Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Phony Moderate]

Just voted online. For Leader - 1. Corbyn, 2. Burnham, 3. Cooper, 4. Kendall. For Deputy - 1. Creasy, 2. Watson, 3. Eagle, 4. Flint, 5. Bradshaw. Cashman and Clark for the CAC.

Oh, and David Miliband has endorsed Kendall.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's also the case that the trouble with having to put your leader's weird views/past statements into 'context' isn't necessarily that voters care greatly about them - the fact is that foreign/defence policy has not been an electorally decisive matter since the end of the Cold War and the subsequent lifting of the existential threat - but that time spent doing that could be better spent on almost anything else.

[ChrisDR68]

Foot was DOA because he was not someone people could take seriously as a potential PM.

Foot didn't take himself seriously as a potential PM which makes you wonder what he thought he was doing putting himself forward as a contender in the 1980 leadership contest in the first place.

The SDP experiment failed due to the following reasons:

1. It's appeal was too middle class which didn't touch Labour's inner city and urban core vote. If it was going to replace Labour as the main centre left party (which is what their aim was) they had to eat into Labour's heartlands or they were wasting their time. Amazingly they don't seem to have realised this at the time or since.

2. It relied on a couple of senior politicians at the top of the party to put it's message across. There was no great or deep grass roots movement.

3. While the Labour Party was seen as a potentially dangerous organisation to vote into government (especially on defence issues) most swing voters would end up backing the Conservatives as the traditional (if relatively unpopular at the time) safety first option at general election time. In those circumstances a vote for the SDP/Liberal Alliance was seen as a bit indulgent and feckless.

That is why I feel there won't be a split within the Labour Party this time around if Corbyn wins the leadership. The splitters will ultimately be wasting their time. Better to wait out the left's ascendancy and try and win back the leadership at a later date.  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. It's appeal was too middle class which didn't touch Labour's inner city and urban core vote. If it was going to replace Labour as the main centre left party (which is what their aim was) they had to eat into Labour's heartlands or they were wasting their time. Amazingly they don't seem to have realised this at the time or since.

They seem to have genuinely believed that enough of Labour's base vote would just default their way as a matter of course.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Much bizarre news today, here's a BBC summary.

[Phony Moderate]

Will the Deputy result be announced before or after the Leader? If before then it might give an indication of the Leader result, particularly if Eagle does well.

[Phony Moderate]

Take with plenty of salt, but rumour is that Corbyn activists are worried about early canvassing figures from Unite. To add even more salt: the rumour is from Dan Hodges.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And Lord only knows what he's up to 99% of the time. But its worth recalling that Unite is a massive ramshackle beast of a union with many different tendencies.

[Silent Hunter]

It's also the case that the trouble with having to put your leader's weird views/past statements into 'context' isn't necessarily that voters care greatly about them - the fact is that foreign/defence policy has not been an electorally decisive matter since the end of the Cold War and the subsequent lifting of the existential threat - but that time spent doing that could be better spent on almost anything else.

True. It's worth pointing (h/t Political Betting on that one) that while UKIP voters may be economically left wing, they are pretty right-wing on those matters; the UKIP supporters I know tend to be very supportive of the British Armed Forces - even if they don't necessarily support the conflicts they're involved in - and may have difficulty voting for someone like Corbyn who once held a minute's silence for IRA members.

[ChrisDR68]

How do you think he'll do at PMQ's and at the despatch box generally if he wins?

[Silent Hunter]

Difficult to know; he's had no experience of doing it as a minister or shadow minister. Six questions a week to David Cameron, who is no slouch at PMQs, with a party behind not entirely supportive... well, it'll be entertaining to watch.

[ViaActiva]

Sorry but the idea that Labour lost the 1983 election due to the SDP and the Falklands War is absolute nonsense. Analysis (see Appendix) of second preferences showed that Liberal/SDP voters were more likely to favour Thatcher's Conservatives than Labour in 1983 (43% to 36%). Let that sink in more a moment. If the SDP had never happened, it's likely that Labour's defeat would have been even worse - as middle class voters who opted for the SDP in 1983 would have gone for Thatcher instead.

