Political round up.............

Turn up for the books.............The hard left guy gets on the ballot for the Labour leadership !!....Managed to bag 35 nominations although some were chucked at him by Burnham who will no doubt pick up many of his second preferences...........

Corbyn has no chance....

However it means one of the other three is likely to get hurt in the first round..........Corbyn no doubt will hoover up the extreme nutty left of which there are no doubt plenty in the Labour party and will probably get enough to take him through the first round !!...

(Cruddas finished top in the 2007 Deputy leader race after the first round (He was the "left" candidate)...Of course Harman and Johnson did better as the rounds progresses with second prefs...)

That means one of the three favorites is likely to be eliminated first..................

Latest odds............

Burnham 10/11
Kendall 5/2
Cooper 3/1
Corbyn 66/1 .................

I am glad Corbyn got the required 35 to get on the ballot paper, i don't agree with much of what he says however its important all wings of the Party are represented in the leadership contest.

I have been very disappointed with the way Kendall has performed so far since announcing her intention to run I was expecting better from her.

I will be voting for Andy Burnham and Stella Creasy for deputy.

Its also worth noting that Labour are considering a change in the party constitution to make it easier to get rid of a leader. Under the current rules its almost impossible to do so.

My finalpoint is i'm sick to the back teeth of some in the Party blaming all of the recent defeat on Ed Milliband yes he should take the majority of the blame however some in shadow cabinet needto accept their role in the defeat too

Not sure Creasy will get the 35 she needs mate..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not sure Creasy will get the 35 she needs mate..

I heard that ill be very disappointed if thats the case

No wonder Labour are in terminal decline when this is the best their party can muster.

Burnham will win, obviously, because Labour's union paymasters can control him easily enough. But the British public will be wholly indifferent to a party that has completely lost sight of what it stands for.

Can chalk up 2020 as another Tory victory - difficult to see Labour ever getting into power again.

The unions do not have the power in the leadership election anymore as the electoral college has gone

Well it has been predicted that union members could comprise over half of the votes in the leadership election and, of course, trade unions are in a mad rush to sign up potential voters.

Not forgetting, also, the significant financial power and organisational prowess that the unions possess, particularly Unite.

wheelchair1991 wrote:The unions do not have the power in the leadership election anymore as the electoral college has gone

Farage has quit as leader................No he's not he's back at popular demand...... shame none of his "cabinet" demanded it !!

Interesting about the unions.................only 2.500 union members in this country have bothered signing up to vote in the Labour leadership....A shocking figure and worrying to Labour...

Shows Labour may be the party of the union bosses but the members don't seem to be bothered about Labour...........

Also shows that the grass rootsof the party will pick the Leader they want..

Duty281 wrote:Well it has been predicted that union members could comprise over half of the votes in the leadership election and, of course, trade unions are in a mad rush to sign up potential voters.

Not forgetting, also, the significant financial power and organisational prowess that the unions possess, particularly Unite.

Whilst that is true, it is now; 'one member, one vote'. As such, there is no 'Union candidate' in the sense that Unite and Len McCluskey no longer have the power to swing the leadership election by throwing their full collective support behind one specific candidate. There is no suggestion that all Union members will vote for Andy Burnham, anymore than there is a suggestion that all non-Union Labour Party members will vote for Liz Kendall.

I too have been pleasantly surprised at how disappointing Kendall has performed. Her schtick has always been centre-right rhetoric coupled with an enthusiasm for devolution of powers to local political bodies. But, she hasn't, as far as I can tell, actually bothered to make that argument coherently. I'm not at all opposed to devolution, provided clear and tangible benefits can be articulated, but I'm yet to hear or read anything from Kendall which has convinced me of these benefits.

As for Corbyn, as TRUSS say, he has no chance of winning. However, it is good for the democratic process that a variety of opinions are heard. If Liz Kendall represents the more right-leaning school of the Party, which she does, then it is no issue to have the more left-leaning school represented also.

