”
    Except - he attended a meeting organised by Eisen in 2013, and Eisen had already been publicly exposed as a supporter of Ernst Zündel in 2005 by inter alia David Aaronivitch in the Times (non paywall version of the article here: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43881). I can't however find the specific date Eisen is thought to have had an Irving-style 'conversion' but given Holocaust deniers usually appear to have been deniers on the quiet for some years before coming out (cf Irving, Butz) a date of 2000 or earlier, around the time of the Irving libel case, if unconfirmed, is not improbable.

    It would appear that either Corbyn is lying or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Either way, it's rather worrying. But I don't suppose that either case would make any meaningful difference to his admirers, who will put it all down to media bias.
    The simple fact is the vast majority of the UK are either completely indifferent to Israel/Palestine or see Israel as a vile intransigent racist bully steadily dispossessing a helpless people. This Israel-first attitude that happily swallows the clear and obviously tired boy-who-cried-wolf strategy of smearing anyone who publically advocates for the pro-Palestinian cause as anti-semitic, pointing to a few nutters, is confined to a tiny establishment echo chamber.

    Note that polls show about 70% + of the UK have negative views of Israel, and I imagine most of them would give the establishment/israel love in and it's predictable smears short shrift.

    It's a theory. A theory that ignores all the information in the original post, but a theory nonetheless.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,974
    Scott_P said:

    @StigAbell: Can any of us honestly say, hand on heart, we have never given money to an anti-Semitic holocaust denier? #JezWeCan

    millions raise their hands in the air...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532

    HYUFD said:

    Khan would be the best candidate because he would definitely lose. Defeat in London and slaughter in Scotland, combined with heavy losses across England, next year may finally wake Labour's fools (see Nick Palmer) up to the real world consequences of throwing their lot in with the hard left. However, a few notes of caution on Khan:
    1. I would not trust Livingstone's word too much.
    2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn.
    3. Jowell is well-known and is a woman - lots of voters will notice they have not voted for a woman as leader or deputy.
    4. Tom Watson was very pro-Iraq war, is very much the insider and part of the machine. He looks certain to be elected Deputy, so the voting is not as binary as it may first appear.
    That said, if Jowell does win the nomination the Corbyn factor could still drag her down. I'd make Goldsmith slight favourite against her. He's a shoe-in against Khan.

    Except the places Corbyn polls best in are London and Scotland

    Let's wait to see what results real elections produce.

    London voted Labour in May Scotland voted for a left of Miliband Labour Party
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    As Oil Price Declines, SNP looks for Alternate Revenue Source:

    A south of Scotland town is to host the World Gold Panning Championships in two years' time.

    The British Gold Panning Association has won the rights to hold the event and will bring it to Moffat in 2017

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-33963777
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532
    Meanwhile Ed and Justine and family are now on holiday in Australia, their third break since May
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139

    Scott_P said:

    @StigAbell: Can any of us honestly say, hand on heart, we have never given money to an anti-Semitic holocaust denier? #JezWeCan

    millions raise their hands in the air...
    Unless of course such charities are being funded as part of the Big Society from taxpayers' money. You would hope not, but given recent events I suppose it's possible.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    Last week the Piccadilly line was closed after a man was stabbed... No description of the stacker was issued despite there being a manhunt before he was arrested at Heathrow.

    How can he refuse court?

    "Tube stabbing: cell-based court hearing for man charged with attack
    Adeyemi Adekeye, accused of attacking David Dane at Finsbury Park, refuses to appear in Highbury magistrates court, so magistrates and lawyers visit his cell"

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/13/tube-stabbing-adeyemi-adekeye-david-dane-finsbury-park-highbury?CMP=twt_b-gdnnews
  • antifrank said:

    JWisemann said:

    ydoethur said:

    Somewhat O/T, but Jeremy Corbyn attempts to distance himself from Deir Yassan and Paul Eisen:

    The Labour who had lost their village in Deir Yassin.”
    Except - he attended a meeting organised by Eisen in 2013, and Eisen had already been publicly exposed as a supporter of Ernst Zündel in 2005 by inter alia David Aaronivitch in the Times (non paywall version of the article here: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43881). I can't however find the specific date Eisen is thought to have had an Irving-style 'conversion' but given Holocaust deniers usually appear to have been deniers on the quiet for some years before coming out (cf Irving, Butz) a date of 2000 or earlier, around the time of the Irving libel case, if unconfirmed, is not improbable.

