Support NeoGAF

[twobear]

Then you're not listening, and you deserve what befalls you.

Not listening to what, a poll that's been disproven by actual vote results? Miliband was a disaster, no disputing that.

Largely because of Clegg's unpopularity. Voting reform still actually has public support, people rejected specifically AV.

So again, push comes to shove and the public vote against what they say they'll do in polls. Why should I take more heed in the polls than in what's actually happen? If polls were reality we'd have a Labour minority government right now.

Then you're stupid and deserve your loss. In 20 years time, you will be 40-something year olds and one of the key voting demographics. Are you honestly going to tell me you're still not going to vote then when you have direct control over who is elected because all the baby boomers are dead? Childish, negligent and irresponsible. God help Britain's poorest if this is all the gumption the left has.

If the options are between the Tory party and the Tory-lite party, then voting would be very difficult, yes.

Put it this way; if we carry on the current route of a Tory party that actually does what they want to and a Labour party perpetually insisting that being genuinely leftwing is unelectable and hence offering 'more of what they're doing but slightly less bad', then in twenty years we wont be talking about stopping the decline to public services, the Labour party would need to rebuild half of them from scratch. Do you really think that would be sellable to the electorate then, if the Labour party couldn't even sell sensible economic advice to them in 2010?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Not listening to what, a poll that's been disproven by actual vote results? Miliband was a disaster, no disputing that.

It wasn't disproven because you weren't paying attention. It was saying people are more leftwing, but they don't think Miliband is competent enough. That was born out by the general election results.

So again, push comes to shove and the public vote against what they say they'll do in polls. Why should I take more heed in the polls than in what's actually happen? If polls were reality we'd have a Labour minority government right now.

The polls weren't significantly wrong. We're talking a 3% error, here. The public favours voting reform by more than that margin. Additionally, the main reason the polls were wrong, and this is important, is because leftwing voters LIED about how likely they were to turn out. If everyone who said they were going to vote actually voted, we would have a Labour government now. The polls were not wrong about public opinion, they were wrong about how "public opinion" translates to "voter opinion".

If people like you saying "what's the point in actually voting?" had voted last election, the evidence suggests we would be better than now. So frankly, all this "there's barely a difference" crap pisses me right off.

If the options are between the Tory party and the Tory-lite party, then voting would be very difficult, yes.

Put it this way; if we carry on the current route of a Tory party that actually does what they want to and a Labour party perpetually insisting that being genuinely leftwing is unelectable and hence offering 'more of what they're doing but slightly less bad', then in twenty years we wont be talking about stopping the decline to public services, the Labour party would need to rebuild half of them from scratch. Do you really think that would be sellable to the electorate then, if the Labour party couldn't even sell sensible economic advice to them in 2010?

ohmygod you literally dont listen to an actual word i say what is the point

no wonder the left never wins, apparently its better to just sulk around being melodramatic

 

[twobear]

It wasn't disproven because you weren't paying attention. It was saying people are more leftwing, but they don't think Miliband is competent enough. That was born out by the general election results.

So in what sense are they significantly more left-wing, if they wont vote for left-wing policies just because they don't like the look of the person selling them?

The polls weren't significantly wrong. We're talking a 3% error, here. The public favours voting reform by more than that margin. Additionally, the main reason the polls were wrong, and this is important, is because leftwing voters LIED about how likely they were to turn out. If everyone who said they were going to vote actually voted, we would have a Labour government now. The polls were not wrong about public opinion, they were wrong about how "public opinion" translates to "voter opinion".

If people like you saying "what's the point in actually voting?" had voted last election, the evidence suggests we would be better than now. So frankly, all this "there's barely a difference" crap pisses me right off.

Hey, don't point the finger at me, I voted in the last election.

And again, I don't see how you're making these polls square up. People want vote reform, but they'd rather just punish Nick Clegg when they're asked to actually vote on it? That looks like a rather weak investment in vote reform, to me.

ohmygod you literally dont listen to an actual word i say what is the point

no wonder the left never wins, apparently its better to just sulk around being melodramatic

Believe me, I'd like to be more chipper about the future of my country. I just don't see it. I mean the Tories managed to spin the biggest meltdown of their ideology for a century as a failure of left-wing politics, and Labour let them do it. You have a lot more trust than me.

