Labour Party leadership election 2015

[YL]

Cry me a river; I cried, a river over you.

If I do bother to become a "registered supporter" so I can get a vote in this, I'll be careful not to vote for anyone Patrick Wintour describes as a "moderniser".

[YL]

FEWER POLITICIANS!!!  starting with all the ones clustered together in urban constituencies

This should probably be in the boundary review thread, but contrary to some Tory propaganda on this issue there are quite a few Labour seats in urban areas with high electorates.  Indeed according to the list of electorates I've got (which came from Electoral Calculus) 8 of the 15 largest electorates are in Labour-held urban constituencies.

(Ilford South, West Ham, Bristol West, East Ham, Holborn & St Pancras, Slough, Manchester Central, Croydon North.)

[YL]

Many will recall that Blair took over the party by arguing that it needed to get with the times. Now his creatures want to take the party back a least a decade.

A decade would take us back to 2005... when Labour won a 66 seat majority instead of now with the party 100 seats adrift of the Conservatives.

Labour lost a lot of votes between 2001 and 2005, and were really quite lucky that a poor choice (actually two poor choices...) of Tory leader and a favourable vote distribution (remember, the Tories beat them in the popular vote in England but Labour won a majority of English seats) gave them such a big majority.

I personally have a very low opinion of Tony Blair (and never liked him, even back in the 1990s) but obviously he was an electoral asset in 1997 and 2001 (though Labour would probably have won both elections anyway, just with smaller majorities).  That he was in 2005 seems much more doubtful.

[YL]

Creasy has made the ballot and Ali has withdrawn. Which means its possible for Eagle and/or Bradshaw to make it now, which wasn't looking likely earlier this week.

The Guardian has a quote from Chuka Umunna implying that Eagle and Bradshaw have both made it.  (Well, the tweet being quoted actually says "All remaining @UKLabour deputy leadership candidates are now on the ballot after @rushanaraali's withdrawal - big thanks to @rushanaraali!".)

[YL]

Hustings with the four leadership candidates in Nuneaton on BBC2 now...

Had another go at the regional breakdown thing:

North: Burnham 12, Cooper 8, Kendall 5, Corbyn 3 No Nomination 1
North West: Burnham 24, Kendall 9, Cooper 5, Corbyn 5, NN 5
Yorkshire & The Humber: Burnham 10, Cooper 9, Corbyn 6, Kendall 3, NN 5
West Midlands: Cooper 14, Kendall 4, Burnham 3, NN 4
East Midlands: Cooper 4, Kendall 3, Burnham 2, Corbyn 2, NN 3
Eastern: Corbyn 2, Cooper 1, Kendall 1
London: Corbyn 16, Cooper 9, Kendall 9, Burnham 4, NN 6
South East: Kendall 2, Burnham 1, Corbyn 1
South West: Cooper 2, Burnham 1, NN 1
Wales: Burnham 11, Cooper 6, Kendall 5, Corbyn 1, NN 2
Scotland: NN 1

Same caveats as before.

Burnham's strength in the North (especially the NW) particularly stands out.  Is Corbyn's strength in London down to London Labour MPs being particularly on the left, or because he has a London constituency, or because London Labour MPs were particularly likely to lend their nominations for some reason.

[YL]

anyone see the debates?

I saw most of it.  I wasn't terribly impressed TBH.  Burnham and Cooper still both strike me as solid enough but not particularly inspiring.  I didn't expect to like Kendall, and didn't, while I thought Corbyn came across well but it still seems likely that he'd be seen as unelectable.

[YL]

Incidentally if Corbyn were to win then his age would not be an issue as it is very clear that he has no intention of actually leading Labour into an election. He would likely make certain structural changes and hand over as quickly as possible to someone on the Left - and that can be 'safely' asserted because if Corbyn wins it would be a pretty clear sign of Left dominance within the membership - who's younger than him.

Any suggestions -- other than John Cryer -- for who that might be?

[YL]

Is Kendall getting a bump? I thought she was the least likely to win of all the candidates.