    It would appear that either Corbyn is lying or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Either way, it's rather worrying. But I don't suppose that either case would make any meaningful difference to his admirers, who will put it all down to media bias.
    The simple fact is the vast majority of the UK are either completely indifferent to Israel/Palestine or see Israel as a vile intransigent racist bully steadily dispossessing a helpless people. This Israel-first attitude that happily swallows the clear and obviously tired boy-who-cried-wolf strategy of smearing anyone who publically advocates for the pro-Palestinian cause as anti-semitic, pointing to a few nutters, is confined to a tiny establishment echo chamber.

    Note that polls show about 70% + of the UK have negative views of Israel, and I imagine most of them would give the establishment/israel love in and it's predictable smears short shrift.
    It's a theory. A theory that ignores all the information in the original post, but a theory nonetheless.

    Every Jew in Europe has chosen not to live in Israel. Some of them have even been there and returned.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,044
    While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/17/ignore-twitter-forget-the-polls-corbyns-not-going-to-win/
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 912
    A passionate campaigner against apartheid would probably have found difficulty avoiding occasionally associating with the odd African nutter with extreme views about white people, doesn't make the cause, and the decent person campaigning, any less vital.
    If people here take their partisan specs off, do they not think it odd that prominent opponents of Israel's gross injustices in the occupied territories are always smeared as anti-semitic?
  • What an interesting piece. Bravo.

    How are we doing in the fantasy football ?
    Well I feel. My favourite greyhound betting strategy is in force.... v slow away, ran on.

    I just hope i'm not lapped first.
    You're following the Rome in the Second Punic War strategy.

    Let some muppet have a few easy victories at the start then time your form towards the end and give him the mother of all shellackings at the end that he'll never forget.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    antifrank said:

    JWisemann said:

    ydoethur said:

    Somewhat O/T, but Jeremy Corbyn attempts to distance himself from Deir Yassan and Paul Eisen:

    The Labour who had lost their village in Deir Yassin.”
    Except - he attended a meeting organised by Eisen in 2013, and Eisen had already been publicly exposed as a supporter of Ernst Zündel in 2005 by inter alia David Aaronivitch in the Times (non paywall version of the article here: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43881). I can't however find the specific date Eisen is thought to have had an Irving-style 'conversion' but given Holocaust deniers usually appear to have been deniers on the quiet for some years before coming out (cf Irving, Butz) a date of 2000 or earlier, around the time of the Irving libel case, if unconfirmed, is not improbable.

    It would appear that either Corbyn is lying or that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Either way, it's rather worrying. But I don't suppose that either case would make any meaningful difference to his admirers, who will put it all down to media bias.
    The simple fact is the vast majority of the UK are either completely indifferent to Israel/Palestine or see Israel as a vile intransigent racist bully steadily dispossessing a helpless people. This Israel-first attitude that happily swallows the clear and obviously tired boy-who-cried-wolf strategy of smearing anyone who publically advocates for the pro-Palestinian cause as anti-semitic, pointing to a few nutters, is confined to a tiny establishment echo chamber.

    Note that polls show about 70% + of the UK have negative views of Israel, and I imagine most of them would give the establishment/israel love in and it's predictable smears short shrift.
    It's a theory. A theory that ignores all the information in the original post, but a theory nonetheless.
    Every Jew in Europe has chosen not to live in Israel. Some of them have even been there and returned.