[edit] I mean I have to give you this, you're the only self-avowed left-winger who is in any sense optimistic about the future that I've spoken to.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So in what sense are they significantly more left-wing, if they wont vote for left-wing policies just because they don't like the look of the person selling them?

Most people aren't like you or more. They're not policy people. At the end of the day, they want someone on politics they feel like they can trust. Between a trusted leftwing and rightwing candidate, the leftwing one will win. But you need that trust.

And again, I don't see how you're making these polls square up. People want vote reform, but they'd rather just punish Nick Clegg when they're asked to actually vote on it? That looks like a rather weak investment in vote reform, to me.

See above. Competency is deeply important to most voters. Labour aren't seen as having it, nor was Nick Clegg.

Believe me, I'd like to be more chipper about the future of my country. I just don't see it. I mean the Tories managed to spin the biggest meltdown of their ideology for a century as a failure of left-wing politics, and Labour let them do it. You have a lot more trust than me.

[edit] I mean I have to give you this, you're the only self-avowed left-winger who is in any sense optimistic about the future that I've spoken to.

People are remarkably myopic. I remember articles in 2005 proclaiming the death of conservatism. I think 20-something lefties sometimes forget that there was a world before their political consciousness came into being.

Corbyn has something like 45% support among 18-24 year olds, and I think just over 40% iirc amongst 24-30 year olds. In 20 years time, these people will be 38-50 year olds. The baby boomers are not around forever. Corbyn is just a little too early.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

talking of Corbyn, lastest YouGOV

Corbyn 57 (+4)
Burnham 20 (-1)
Cooper 16 (-2)
Kendall 7 (-1)

that wagon keeps on rooooolllin

 

[Incognito]

...just catching up on recent developments regarding Labour party elections and, w.t.f. Corbyn? Seriously? Roll out the red carpet for Osborne. Going to be real interesting to see what happens to Labour if Corbyn actually secures the votes; will they splinter? Force another election? Either way and barring some sort of unforeseen disaster I can't see Labour seriously contesting 2020. What a cockup.

 

[twobear]

If voter preference is so transient and ephemeral, then why believe that what people will say on a poll is anything more than just whatever they happen to feel that morning? The first poll you linked to already acknowledged that voter opinion tends to swing opposite to whoever happens to be in power.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If voter preference is so transient and ephemeral, then why believe that what people will say on a poll is anything more than just whatever they happen to feel that morning? The first poll you linked to already acknowledged that voter opinion tends to swing opposite to whoever happens to be in power.

It's not really transient. People actually move rather slowly on issues, in general public opinion can be described as a glacial drift leftwards more or less since the early '90s. People's voting opinion swings largely because of competency considerations - mostly because it's just hard to be in office for more than 10 years without fucking up, and people remember the fuckups more than the triumphs.

 

[twobear]

It's not really transient. People actually move rather slowly on issues, in general public opinion can be described as a glacial drift leftwards more or less since the early '90s. People's voting opinion swings largely because of competency considerations - mostly because it's just hard to be in office for more than 10 years without fucking up, and people remember the fuckups more than the triumphs.

Again, if the public is largely drifting leftwards then why did they only vote Labour after they moved to the right, and why did they vote for a Tory government that is open in its plans to dismantle welfare spending?

I don't see how your claims match up with reality.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Again, if the public is largely drifting leftwards then why did they only vote Labour after they moved to the right, and why did they vote for a Tory government that is open in its plans to dismantle welfare spending?

I don't see how your claims match up with reality.

Because Blair was trusted, and Cameron were trusted. Miliband was not trusted, Brown was *definitely* not trusted. You literally have a zillion examples of focus groups/polls/campaign interviews/god knows what else all saying "I feel like Labour's heart is in the right place, but..." and your response is to say "Why don't they feel like Labour's heart is in the right place!?". They do - they're just not going to vote for Corbyn because they think he's a nutter, same as they did Ed Miliband.

People *still* think the Tories are the nasty party and repeatedly don't back their policies, and they vote for them. That says something about the dismal state of the Labour party.

 

[twobear]

Because Blair was trusted, and Cameron were trusted. Miliband was not trusted, Brown was *definitely* not trusted. You literally have a zillion examples of focus groups/polls/campaign interviews/god knows what else all saying "I feel like Labour's heart is in the right place, but..." and your response is to say "Why don't they feel like Labour's heart is in the right place!?". They do - they're just not going to vote for Corbyn because they think he's a nutter, same as they did Ed Miliband.

