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

First topic message reminder :

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 .................

TopHat24/7 wrote:

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??

I've explained myself already..

You'll be telling us the US 'won' in 'Nam next.....

Peace with honor....

I'll give you a quick history lesson...

1. Obama was elected in 2008 and Bin Laden was killed in 2011....That's more than a year...

2. Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.  Intelligence in 2001 informed Bush that Bin Laden and the co conspirators were hiding out in Afghanistan.....

3. We asked the Taliban to hand him over...........

I know it's going to fall on dumb ears but there you go...

TopHat24/7 wrote:You'll be telling us the US 'won' in 'Nam next.....

This is 'Murica, god dammit!

Obama took office at the start of 2009 and Obama was killed near the start of 2011, so basically 2 years.

Bush had 4 times longer than that and failed. Same intelligence agencies, only difference was a war-mongering quasi-retarded redneck.

'We asked' - are you actually serious?!?!

TopHat24/7 wrote:Obama took office at the start of 2009 and Obama was killed near the start of 2011, so basically 2 years.

Bush had 4 times longer than that and failed. Same intelligence agencies, only difference was a war-mongering quasi-retarded redneck.

'We asked' - are you actually serious?!?!

TopHat24/7 wrote:Obama took office at the start of 2009 and Obama was killed near the start of 2011, so basically 2 years.

Bush had 4 times longer than that and failed. Same intelligence agencies, only difference was a war-mongering quasi-retarded redneck.

'We asked' - are you actually serious?!?!

Look in any history books...

Reagan 1980-1988
Bush sr 1988-1992
Clinton 1992-2000
Bush 2000-2008
Obama 2008-

and two years isn't "just over a year" anyway..............

ShahenshahG wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Obama took office at the start of 2009 and Obama was killed near the start of 2011, so basically 2 years.

Bush had 4 times longer than that and failed. Same intelligence agencies, only difference was a war-mongering quasi-retarded redneck.

'We asked' - are you actually serious?!?!

whoops!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Obama took office at the start of 2009 and Obama was killed near the start of 2011, so basically 2 years.

Bush had 4 times longer than that and failed. Same intelligence agencies, only difference was a war-mongering quasi-retarded redneck.

'We asked' - are you actually serious?!?!

Look in any history books...

Reagan 1980-1988
Bush sr 1988-1992
Clinton 1992-2000
Bush  2000-2008
Obama 2008-

and two years isn't "just over a year" anyway..............

Obama took office in 2009, he wasn't pulling any strings before that.

You've obviously not heard of the Presidential transition act 1963......

Splitting hairs over 3 months....must have been a slow day yesterday

Good news for you in the latest Deputy poll .............wheelie..

Watson 33%
Creasy 27%
Flint 17%
Eagle 10%
Bradshaw 8%....................DK's 5%...

Considering the amount of women in the race and the fact Watson is the only one on the left...

With second preferences Creasy should have a great chance...

The only thing that happened yesterday was Burnham making himself look a complete idiot on Question Time by saying the EU had brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of Europe.

Having seen him in the debate and on QT, I really hope it isn't Burnham. Nothing to do with his policies at all, he just has this really loud, dominant way of speaking that I find deeply unpleasant. I think he's trying to sound forceful and impassioned, but I feel it ends up closer to bullying. If this is him in a party leadership campaign, I dread to think what he'd be like in an actual election.

Labour have to pick from a right load of lightweights....

More heavyweights in the Deputy battle..

They should switch it around. .

I agree truss the deputies are more impressive with the latest poll hopefully that will be creasy

Getting a little desperate old kendall's team..............

Now she's gone out to 5/1..........

Corbyn is a loony and Cooper/Burnham are a couple of Ed Miliband's ....

Doing the Tories work for them..

Kendall has not run a good campaigh though Truss i have been impressed by Cooper starting to think she may get it through 2nd preferance votes

Those wonderful 2nd preference votes......worked out well last time!!

Well i don't like the system either but what can a humble party member like me do

Campaign for change?

TBH, I had thought Labour had said it would be 'on man one vote' this time round, didn't think 2nd preference votes were going to come into play.

I have campaigned i was glad most of all the ridiculous college system that elected Ed has been changed, but i think it has flaws but its certainly better then what Labour had previously where the unions had 1/3 voting power. I support the Union link but that was ridiculous

I was being kind of facetious about campaigning, appreciate there's little you can do.

wheelchair1991 wrote:I have campaigned i was glad most of all the ridiculous college system that elected Ed has been changed, but i think it has flaws but its certainly better then what Labour had previously where the unions had 1/3 voting power. I support the Union link but that was ridiculous

Not sure Dave Miliband would have won either wheels....

The Tories brilliantly used the wally brained Lib dems as a lightning rod.

Lynton Crosby on reflection did a great job.............The Tories version of Alistair Campbell and Obama's Axelrod..

Liz Kendall looks like shes deliberately trying to lose the leadership election she praised the Sun today, not something you should do when trying to get elected as the Labour Party's leader

She's in the wrong party..

David Miliband is like the run of the mill footballer who gets injured, if his team lose a few whilst he is out he suddenly morphs into Lionel Messi. He may be a bit more media savvy and presentable than his brother but this idea he is the greatest leader the party never had seems something of a stretch.

Yep...They thought Ed was too right wing in Scotland...

No doubt Blairite Dave would have hypnotized the voters with his charisma..

Kendall - "I am the only candidate that isn't continuity-Miliband........I am going to change the party so Sun readers can trust us with their money...their taxes...that we are on their side"...

I guess the left wing will just do as it's told............unlike in 2010....

Labour have got problems..........No way you'll get Scotland back with this chick and the others have to move to the right and take the left with them..

It's a mess........Unlike you Wheelie I've given up on this rabble.