In all likelihood, it will be one of either Burnham or Cooper, the two more experienced and Centrist (at least by Labour Party standards) candidates. I'll be voting for Burnham.

I'm more indifferent about the Deputy Leadership contest. I'm not particularly averse to any of the candidates. I rather like Tom Watson, however, if there is one man who will inevitably draw extreme, personal, and hostile press coverage it is he. As such, I expect I'll support Caroline Flint for Deputy Leader. Would be happy with Creasy also.

It's far too early to talk about the 2020 election. Labour certainly have a mountain to climb, especially in Scotland, if they ever want to form a parliamentary majority again. However, how the economy and the Health Service both perform in the next 5 years, how standards of living are affected, and who replaces Cameron as Party Leader will all have a significant bearing on the outcome.

Thats if anyone does reacecameron before 2020, so far only Watson and flint have the required 35 for deputy leadership election, i would vote for Stella Creasy if she gets on the Ballot

wheelchair1991 wrote:
Thats if anyone does reacecameron before 2020, so far only Watson and flint have the required 35 for deputy leadership election, i would vote for Stella Creasy if she gets on the Ballot

I don't think Cameron will fight another election. I expect it will be either Osborne or May, depending on how popular / unpopular the Chancellor is circa 2018..

If Creasy gets the required 35, which I would actually be surprised if she couldn't get, then I would definitely consider backing her.

Are you London based, wheelchair? If so, do you have a preference for the Mayoral candidate?

Interesting to see how this pans out. Truss may recall our miliband debate from many moons ago, but irrespective of the actual politics of the leader, it will be intriguing to see if  the party has learnt its lesson on the credibility/electability of its leaders. They added miliband to foot and kinnock as leaders who's media presentability probably cost them elections.

I said at the time that ed miliband was unelectable and I believe we might well have a labour government now if David had won... The Scottish landslide being the caveat. We'll see if the electoral changes  stop self interest winning over common good.... It's one thing to have a party leader with policies you believe in and quite another to ensure those policies never see the light of the day in office.

Labours two most successful, electorally, post war leaders Wilson and blair were entirely pragmatic in terms of getting and keeping power. If the party want to see power again they need a leader that has  moderate views and media credibility... and perhaps a recognition that principles are something that opposition parties have.


Wheelchair, you can make an argument either way over what he did as leader but I would say miliband cost labour the election  by contesting the leadership in the first place. I've heard lots of platitudes  about how principled he is, but if he truly put the party first he'd have recognised that he was the problem. Principles? Ego? Whatever, a wasted 5 years for labour.

Problem is do any of the current options indoors or standout? Or is it just a case of safest hands?

Gentleman01 wrote:

wheelchair1991 wrote:
Thats if anyone does reacecameron before 2020, so far only Watson and flint have the required 35 for deputy leadership election, i would vote for Stella Creasy if she gets on the Ballot

I don't think Cameron will fight another election. I expect it will be either Osborne or May, depending on how popular / unpopular the Chancellor is circa 2018..

If Creasy gets the required 35, which I would actually be surprised if she couldn't get, then I would definitely consider backing her.

Are you London based, wheelchair? If so, do you have a preference for the Mayoral candidate?

Im from Worcester but if i were in London i'd back Sadiq Khan

milkyboy wrote:Interesting to see how this pans out. Truss may recall our miliband debate from many moons ago, but irrespective of the actual politics of the leader, it will be intriguing to see if  the party has learnt its lesson on the credibility/electability of its leaders. They added miliband to foot and kinnock as leaders who's media presentability probably cost them elections.

I said at the time that ed miliband was unelectable and I believe we might well have a labour government now if David had won... The Scottish landslide being the caveat. We'll see if the electoral changes  stop self interest winning over common good.... It's one thing to have a party leader with policies you believe in and quite another to ensure those policies never see the light of the day in office.

Labours two most successful, electorally, post war leaders Wilson and blair were entirely pragmatic in terms of getting and keeping power. If the party want to see power again they need a leader that has  moderate views and media credibility... and perhaps a recognition that principles are something that opposition parties have.