The Conservatives were recovering in the polls before the Falklands War, as the temporary surge of the Alliance due to by-election victories inevitably slid away and the economy began to recover. There's a reason that Thatcher called the election in 1983 and not in 1984 - she knew she was going to win. I think that Labour could have done slightly better if the War had never happened - but in this case Thatcher would have delayed the election a year, and with the economy in good shape, it's likely the result would have been similar.

Polls mid-Parliament are always a referendum on the current government and not an accurate reflection of voting choices. Thatcher's government was very unpopular, but when it came to voting, many felt there was no alternative. Polls always move back towards the government towards the election...otherwise Mr. Miliband would be Prime Minister now (even assuming that the final polls were off to the same degree!).

Labour won just 27% in 1983. Labour were still blamed for the Winter of Discontent and trade union militancy. The Bennite insurgency of 1979-81 completely destroyed the constitutional balance in the Party and left the Party a shambles - who could possibly vote for a Labour leadership that couldn't control its own Party, let alone the country? Labour lost the election well before the Limehouse Declaration and the Falklands War.

[Silent Hunter]

Labour actually dropped eight points in the polls during the campaign itself.

[Blair]

Voted for Burnham, Watson and Jowell. Where does that put me on the ideological spectrum

[Phony Moderate]

London will be interesting; polls amongst general Labour voters give Jowell a handy lead but I don't think there has been a poll of members and registered supporters.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Voted for Burnham, Watson and Jowell. Where does that put me on the ideological spectrum

You didn't vote for the one who will make Labour un-electable for a generation.

[Phony Moderate]

Voted for Burnham, Watson and Jowell. Where does that put me on the ideological spectrum

You didn't vote for the one who will make Labour un-electable for a generation.

He'd certainly have better personal ratings than Bill Shorten though...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Voted for Burnham, Watson and Jowell. Where does that put me on the ideological spectrum

You didn't vote for the one who will make Labour un-electable for a generation.

He'd certainly have better personal ratings than Bill Shorten though...

People like unicorns... doesn't mean they can do anything.

[Phony Moderate]

The bookmaker Paddy Power is now paying out on a Corbyn victory.

[Phony Moderate]

Burnham hasn't ran the best campaign but his tactics of recent days are probably clever; he could well win quite a few soft Corbynites over.

[Hnv1]

Now would have been a good time for a Burnham\Cooper pact like the old Blair-Brown one, problem is both are mediocre at best

[Phony Moderate]

Now would have been a good time for a Burnham\Cooper pact like the old Blair-Brown one, problem is both are mediocre at best

Problem also is that it is too late for anything like that and it would quite possibly benefit Corbyn anyway.

[Blair]

As I've said before any pact is worthless if Corbyn get's 50% in the first round (Even if he gets 45% I can still see him getting 5% from the rest-1. Kendall 2. Corbyn/ 1. Cooper 2. Corbyn voters must exist)

I read torygraph piece saying that Kendall offered to endorse Burnham and withdraw if Cooper did as well, but Cooper rejected it. I'm in two minds-part of me knows that Cooper has wanted this since 2010 and apparently regrets not standing in 2010, but I doubt if Cooper and Kendall withdrawing would look like anything other than a desperate establishment trick.

It shows how weak labour are as the two 'big beasts' of Cooper and Burnham are actually weak as hell. We'll have to wait for Dan Jarvis to arrive on his white horse

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Burnham is more of a curiosity than that; he has significant strengths as well as weaknesses, but for whatever reason the leadership campaign has mostly brought out the latter (and this will be a fair comment even if he wins). Mind you, that's a fairly common curiosity in the Labour Party: he is nowhere near as extreme as case as Denis Healey.

An interesting thing to note about Jarvis - I've mentioned it before but its worth repeating - is that while he's associated with the Right (and is not even hostile to Progress) he often sounds very left wing when talking about social policy and some economic matters.

[ChrisDR68]

The New Statesman has endorsed Cooper (what a sensible lot ):

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/ns-leader-choice-labour

If Labour don't take this opportunity to elect it's first woman leader Lord alone knows when they ever will