People *still* think the Tories are the nasty party and repeatedly don't back their policies, and they vote for them. That says something about the dismal state of the Labour party.

'Labour' being Blairite Labour, not any kind of thorough-going left-wing Labour that any of Corbyn's supporters want. And any Labour party like that isn't going to give this country the break it desperately needs. It's kicking the can up the road.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Jumping in as a filthy American, this recent election kind of strikes me as your version of the 2004 election in the US.

In the previous election, the conservative party had won a very close election thanks to a split left coalition after a long period of rule by a moderate version of the left-leaning party where the charismatic moderate was succeeded by a less charismatic guy who was given the blame for all the bad parts of the previous guys policies, but none of the positives.

The conservative party publicly moderated themselves (Compassionate Conservative/Big Society), had a "I'm stinking rich but one of you" candidate (Dubya/Cameron), did a few centrist things (gay marriage/Medicare Part D/ No Child Left Behind), but a bunch of far-right things (austerity/War In Iraq), so many on the Left assumed they had the win in the bag.

But, in the interests of electability, the left-leaning party chose the safe option (Kerry/Ed) over more radical choices (Dean/Ed Balls, I guess), and much of the polling shown the left-leaning party in the lead, but it turned out on Election Day, that the right-leaning party actually won a bigger win, the left-ish vote collapsed, and it turned out much of the election was fought over a wedge issue (immigration/gay marriage) than actual policy proposals.

Now, in the aftermath, the 'Very Serious People' are saying the left-leaning party needs to moderate further in order to ever win again (see the post-2004 calls for somebody like Evan Bayh or Joe Lieberman) to lead the party, while the base, pissed over decades of being used, tries to move a different way.

The question is, will the Tories have their Katrina/War in Iraq disaster (the Brexit possibly? Another recession?) and is Corbyn your guys Obama in a way?

 

[CyclopsRock]

There are a lot of similarities but one crucial distinction here is the Dubya didn't campaign on a "I'm going to invade Iraq" ticket. When the coalition came in, they gave people more or less exactly what they voted for.

Edit: also, Corbyn is not an Obama like figure. For one almost everyone hates him outside his support.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ed Miliband was also a more radical choice than Ed Balls, so I don't think that comparison works well. Nor is Corbyn Obama - he's closer to Sanders if anything.

 

[Mindwipe]

Again, if the public is largely drifting leftwards then why did they only vote Labour after they moved to the right, and why did they vote for a Tory government that is open in its plans to dismantle welfare spending?

I don't see how your claims match up with reality.

Because the most significant voter drift trend is to not voting at all.

Current trends decline in voting numbers makes our current political system unsustainable very shortly.

In other news, if the Guardian didn't want Corbyn it probably shouldn't have made a obvious, cack handed push for a candidate who isn't Yvette Cooper just because the editor thinks it would be feminist to have a woman in the position. It's weird to adopt a position as a newspaper that there's no point in selecting a leader who can't win an election, in an editorial backing a candidate who can't even win a leadership election, never mind a general one.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Speaking as a Lib Dem, I am eagerly awaiting Corbyn's ascension. It's going to be fun being able to have space to breathe on the Left again and we get to give Labour a good kicking whilst they implode.

 

[Par Score]

Edit: also, Corbyn is not an Obama like figure. For one almost everyone hates him outside his support.

Er, for one I would argue that's very true of Obama, have you seen the sort of abuse he gets from the racist half of America?

And for two, most people don't hate Corbyn. Have no idea who he is? Yes. Dismiss, deride, and generally think he's wrong? Sure. But hate? Not so much.

Speaking as a Lib Dem, I am eagerly awaiting Corbyn's ascension. It's going to be fun being able to have space to breathe on the Left again and we get to give Labour a good kicking whilst they implode.

Corbyn is the worst thing that could happen to the Lib Dems, he's stealing their easiest route back to relevance.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

What, running hell-for-leather to the Left and squaking nonsensical economic policy?

(Alright, that's mean-spirited - but come on, the guy's approach to economic growth is to throw printed money at corporations. That's not even good socialist policy, it's just a handwavium solution that doesn't actually fix anything in the long term.)

 

[twobear]

Corbyn's economic policy makes more sense than does the current government's.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Er, for one I would argue that's very true of Obama, have you seen the sort of abuse he gets from the racist half of America?