Wheelchair, you can make an argument either way over what he did as leader but I would say miliband cost labour the election  by contesting the leadership in the first place. I've heard lots of platitudes  about how principled he is, but if he truly put the party first he'd have recognised that he was the problem. Principles? Ego? Whatever, a wasted 5 years for labour.

Problem is do any of the current options indoors or standout? Or is it just a case of safest hands?

Very hard over here as it is back home to unseat someone after one term.............

Was Hague unelectable ??............Nope it's just he had the baggage from Major..........

Ed was crap but he still had the baggage from 2010....You give David Miliband too much credit.

I think 2020 will be a massive struggle for whoever is leader because of the boundary changes which will take place under this government

The job of the next leader is to do a Howard and get Labour in striking range.........

However Sturgeon doesn't think with an 11 majority the Tories will make 2020 without it going jubblies up....

Labour leadership..............Prediction............

Kendall out first...........
Corbyn second........
Cooper third...........

Burnham wins with Watson as his deputy.............

Sorry truss. Only thatcher and Blair in modern politics have won back to back elections. It's harder to stay in power than lose it. I have no love for David miliband, the point is in modern politics you need to be media friendly. Ed miliband wasn't. Not everyone votes on policies. Half the electorate are too stupid to understand them anyway. Gravitas counts. When those floating voters had to decide between smarmy Dave or gromit ed... There was only one guy they could see rubbing shoulders with Obama no matter how little they might like or relate to him.

Anyway custard or ice cream with that slice of humble?

Actually, snap post-election polls indicated that swing voters in key marginals backed Cameron so uniformly because they;

A) felt that Labour were not to be trusted running the economy. This was Miliband's biggest error by far, and something both Alastair Campbell and Ed Balls warned him of and repeatedly urged him to tackle, this myth that Labour overspending caused the financial crisis. Tackle it early and repeatedly. It was telling; at the Leader's Question Time, just before the election, Miliband stood there and was eviscerated by the public over this very issue. An issue which should have been put to bed years ago! Miliband's desire to 'move on' from New Labour and focus on the future was his gravest error.

And, B) They were concerned about a Labour minority Government dependent on SNP MPs to pass its budgets and legislation. The Conservative scare tactics about the sway the SNP would hold over a Labour Government were extremely effective. And to be fair to Miliband, he really did do everything he could to take the sting out of that line of attack. Ruling out a Coalition and even stating he'd forego the chance to be PM if it meant conceding power the Nationalists.

In fact, it was these issues drove former 'blue' Lib-Dem voters to flock in their droves to the Conservatives, hence the LD wipe-out in SW London and the SW of England, both solidly yellow in 2010.

Had Labour bothered to defend their economic record, then I expect they would have polled a lot better, although I think the SNP factor would still have hurt them. I don't think Ed Miliband's charisma, or lack thereof, was that significant at all.

As for David Miliband, the man who by his own admission knows a thing or two about winning elections (except of course the 2010 Labour Leadership election), I doubt he'd have fared much better. He certainly would have been happier to defend New Labour's record, but he's hardly the slick Statesman-like politician he's retrospectively made out to be, and of course he too would have been powerless to stop the inexorable tide of Scottish Nationalism.

As an aside, with David as Opposition Leader, I expect we would currently be embroiled in a War in Syria, fighting against the Assad regime. Which would have, at the time at least, made us de facto allies of the al-Nusra Front, an organisation commonly referred to as al-Qaeda in Syria.

For that alone, I'm glad Ed won in 2010.

milkyboy wrote:Sorry truss. Only thatcher and Blair in modern politics have won back to back elections.  It's harder to stay in power than lose it. I have no love for David miliband, the point is in modern politics you need to be media friendly. Ed miliband wasn't. Not everyone votes on policies. Half the electorate are too stupid to understand them anyway. Gravitas counts. When those floating voters had to decide between smarmy Dave or gromit ed... There was only one guy they could see rubbing shoulders with Obama no matter how little they might like or relate to him.