She's got 10 CLP's, which doubled from 5 on wednesday night. The common view is that her campaign has been the worst run-she's got a pretty unpopular cast running it. She's most likely to come 4th-which shows how much progress/the right wing of the party has declined in the last 10 years.

I think the way that she started off by basically saying that Labour was wrong and the Tories were right on a whole range of issues didn't exactly help her.

(OK, I'm slightly exaggerating, but it did come across a bit that way.)

[YL]

I haven't really been following this, a... are we actually talking about a Corbyn leadership as if it's a realistic possibility?

Some leaked poll suggested that it might be, but note the words "leaked poll".

As the election is conducted by AV, I think transfers ought to doom him even if he wins on first preferences, unless the final count is somehow between him and Kendall (which doesn't seem likely).

[YL]

So who does everyone on here favour?

Undecided between Cooper and Burnham, Corbyn third, Kendall last.  My feelings about Corbyn are basically the same as CrabCake's.

[YL]

Tbh Blair's biggest mistake (well there's a lot of them) was not trying to push harder to nationalize it. Talking to my tory relatives they seem to think it's mad that Major sold it off-heck didn't Thatcher call it the poll tax on wheels?

"Poll tax on wheels" is usually attributed to Robert Adley, a dripping wet Tory MP for Christchurch (it was his death which caused the 1993 by-election there which the Lib Dems won with a huge majority) who was also a railway enthusiast.

[YL]

He only seriously connected with Middle England (or any other part of the country) in 1997; the 2001 and 2005 elections were won with less votes than in both 1992 and 1979.

2001 was largely due to falling turnout (from 71% down to 59%). The 41% Labour achieved in that general election is still impressive when you view the party's share of the popular vote from February 1974 onwards:

1974 37.1% Feb
1974 39.2% Oct
1979 36.9%
1983 27.6%
1987 30.8%
1992 34.4%
1997 43.2%
2001 40.7%
2005 35.2%
2010 29.0%
2015 30.4%

In his 2 landslides Blair really was Mr. Heineken. Reaching parts of the electorate that the Labour Party has struggled (and generally failed) to reach over a very long period of time.

Not denying that he was popular, but those results did have a lot to do with the state the other main party was in at the time.

[YL]

Guardian article on leading figures and candidates in the Greens and far left parties signing up as registered supporters

The thing is that I suspect many of these people regard themselves as Labour supporters in exile, so they don't have a problem with making the statement required about sharing Labour's values and not being a member of an organisation opposed to it.

[YL]

Thing is that a high proportion of the members of far left organisations (which are rarely what you'd call large) are, in fact, former candidates. And there are other ways of checking; thanks to the internet its much easier to do so than was once the case.

Fact is that the quasi-tankie Commanding Heights crowd who drift in and out of the Party are far more numerically significant than various Trot sects and have generally done nothing wrong by the Party's rules.

Yes, members of the likes of TUSC and the interestingly-named "Left Unity" are not going to be much of a factor in this.  I'm not so sure about Greens, though, even there, the result would have to be pretty close for it to have been changed by Green members voting in it.

[YL]

New YouGov poll:

Corbyn - 53%
Burnham - 21%
Cooper - 18%
Kendall - 8%

I'm still sceptical about polling for this contest, but that would have to be quite badly wrong for Corbyn not to be in the lead.

As for the crossbreaks (insert health warning here), the most noticeable thing is that Corbyn's lead is smaller among long-standing Labour members (he's on 39% among those who joined before Ed M became leader).  The registered supporters (or "£3 sign-ups" as YouGov call them) aren't actually significantly more pro-Corbyn than the rest of the electorate, though the sample size is small...

Oh, and they asked how likely respondents thought it was that Labour would win the next election with each leader.  Totals for "Very likely" and "Fairly likely":
Burnham 52%
Cooper 45%
Corbyn 42%
Kendall 19% - ouch

[YL]

The Guardian has a comparison of the candidates' policy stances:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/aug/13/labour-leadership-candidates-comparison-burnham-cooper-corbyn-kendall

I'm still not sure who to vote for, mind...