    What's your point? Every Jew America has chosen not to live in Israel. By all means defend the vicious bigot Corbyn's antisemitic racist fellow travellers but make a better job of defending the murderous anti western barstewards than that.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Eagles, Hannibal survived Zama. Varro did not survive Cannae. Nor Flaminius Trasimene.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    kle4 said:

    While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/17/ignore-twitter-forget-the-polls-corbyns-not-going-to-win/

    I read that article and was puzzled by it. Hatwal is usually a very shrewd commentator - he predicted months before May that Labour were heading for a bad defeat at a time when it was fashionable to assume they would be at worst a close second. But as one of the comments below the post noted, for Corbyn to lose now would be the equivalent of the polls before the General Election being as they were, but UKIP winning the actual election.

    As we've seen on this thread, reasoned arguments about his grave shortcomings and unsavoury associates no longer sway Corbyn supporters - they just brush it off or try to change the subject to something else. So it's very hard to see, short of some actual criminal offence being uncovered (which with all his faults seems unlikely) what could stop him now.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 912
    kle4 said:

    While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/17/ignore-twitter-forget-the-polls-corbyns-not-going-to-win/

    Let's face it, he is definitely going to win. And in the first round - 300,000 people didn't scramble to sign up at the last minute to vote for Kendall.
    Atul and his bizarre gang on his tiny blog read pretty much exclusively by Tories are the ones in a desulsional bubble, not the Corbyn supporters.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,615
    Scott_P said:

    @StigAbell: Can any of us honestly say, hand on heart, we have never given money to an anti-Semitic holocaust denier? #JezWeCan

    Can any political campaign honestly say, hand on heart, that they have never had the support of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers?
  • JWisemann said:

    kle4 said:

    While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/17/ignore-twitter-forget-the-polls-corbyns-not-going-to-win/

    Let's face it, he is definitely going to win. And in the first round - 300,000 people didn't scramble to sign up at the last minute to vote for Kendall.
    Atul and his bizarre gang on his tiny blog read pretty much exclusively by Tories are the ones in a desulsional bubble, not the Corbyn supporters.
    That's what Labour shills like IOS said about Atul when he published this piece.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/02/revealed-eds-night-time-dash-to-casa-brand-driven-by-postal-ballot-panic/
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    New report claiming violent videogames make people violent:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33960075

    A fair point. I played Skyrim for ages, and afterwards I couldn't stop shouting at people.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,410

    Scott_P said:

    @theobertram: Andy Burnham is making it clear he won't take on Corbyn either in this contest or - more critically - if he wins.

    Burnham is a follower, a sycophant, a 'yes' man... not a leader
    He's also got all of Corbyn's voters second preferences.
    And with a total value of zero in this electoral process....
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,197
    kle4 said:

    While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/17/ignore-twitter-forget-the-polls-corbyns-not-going-to-win/

    If Atul gets that right too (he was an under-rated fellow traveller of Dan Hodges in the election) he deserves Tipster of the Year (non-PB division) honours. It's a brave shout.
  • Mr. Eagles, Hannibal survived Zama. Varro did not survive Cannae. Nor Flaminius Trasimene.

    Better to die on your feet that live on your knees - Some Klingon in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    It is quite apparent that in general the four Labour leader candidates are trying to avoid some very important topics (as well as detailed economic policies):

    How do deal with the effects of globalisation.
    How do combat the exodus from Africa and the Middle East
    How to combat militant Islam.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Eagles, so you agree with Hannibal's plan of continuing to fight Rome for decades? :p
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,044
    JWisemann said:

    kle4 said:

    While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/17/ignore-twitter-forget-the-polls-corbyns-not-going-to-win/

    Let's face it, he is definitely going to win. And in the first round - 300,000 people didn't scramble to sign up at the last minute to vote for Kendall.
    Atul and his bizarre gang on his tiny blog read pretty much exclusively by Tories are the ones in a desulsional bubble, not the Corbyn supporters.
    I'm not a Tory and I read it. I don't think he's right in this instance but it's still an insight into a wing of the Labour Party, if one that is diminished, so it seems sensible to keep track of them. It's why it's necessary to look at conhome and the like too.
  • Mr. Eagles, so you agree with Hannibal's plan of continuing to fight Rome for decades? :p

    I'd agree with it if Carthage had any decent military commanders at the time
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Eagles, he didn't fight for Carthage, but headed east.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Financier said:

    As Oil Price Declines, SNP looks for Alternate Revenue Source:
    A south of Scotland town is to host the World Gold Panning Championships in two years' time.
    The British Gold Panning Association has won the rights to hold the event and will bring it to Moffat in 2017
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-33963777

    They need to stick to fracking - its 'recreative' gold panning.
    Interestingly (yes really) next years championships are being held in El Dorado, Ca.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,044

    kle4 said:

    While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/17/ignore-twitter-forget-the-polls-corbyns-not-going-to-win/

    If Atul gets that right too (he was an under-rated fellow traveller of Dan Hodges in the election) he deserves Tipster of the Year (non-PB division) honours. It's a brave shout.
    With most everyone else elated or resigned to a Corbyn win, in political pundit terms it would seem there is value in taking a 'Corbyn will lose' stance. He'd be sniping from the sidelines if he was wrong anyway, and if he's right he can claim presience and lack of panic - hodges' fluctuating mood on the contest has been something to see.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,936
    Morning all,

    Most interesting Tissue Price. What though of Karen Brady - she's 11. There has been the odd murmour that she might run.
  • How prescient was this by Atul Hatwal

    Labour insiders familiar with the latest figures have told Uncut that the picture for Labour in marginal seats, where it is fighting the Tories, is almost uniformly grim.

    Seats that canvass returns had suggested were strong prospects for gains are much more finely balanced and those that were close are swinging heavily to the Tories.

    The tartan scare is working with the fear of McLabour shifting large numbers of wavering Lib Dems and Ukippers into the Tory column.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,197

    Morning all,

    Most interesting Tissue Price. What though of Karen Brady - she's 11. There has been the odd murmour that she might run.

    Not on the Tory shortlist, so a non-runner now. I'm sure they tried pretty hard to persuade her.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Eagles, be interesting to see the impact of Corbyn's overtures to the SNP on this. May help Labour in Scotland (or not), not sure it'll go down well in England.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Financier said:

    It is quite apparent that in general the four Labour leader candidates are trying to avoid some very important topics (as well as detailed economic policies):

    How do deal with the effects of globalisation.
    How do combat the exodus from Africa and the Middle East
    How to combat militant Islam.

    Reality dear boy, reality.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 912
    Stopped clocks etc...
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Jeremy Corbyn has said he could work with Andy Burnham should the latter win the Labour leadership contest.

    Mr Burnham had earlier said that if he won he would offer Mr Corbyn a role.

    But fellow leadership candidate Yvette Cooper said Mr Burnham should withdraw from the race if he was not prepared to oppose the left-winger.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33970252

    Is Burnham anyone's w****e?
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 912
    kle4 said:

    JWisemann said:

    kle4 said:

    While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/17/ignore-twitter-forget-the-polls-corbyns-not-going-to-win/

    Let's face it, he is definitely going to win. And in the first round - 300,000 people didn't scramble to sign up at the last minute to vote for Kendall.
    Atul and his bizarre gang on his tiny blog read pretty much exclusively by Tories are the ones in a desulsional bubble, not the Corbyn supporters.
    I'm not a Tory and I read it. I don't think he's right in this instance but it's still an insight into a wing of the Labour Party, if one that is diminished, so it seems sensible to keep track of them. It's why it's necessary to look at conhome and the like too.
    Diminished isn't the word. The likes of Atul are a tiny cult, not a wing of the Labour Party.
  • GasmanGasman Posts: 100

    How prescient was this by Atul Hatwal

    Labour insiders familiar with the latest figures have told Uncut that the picture for Labour in marginal seats, where it is fighting the Tories, is almost uniformly grim.

    Seats that canvass returns had suggested were strong prospects for gains are much more finely balanced and those that were close are swinging heavily to the Tories.

    The tartan scare is working with the fear of McLabour shifting large numbers of wavering Lib Dems and Ukippers into the Tory column.

    The bit later on was less prescient:

    "The very thin silver lining to the disastrous postal ballot field reports is Scotland: while the position in is bad, it is not the total meltdown suggested by the polls."