Anyway custard or ice cream with that slice of humble?

Labour won back to back in 45 and 50...........
Tories won in 51...56...60
Labour won 74 ......76...........
Tories won 79.....83.......87....92
Labour 97...2001....2005
Tories 2010........2015...........

It's almost unheard of for a party not to win after a first term...........

Only Heath failed i think in the post war period being in government from 70-74

Gentleman01 wrote:Actually, snap post-election polls indicated that swing voters in key marginals backed Cameron so uniformly because they;

A) felt that Labour were not to be trusted running the economy. This was Miliband's biggest error by far, and something both Alastair Campbell and Ed Balls warned him of and repeatedly urged him to tackle, this myth that Labour overspending caused the financial crisis. Tackle it early and repeatedly. It was telling; at the Leader's Question Time, just before the election, Miliband stood there and was eviscerated by the public over this very issue. An issue which should have been put to bed years ago! Miliband's desire to 'move on' from New Labour and focus on the future was his gravest error.

And, B) They were concerned about a Labour minority Government dependent on SNP MPs to pass its budgets and legislation. The Conservative scare tactics about the sway the SNP would hold over a Labour Government were extremely effective. And to be fair to Miliband, he really did do everything he could to take the sting out of that line of attack. Ruling out a Coalition and even stating he'd forego the chance to be PM if it meant conceding power the Nationalists.

In fact, it was these issues drove former 'blue' Lib-Dem voters to flock in their droves to the Conservatives, hence the LD wipe-out in SW London and the SW of England, both solidly yellow in 2010.

Had Labour bothered to defend their economic record, then I expect they would have polled a lot better, although I think the SNP factor would still have hurt them. I don't think Ed Miliband's charisma, or lack thereof, was that significant at all.

As for David Miliband, the man who by his own admission knows a thing or two about winning elections (except of course the 2010 Labour Leadership election), I doubt he'd have fared much better. He certainly would have been happier to defend New Labour's record, but he's hardly the slick Statesman-like politician he's retrospectively made out to be, and of course he too would have been powerless to stop the inexorable tide of Scottish Nationalism.

As an aside, with David as Opposition Leader, I expect we would currently be embroiled in a War in Syria, fighting against the Assad regime. Which would have, at the time at least, made us de facto allies of the al-Nusra Front, an organisation commonly referred to as al-Qaeda in Syria.

For that alone, I'm glad Ed won in 2010.        

Gentleman fair enough, well argued points as usual.

Obviously,  we've all read and witnessed a variety of reasons for the late swing on election night. But your points a and b,  I'd just flag that a lack of confidence in the party is arguably in part a lack of confidence in the person leading it.  i didn't make it clear but by floating voters I meant those making their mind up across the term not just election night. Given the austerity measures, the lack of popularity of the coalition it was risible that labour weren't miles ahead in the polls.

I guess we mix in different circles, it's my (admittedly anecdotal) experience but from a fairly wide ranging set of backgrounds a large proportion of those I know found him cringeworthy and lacking credibility.  

As for David, he's arrogant and smug, but he would have won the leadership election had he not been sniped by the enemy from within. Call it following his principles or his ambition but to me, it was pretty cheap for ed to run against his brother in the first place. I recognise others see it as all fair in love and war.

People don't like to admit they vote on personality, but the argument is tainted by the presenter. I have  no evidence other than a confident prediction and a result in the record book to back my claims whilst various polls give alternative reasons. But then research has never suggested that a bias in the press, for example, has ever had an an effect but many intrinsically believe differently.

It's only a small proportion of people who'll vote purely on personality but a few more for whom it's a factor., and enough  to make a difference in my view.

One of the great things about the Labour Party is its full of well meaning idealists. It's commendable they stick to them, but they won't get to practice them, in my opinion, without selling their soul a little. The paradox of British socialism in a post Thatcherite society.

But hey, I see the world in shades of grey not black and white. I hope the Labour Party choose  a leader that gives them a chance next time as I genuinely don't believe they did last time.