[YL]

The Guardian has endorsed Cooper.

[YL]

An 'updated' (presumably to account for the late surge in registration) YouGov poll:

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

This appears to be simply a re-weighting of the previous poll to reflect the revised composition of the electorate following the late sign ups.  In particular, the late sign ups haven't actually been polled.

[YL]

This election is turning into a dog's breakfast. If it's close, then the losing side are going to claim "entryism" or "unfair barring" or whatever... so the winner will have questionable legitimacy from the get-go.

Do we know how many people have actually been "purged"?

Ultimately any primary-type system (which is what the registered supporter part of this is) accepts a certain amount of infiltration in return for increasing participation in the election, and I'm not aware of many examples where infiltration by opponents has had a clear influence on the result.  There is a slightly odd thing in this case with people in the Greens and far left parties who like Corbyn's politics and want him to be leader but who wouldn't be Labour supporters with another leader -- I suspect the number of far left people in this category is  small but the number of Greens might be a bit bigger -- but with 600,000 voters it'd have to be pretty close for them to be decisive.

IMO the right and centre of the Labour Party ought to be thinking a bit more about why Corbyn is doing so well (not that they can do much about it now) rather than complaining about the system.  And I say that as a registered supporter who will be voting for a candidate other than Corbyn.

[YL]

I was also referring to Tories voting. It may not make much of a difference in reality, but truth is frequently irrelevant in things like this.

Even that is an obvious consequence of the rules of the contest, just like Democrats voting for who they perceive as the biggest nutter in the Republican primary.  The well known names like Tory MPs and that prat Toby Young can of course be removed, but the fact is that if you allow 600,000 people to vote you'll get a few who are playing silly games.

It's also the case that this isn't the first Labour leadership election where some Tories have had a vote.  There are a few strange people who are both Tories and members of Labour-affiliated unions.

[YL]

Following the 'weeding out', the electorate is down to 553,954 (previously 610,753). However, most of the reduction comes from the affiliates (41,521) rather than the £3ers.

.. and mostly because they weren't on the electoral register, had signed up in more than one category, or hadn't paid their membership fees rather than because they were "infiltrators".  The number removed because they were considered not to be real Labour supporters was about 3000, of whom more than half were Greens.

[YL]

It's kind of unbelievable that Labour could go from the "New Labour" Blair/Brown era to being led by a far leftist within the span of just a few years.

Will be interesting to see how the Right of the party reacts when/if Corbyn is declared the new leader. 

Can we not refer to parts of the party not backing Corbyn as "the right of the party" please? k thanks

Yes, I should have worded it differentl, though was mainly thinking of the "New Labour" type (not easily defined, but still). While the prospect of Corbyn as leader will obviously be unpalatable (to say the least) for most MPs, I imagine that it will be even more difficult to swallow for those on the "right" of the party.

There's a difference between not supporting Corbyn and actively undermining him if/when he gets elected, and I'd expect more of the latter on the actual right (especially the Blairite right and the likes of Danczuk) of the party.  I don't think Corbyn is the right choice for the Labour Party and it is most unlikely my vote will count for him (that would require him to be in a run-off with Kendall) but I think that if he wins the party needs to accept the result and work with him, at least in the short term.  There's quite likely to be another chance at choosing the leader for the next election anyway; he'll be 70 by 2020 and he supposedly didn't particularly want the job.

[YL]

I'd like the result to be decisive enough so that the loser can't credibly complain about "purges"/infiltration (delete as appropriate according to who wins).  Unfortunately, though, complaints not being credible won't stop them being made or the media lapping them up.

Beyond that, I voted for Cooper so obviously my preference is that she wins.

[YL]

BBC reporting speculation that Corbyn may have won on the first count.

(Key word: "speculation".)

[YL]

Watson has all but got the deputy leadership with 39% on the first round

Bradshaw eliminated, Watson up to 42% in second round, Eagle now to be eliminated.

Watson wins on third round, Creasy second.