And for two, most people don't hate Corbyn. Have no idea who he is? Yes. Dismiss, deride, and generally think he's wrong? Sure. But hate? Not so much.

I wasn't talking about the opposition! Or the public. That's kinda the point. I wasn't clear though, that's my fault. It's been discussed over the last page or so, but Obama isn't hated by most of his own party that he has to deal with. If Cooper won, I wouldn't see Burnham or even Kendall struggling to work with her as leader, nor all the people that publically supported Burnham and Kendall. Likewise, Obama can work with House Democrats because they don't hate him. The fact a bunch of recent-joiners of the party like Corbyn isn't enough - they don't vote in parliament, they don't have the whip applied to them, they don't have the opportunity to join the shadow cabinet etc. In fact, a President is even shielded from some of this - if Obama was hated by his own party leadership, the far greater divide between the executive and the legislature in the US would make it less of a problem. But here? If Corbyn wins, he'll have a party that won't listen to him. That's why I mean by everyone that doesn't support him hates him.

In other news, this is quite interesting:

 

[Jezbollah]

Corbyn's economic policy makes more sense than does the current government's.

Does that include the nationalisation of rail and energy industries?

 

[twobear]

Does that include the nationalisation of rail and energy industries?

Yes. Privatisation of those industries has been a failure.

 

[Jezbollah]

Yes. Privatisation of those industries has been a failure.

I saw from somewhere that the estimated cost of renationalising the energy industry alone would be around £120bn.. and from another source that renationalisation of the rail industry alone will likely not be possible due to the logistics of the rail freight industry.

I'm not sure of the former for being legit, but I trust the latter. I dont necessarily say they are bad ideas to look into, but logistically I dont think either will happen.

EDIT: The energy industry sum was wrong - it's £185bn according to this article: http://www.theguardian.com/business...orbyns-bill-nationalising-energy-sector-185bn

 

[twobear]

I saw from somewhere that the estimated cost of renationalising the energy industry alone would be around £120bn.. and from another source that renationalisation of the rail industry alone will likely not be possible due to the logistics of the rail freight industry.

I'm not sure of the former for being legit, but I trust the latter. I dont necessarily say they are bad ideas to look into, but logistically I dont think either will happen.

I don't think it's something you could do overnight. You'd probably just be repeating one of the major mistakes of the initial privatisation in that case. But why would rail freight be a significant impediment to a nationalised service if they manage okay with a multitude of carriers at the moment?

 

[Jezbollah]

I don't think it's something you could do overnight. You'd probably just be repeating one of the major mistakes of the initial privatisation in that case. But why would rail freight be a significant impediment to a nationalised service if they manage okay with a multitude of carriers at the moment?

Well, this is the quote I've seen:

Anyone proposing renationalisation clearly has no understanding of the current rail freight business.

Before Privatisation, when a freight contract came up for renewal the British Rail sales representative would visit the customer and offer a revised rate for the traffic, usually an increase to take account of inflation. The client then had the option of accepting the increase or transferring the traffic to (usually cheaper) road haulage. BR was the monopoly supplier of rail freight service. It was a "take-it-or-leave-it" approach and countless customers chose to leave it.

After Privatisation the customer can pick and choose the optimal railfreight operator for their business. They can play one off against another to get the best price and/or performance delivery. No longer are potentially-profitable but inconvenient flows priced-out of rail haulage.

As a result rail freight has steadily increased in volume and value. Renationalisation would almost certainly reverse that trend. Can you imagine for example if a new British Rail were only allowed to order British-built locomotives?

 

[twobear]

I mean I don't see why that's an insurmountable obstacle. If there were issues with the previous system, then why wouldn't a new system take account of them?

 

[CyclopsRock]

I mean I don't see why that's an insurmountable obstacle. If there were issues with the previous system, then why wouldn't a new system take account of them?

When the problem appears to be a monopoly controlling the system, I don't see how you could make a new system that avoids that whilst being nationalised - we only have one government.

 

[Uzzy]

I don't see how we're unable to solve such problems. The Germans, French and Dutch all have state owned railway companies, all seemingly run well enough to own vast chunks of our network and earn good profits from us. Presumably they solved the rail freight issue, and I don't think that there's some fundamental ineptitude in our state that prevents us from doing something the Dutch managed.