If Ed Miliband wasn't left wing enough to carry Scotland.............What chance did David have..??

None of them would have won....

But David was more suited for the role..........I'm afraid he should have had the bollox to take dead-duck Brown on........

Missed his chance !!.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Sorry truss. Only thatcher and Blair in modern politics have won back to back elections.  It's harder to stay in power than lose it. I have no love for David miliband, the point is in modern politics you need to be media friendly. Ed miliband wasn't. Not everyone votes on policies. Half the electorate are too stupid to understand them anyway. Gravitas counts. When those floating voters had to decide between smarmy Dave or gromit ed... There was only one guy they could see rubbing shoulders with Obama no matter how little they might like or relate to him.

Anyway custard or ice cream with that slice of humble?

Labour won back to back in 45 and 50...........
Tories won in 51...56...60
Labour won 74 ......76...........
Tories won 79.....83.......87....92
Labour 97...2001....2005
Tories 2010........2015...........

It's almost unheard of  for a party not to win after a first term...........

Well I guess by deliberately sticking to individuals, as we were debating leaders, not parties I deserved that response truss. Since post war there have been essentially three periods of domination Churchill/McMillan/Hume,  thatcher/major and blair/brown.

All of them, with the mixed bag and fairly unique case of Maggie, coincided with periods of relative prosperity and/or disarray in the opposition.

If you ignore just a list of elections and consider the terms and actual results it goes:


Churchill war coalition, attlee landslide, attlee unworkable majority leading to quick election, then Churchill before and the run of we've never had it do good Tories.

In 64 Wilson won and won a quick tactical mid term election while up in the polls, then Loses to Heath, Wins back in a minority and then has a quick tactical election, before passing the batton to Callaghan without an election who loses to thatcher after the winter of discontent.

Reality is, in economic good times it's hard to win from opposition in economic hard times it's hard to stay in power. People don't want change when things are good, and want  change when they are bad.  Funny that. The government of the day takes the credit or carry's the can whether it's of their doing or not.

Except this time, where they got away with blaming the previous lot.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Ed Miliband wasn't left wing enough to carry Scotland.............What chance did David have..??

None of them would have won....

But David was more suited for the role..........I'm afraid he should have had the bollox to take dead-duck Brown on........

Missed his chance !!.

No doubting that the jocks' national self loathing at chickening out of independence, led to the mother of all curve balls!

Bad news Wheelie..................

With an hour to go............

Creasy is 7 short with only 22 nominations left............

Looks like it's going to be Watson or Flint....

Wow what an inspiring choice for you !!!!

Stella Creasy did make the ballot for deputy leader, along with caroline flint, tom watson, ben bradshaw and angela eagle

Leadership debate tonight at 7pm BBC 2

wheelchair1991 wrote:Stella Creasy did make the ballot for deputy leader, along with caroline flint, tom watson, ben bradshaw and angela eagle

Good news for you Wheelie................Seems she is second favorite......

Apparently one of the candidates pulled out at the last minute..

Yeah rushanna ali pulled out which meant creasy got on the ballot as she got her support, im glad we have a wide ranging field for deputy

Was Hague unelectable ??............Nope it's just he had the baggage from Major..........

You really think '14 pints in one night' Hague was electable? He was an absolute disaster.

Hague repaired his reputation after somewhat but people forget how bad a leader he was

Thoughts on last night's debate:

Cooper - Appears to be weak and ineffective. Very little in the way of clear ideas; seems to be a driven by a dislike of the Conservatives and a feminist ideology.

Kendall - She's a Conservative! A New-Labour reincarnation.  

Corbyn - The only person out of the four to actually hold deep-rooted beliefs and principles, allied with a genuine vision of what he wants to achieve. Traditional Labour, backed up with passion.

Burnham - A very clever politician. Very rarely sets out "how" he will achieve a particular goal, but can easily deliver a neat soundbite or two. Will make hay in the era of personality politics.