    And:

    "According to the postal ballot reports, over half of Labour’s seats are genuinely winnable."
  • Morning all,

    Most interesting Tissue Price. What though of Karen Brady - she's 11. There has been the odd murmour that she might run.

    Not on the ballot.

    So Karren Brady is a definite lay.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Financier, no idea what the asterisked word is.

    Reminds me of a Jeremy Vine quote about how his daughters were still too young to think/realise their father was a k***. No idea what four letter word would start with a K.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139

    Mr. Eagles, be interesting to see the impact of Corbyn's overtures to the SNP on this. May help Labour in Scotland (or not), not sure it'll go down well in England.

    I can't really see what he's hoping to gain from it in Scotland. If Corbyn says, in effect, 'I will be nice to the SNP and am happy to share power with them,' what is the point of voting Labour when you can achieve exactly the same national result and a much greater leverage for Scotland itself by voting SNP? Meanwhile, if Hatwal was right (and the election result would tend to confirm it) it's the electoral equivalent of poison in England.

    Poor strategy and poor tactics.
  • JonCisBackJonCisBack Posts: 753
    I can't work out w****e

    wiffle?
    woggle?
    wimple?

    The demographic stats on London must favour a Labour mayoral win I would have thought? In a few years it'll be red rosette on a donkey territory surely the way it seems to be going.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    While hodges gets increasingly frantic, I see atul hatwal is sticking to his guns that Corbyn will not win. Oh, the histrionics if he does not, it would be amazing.

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/17/ignore-twitter-forget-the-polls-corbyns-not-going-to-win/

    I read that article and was puzzled by it. Hatwal is usually a very shrewd commentator - he predicted months before May that Labour were heading for a bad defeat at a time when it was fashionable to assume they would be at worst a close second. But as one of the comments below the post noted, for Corbyn to lose now would be the equivalent of the polls before the General Election being as they were, but UKIP winning the actual election.

    As we've seen on this thread, reasoned arguments about his grave shortcomings and unsavoury associates no longer sway Corbyn supporters - they just brush it off or try to change the subject to something else. So it's very hard to see, short of some actual criminal offence being uncovered (which with all his faults seems unlikely) what could stop him now.
    Except these polls are based on a much more uncertain electorate that the polling firms have no history of polling.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,830
    Interesting piece, thanks TP. I was sceptical, like Southam, about a Corbyn-Khan crossover (went for Corbyn/Jowell in the end myself), but Livingstone is closer to the action. I still don't think that most members see a clear political difference - I've seen loads of Jowell/Khan leaflets and emails, and it's a blur about who endorsed what. Lammy and Wolmar are still sending out emails, though I've not seen anything from Abbott for quite a while.

    Pulpstar said:

    "2. Khan is not that well known, especially among £3ers who will have signed up just for Corbyn"

    This is unlikely to be true. If you are sad/comitted to give £3 to Labour and live in London, you'll know who Khan is !

    No ballot paper still. Like waiting for christmas :D

    Me neither. Being vetted maybe? Though I think BJO has not had his yet either.
    I believe the current membership got the first wave of ballot papers (I voted by email yesterday though the paper one hasn't turned up yet) and everyone else is getting them in stages as the vetting proceeds. So might be a week or two.

    How do I know JC doesn't want to be PM? Because he hasn't endorsed any of the Deputy Leadership candidates (AFAIK).

    I don't think any leadership candidate has endorsed any deputy? It'd be odd if they did - might help the deputy but would narrow their own appeal. I can't think of a case in the past where they did.

    What is quite common is the implied reverse coattail: "Vote for me because I'm very close to [popular candidate] X", designed to appeal to X's supporters. X can't really say bugger off, you're not really close to me, so the selectorate who like X get the message whether it's true or not. But none of the deputy candidates have been playing that game this time - they all say carefully that they'll vote with whoever is elected leader, without expressing a preference, and Abbott has endorsed Corbyn but hasn't been making a big thing out of it. I'm aware of the preferences of a couple of the other candidates but they've chosen not to make them public.

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,197
    JWisemann said:

    Stopped clocks etc...

    Presumably you are the exception that proves this rule.
Sign In or Register to comment.