I'd also raise the irony of a privatised railway network being bought up by other nation's state owned companies, but that'd be too obvious.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

...just catching up on recent developments regarding Labour party elections and, w.t.f. Corbyn? Seriously? Roll out the red carpet for Osborne. Going to be real interesting to see what happens to Labour if Corbyn actually secures the votes; will they splinter? Force another election? Either way and barring some sort of unforeseen disaster I can't see Labour seriously contesting 2020. What a cockup.

Regardless of how you feel about Corbyn, do you see the other three doing any better? Labour has tried to do the whole "Tory-Lite" thing since they lost the last election, and look where it got them up here in Scotland.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

I don't see how we're unable to solve such problems. The Germans, French and Dutch all have state owned railway companies, all seemingly run well enough to own vast chunks of our network and earn good profits from us. Presumably they solved the rail freight issue, and I don't think that there's some fundamental ineptitude in our state that prevents us from doing something the Dutch managed.

I'd also raise the irony of a privatised railway network being bought up other nation's state owned companies, but that'd be too obvious.

I have yet to hear a good reason for privatised railways outside of the school playground-level argument of "The government stinks and the private sector is so much better-er at everything". Privatising the Royal Mail makes tonnes more sense than the trains.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Regardless of how you feel about Corbyn, do you see the other three doing any better? Labour has tried to do the whole "Tory-Lite" thing since they lost the last election, and look where it got them up here in Scotland.

None of them are likely to win. But three of them don't risk the party's reputation (if not it's membership) being smashed to bits so that when a decent leadership contender - ie Jarvis - does show up, they actually have a party to lead.

 

[BKK]

Oh wow! This is crazy, it really looks like Corbyn is going to do it. I actually respect him as the only genuine candidate Labour have, and it shows you just what conviction politicians can do (Farage has shown this already). But his beliefs are just so far from mainstream Britain that this is lunacy. Scrap the nuclear deterent, refuse to condemn the IRA, friends with Hamas, give Argentina the Falklands? Before we even get to the actual economic argument he's unelectable already. I really think that we're seeing a sea change in the British political landscape, and we've gone from a situation of what many believed was "no more majority government" to "no more Labour government".

 

[CyclopsRock]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...speak-like-a-Corbynite-a-helpful-guide.html?x

Hehehe

 

[Par Score]

Not that I put too much trust in polls any more, but Corbyn wouldn't appear to be the 'mainstream' pariah that some like to paint him as:

 

[f0rk]

Not that I put too much trust in polls any more, but Corbyn wouldn't appear to be the 'mainstream' pariah that some like to paint him as:

Remove the people that don't vote and it will change significantly

 

[samn]

Not that I put too much trust in polls any more, but Corbyn wouldn't appear to be the 'mainstream' pariah that some like to paint him as:

It also shows that there is much more support for the non-Corbyn candidates, who are all fairly similar to each other.

 

[twobear]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...speak-like-a-Corbynite-a-helpful-guide.html?x

Hehehe

Personal abuse. Something Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters will never stoop to. Unlike those evil selfish Tories, and that murdering war criminal Blair, and that Thatcherite cow Liz Kendall, and those washed-up irrelevances the Lib Dems, and those racist thugs Ukip.

Or the only thing that the Telegraph will print about Corbyn since engaging with his political views is entirely too serious for such a lowbrow rag?

 

[danwarb]

Does that include the nationalisation of rail and energy industries?

Sure. Subsidized crappy private sector utility/service monopolies might as well be nationalized, so they can run democratically to suit the requirements of the economy as a whole and not for profit.

Until a later corporatist government drives them into the ground to force the case for privatization.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Or the only thing that the Telegraph will print about Corbyn since engaging with his political views is entirely too serious for such a lowbrow rag?

The Telegraph is little more than a high-brow tabloid at this point, and should be treated as such.

 

[twobear]

Interesting report; sorry if old:

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7989800?1439583225

tldr: Corbyn is actually the most electable Labour candidate among the actual electorate, a poll found.

 

[Jackpot]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...speak-like-a-Corbynite-a-helpful-guide.html?x

Hehehe

"Labour party membership. Body of people that is precisely representative of the electorate at large, proving that if Jeremy Corbyn wins the party leadership he can win a general election. "

Don't really get what they're so worked-up about. The rest of the points are just.. pointless. Reads like one of those political chain emails you get forwarded.

 

[CyclopsRock]

"Labour party membership. Body of people that is precisely representative of the electorate at large, proving that if Jeremy Corbyn wins the party leadership he can win a general election. "

Don't really get what they're so worked-up about. The rest of the points are just.. pointless. Reads like one of those political chain emails you get forwarded.