None of them, in my opinion, will win in 2020 or, indeed, last as Labour leader beyond that.

I think Burnham will be the clear winner of this particular vote (10/11, amazing odds!), with the rest some way back.

Cooper won the debate.................She looked feminine for once.....Wasn't robotic... had the best personality and put her points across well........

She is viewed as dour and humorless and she came across as anything but.....and that's all she needed to do.....It's about picking a leader...Policy comes later !!.

Corbyn was good because he has nothing to lose but he's so unelectable people would be crazy to go there !! Nice guy but it's backward thinking..

Kendall just didn't do enough........She is the dark horse and she needed to shine and didn't !!...Has to up her game...Expected more from her and she didn't deliver !!.

Burnham - Was within himself as all "Favorites" are in these things...Didn't want to do anything wrong !!...

I felt Cooper did well once again felt LK could of done more

What about her judgement though? She married ed balls afterall... Presumably out of choice.

People's personal life should be left out of politics Bill Clinton was a very good President after all

Clinton was crap.....Couldn't get what later became Obama's healthcare bill through and apart from healthcare for Veterans his Wife banged heads for and increased spending on AIDS the majority of bills he passed were Republican ones....

All style and no substance unlike his Mrs...

I think he was a good POTUS but maybe he looks better coz of who came after

Looking back Bush was ideal as President in 2000 for what came after in 2001.....We needed a strong man to show these b**tards we weren't having it !!..Bush battered the Taliban...Gore probably would have phoned them up and used strong language !!!

Shouldn't have been reelected in 2004 but he was the right man for 9/11..

Loved his ground zero speech "We hear you and the people who did this will be hearing from us soon too!!"...

Love it..

wheelchair1991 wrote:People's personal life should be left out of politics Bill Clinton was a very good President after all

I was joking about balls. Everyone needs a private life. However, when you enter public life you need to exercise discretion and judgement in your private life. If you can't make a call on whether to let an intern blow your cigar, are you the person we want deciding whether to push the button.

Or if you're going to risk it.. Do as the kennedy's did and pick some totty it's worth losing your job for.

You may have been joking milky but i think the press and torys will label her mrs balls if she becomes leader

I suspect they're hoping she wins for that very reason wheely!

Kendall is dropping in the betting like a pebble in the pond............Gone out to 4-1 and from 2nd to third in the betting.......

She'll have to up her game..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Looking back Bush was ideal as President in 2000 for what came after in 2001.....We needed a strong man to show these b**tards we weren't having it !!..Bush battered the Taliban...Gore probably would have phoned them up and used strong language !!!

Shouldn't have been reelected in 2004 but he was the right man for 9/11..

Loved his ground zero speech "We hear you and the people who did this will be hearing from us soon too!!"...

Love it..

Yeh, that worked out well for the Yanks and the rest of the world, didn't it......

We should have done nothing about the twin towers....

Your response led to everyone in the world hating you and made the US the #1 terrorist target, resulting in countless atrocities and deaths of both US and non-US citizens. Chuck in thousands of US military & allied military deaths fighting ridiculous battles that followed (e.g. Iraq).

Essentially you have a very American view of war, world politics & international relations.

No Country would have let 9/11 and the devastation go.....

We asked the Taliban to hand Bin Laden over ..........They declined.

Do I think it could have been handled better............Yep.

Stop stereotyping..........It wears a little thin..

Back on topic, I'll be voting for Corbyn. The man is positively unelectable.

#toriesforcorbyn #kippersforcorbyn

Wouldn't waste your money.....

He sure as heck can't win on the first ballot and If he gets past the first round he sure isn't going to get any of Kendall's preferences..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No Country would have let 9/11 and the devastation go.....

We asked the Taliban to hand Bin Laden over ..........They declined.

Do I think it could have been handled better............Yep.

Stop stereotyping..........It wears a little thin..

Stop fulfilling the steretype then......

Obama did in a year or so what Bush couldn't do in a decade (at a cost of thousands more lives and billions more dollars). Tell me again why Bush was the right man??