Don't care who wins...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Kendall - "I am the only candidate that isn't continuity-Miliband........I am going to change the party so Sun readers can trust us with their money...their taxes...that we are on their side"...

I guess the left wing will just do as it's told............unlike in 2010....

Labour have got problems..........No way you'll get Scotland back with this chick and the others have to move to the right and take the left with them..

It's a mess........Unlike you Wheelie I've given up on this rabble.

Don't care who wins...

well Truss yes Labour has problems but I will not give up I think that is the wrong thing to do with any Party. She will not become leader, I think Bunrham or Cooper will

Rowley wrote:David Miliband is like the run of the mill footballer who gets injured, if his team lose a few whilst he is out he suddenly morphs into Lionel Messi. He may be a bit more media savvy and presentable than his brother but this idea he is the greatest leader the party never had seems something of a stretch.

Have people really said he was the greatest leader we never had? if so that does make me laugh

wheelchair1991 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Kendall - "I am the only candidate that isn't continuity-Miliband........I am going to change the party so Sun readers can trust us with their money...their taxes...that we are on their side"...

I guess the left wing will just do as it's told............unlike in 2010....

Labour have got problems..........No way you'll get Scotland back with this chick and the others have to move to the right and take the left with them..

It's a mess........Unlike you Wheelie I've given up on this rabble.

Don't care who wins...

well Truss yes Labour has problems but I will not give up I think that is the wrong thing to do with any Party.  She will not become leader, I think Bunrham or Cooper will

Always been more socially left than fiscally...wheelie.........Voting center-left makes me feel better about marrying into a right wing family......and my Mum/Dad and Brother are Democrats although the Democrat party is much righter than Labour is here......Unless Kendall gets elected that is..

When Labour is able to tell us what it stands for ........I'll listen....

At the moment bollox to them..

Exaggeration Wheels I will concede, but do think he is receiving a reputation far in excess of his actual abilities since the defeat.

Rowley wrote:Exaggeration Wheels I will concede, but do think he is receiving a reputation far in excess of his actual abilities since the defeat.

As a slightly right of centre voter both he and Blair appealed to me. I think I'm quite representative of the middle ground that Labour appealed to in the 90's. Labour would need him or someone like Blair to win back power.

The Tories have a majority of ten and scraped over the line....and that's with picking up 30 liberal seats...A price for their selling out...

Nothing to suggest Labour has to go full throttle to the right..

Steady the ship..... and win in Scotland...

Blairism has had its day..

conservatives won the election before......

libs won't team up with labour......

5 years of decreasing austerity and GDP growth....

Rowley wrote:David Miliband is like the run of the mill footballer who gets injured, if his team lose a few whilst he is out he suddenly morphs into Lionel Messi. He may be a bit more media savvy and presentable than his brother but this idea he is the greatest leader the party never had seems something of a stretch.

I agree that hindsight's has made David Miliband seem a better proposition. I thought he came across as quite arrogant in the leadership campaign, and he paid the price for this.

I think the main differences between the two is that had David taken charge of Labour, they would have backed the Coalition's plans to bomb Syria to attack Assad. I also think he wouldn't have attacked the press in the wake of the Leveson inquiry as forcefully as his brother. This turn out to be a huge mistake, as he became the target of personal attacks which he couldn't shake off.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Labour have got problems..........No way you'll get Scotland back with this chick and the others have to move to the right and take the left with them...

They're not getting Scotland back anyway. The problem wasn't that they were too right wing, it's that everyone in Scotland stopped listening to what they were saying, and the SNP moved over and knicked their spot.

seanmichaels wrote:conservatives won the election before......

libs won't team up with labour......

5 years of decreasing austerity and GDP growth....

Problems with Europe..........Backbench revolts.....Ten majority and at least forty d**kheads = problem......No Liberals to get stuff through !!.

Cameron is more popular than his party and he's made the mistake of saying he's going......Like Blair.

Won't be plain sailing..

I agree it won't be plainsailing in many ways it will be more difficultfor cameron as his backbenchers will want more from him

Hotmail is very good these days.

I just had an e-mail from the general secretary of the Labour party...and Hotmail put it straight in the junk folder. Very perceptive!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11719122/Unite-backs-left-wing-fireband-MP-Jeremy-Corbyn-to-be-Labour-leader.html

Good grief, is it actually going to happen?

Boris Johnson for the easiest landslide in British political history?

Luckily Unite do not have voting power in the election this time around, could turnout to be a blessing that unite did not back the other 3 for them in the end

Labour aren't crazy enough to go for Corbyn...

Odds makers seem sure about Burnham/Watson.

Corbyn is a bell, which is why the Unions are backing him, a tedious puppet that'll make for a nice Union mouthpiece until election day.

Key element of the story is that the Union has said 2nd preference votes go to Burnham.

So the REAL story, is that as expected Burnham is getting Union backing to push him over the line. Just like Red Ed did.....

But they do not have 1/3 voting power this time thank god, i wouldnt be so sure on Watson getting it ive no doubt he will get mostfirst preferance votes but hemay loseon second preferance vote to Flint or Creasy.
I had a very smarmy letter from Sion Simon my MEP and former minister under Blair saying how well i did in the election but then saying i should vote for Watson. The letter went straight in the bin

They reckon Union votes will account for less than a tenth of the vote...

So it's a stretch to say they will be the deciding factor...

Spot on trussy

We'll see.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They reckon Union votes will account for less than a tenth of the vote...

So it's a stretch to say they will be the deciding factor...

It's more about the influence that Unite carries, rather than the direct number of actual votes.

Either way, all Tories/Kippers/Liberals/Greens/Scottish Nationalists can unite in their support for Corbyn! #comeonjezza