Well he's the sketch writer, that's basically the point. But I think he does a decent job of highlighting a few things, such as the uselessness of using the word "ideological" as some sort of pejorative.

Interesting report; sorry if old:

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7989800?1439583225

tldr: Corbyn is actually the most electable Labour candidate among the actual electorate, a poll found.

But all the others add up to way higher, which in an electoral sense is relevant. Someone who would vote for Kendal or Cooper would probably vote for the other if they won leadership. Corbyn is sufficiently different - which is why his supporters like him - that this isn't a given. I saw another poll the other day that basically showed that people thought more or less everything would be "worse than now" under Corbyn with the exception of railways, of which 2% more thought it would be better. I cannae remember the source now though.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Anyone else here familiar with Whoops Apocalypse? A ITV miniseries from days gone by. We had it on VHS and I would watch it again and again... Not to be mistaken with the awful movie remake....

Corbyn reminds me of the scene from that when the socialist party wins a surprise election victory and goes on to implement all their ideas within their first 30 minute cabinet meeting. The minutes were kept on the inside wrapping paper of a cigarette packet. xD
The socialist PM later goes on to reveal that he is in fact

Spoiler

Superman with his dog Krypto (complete with red cape) who he nonchalantly throws out of the window for his 'fly around the park' to his presumed death.

lol I love that show so much...

Soviet Leader: "Brrread shortages what are they? Food rrrriots neverrr hearrrd of them. Just because I have a dead dog in my freezer prooooves nothing."

I could go on and on, so quotable. 'Johhhny... Johny Cyclopse he never started world war 3!'

 

[Uzzy]

Cooper rejects talk of Mandelson plot to halt Labour contest.

Yvette Cooper has played down reports Lord Mandelson attempted to halt the Labour leadership contest, as voters begin to receive ballot papers.

According to the Telegraph, he tried to get Ms Cooper, Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall to quit the race to scupper left-wing candidate Jeremy Corbyn.

Ms Cooper said she understood there was a "view" the race should be stopped. But she told the Today programme she did not think this was "right" and she had not spoken to Lord Mandelson.

Lord Mandelson, one of the architects of New Labour, is reported to have privately appealed to the three non-Corbyn candidates to stand down last week, believing that the party would then suspend the contest. But he was informed by party officials that such a move would have meant victory for Mr Corbyn, according to the Telegraph.

I really hope this isn't true. I've got a low opinion of Mandelson, but I didn't think he'd be one of those 'democracy is fine as long as the people vote for the right person' types.

 

[Jezbollah]

I really hope this isn't true. I've got a low opinion of Mandelson, but I didn't think he'd be one of those 'democracy is fine as long as the people vote for the right person' types.

I wouldn't put it past anyone in a party that considers democracy fine only if you believe in the right party principles..

 

[CyclopsRock]

Tbf it's not like he'll make it to the next election. Mandy's just cutting out the middle man/years of humiliation and in-fighting.

 

[Mindwipe]

Tbf it's not like he'll make it to the next election. Mandy's just cutting out the middle man/years of humiliation and in-fighting.

They're inevitable.

Labour don't have any prospective leaders who could do otherwise.

(And the closest is probably Tom Watson.)

 

[Maledict]

Tbf it's not like he'll make it to the next election. Mandy's just cutting out the middle man/years of humiliation and in-fighting.

Labour aren't the Tory party though - they have an inbuilt reluctance to challenge a sitting leader. It will be interesting to see whether they overcome that or not, but there's a real feeling in the Labour Party that you don't take out an elected leader until they lose an election.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Labour aren't the Tory party though - they have an inbuilt reluctance to challenge a sitting leader. It will be interesting to see whether they overcome that or not, but there's a real feeling in the Labour Party that you don't take out an elected leader until they lose an election.

Indeedy, it will be interesting. I suspect it'll be more likely to be suicide when it becomes evidence that he can't mount a reasonable opposition to the government, rather than a sort of VoNC. IMO that's why the deputy leadership election is more interesting - if Tom Watson or whoever is doing a good job and isn't a tired old shit like Burnham and Cooper, it may well end up being a coronation.

 

[Jezbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-liz-kendall-labour-leadership-david-miliband

I found myself agreeing a lot with what David Miliband said in this article..