Labour Party leadership election 2015

[ObserverIE]

Unlike Leicester South, West is historically a very Right-leaning CLP (selecting in succession her, Patricia Hewitt and... er... Greville Janner) so she ought to given that she's the local MP.

Although Hewitt had a reputation as a Bennite back in the 80s when that was the correct position for Vicars of Bray to hold.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

CLP nominations map updated... and I've added one for the Deputy contest.

[Silent Hunter]

See Burnham has managed to make a rather big gaffe in relation to a certain tabloid newspaper.

As for the child benefits issue: Limiting the credits to the first two children is something popular with the country at large. People can't see why they should have to pay for those who can't engage in proper family planning, especially if they can't afford to have three or four kids themselves.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As for the child benefits issue: Limiting the credits to the first two children is something popular with the country at large. People can't see why they should have to pay for those who can't engage in proper family planning, especially if they can't afford to have three or four kids themselves.

Because the parents aren't the only people who have to live in those families, you see.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes. We must remember one of the keY challenges (certainly one of the most tangible ones) of NuLabour was to eliminate child poverty in the UK. Now maybe you can argue tax credits are the wrong way to go about it, but to condemn large families to poverty seems downright cruel.

[Silent Hunter]

As for the child benefits issue: Limiting the credits to the first two children is something popular with the country at large. People can't see why they should have to pay for those who can't engage in proper family planning, especially if they can't afford to have three or four kids themselves.

Because the parents aren't the only people who have to live in those families, you see.

Oh, I agree. But that's what a lot of people think.

[Blair]

Starting to get worried about Corbyn-from what I've heard in the party at this rate he could come second to Andy Burnham. It would be pretty bad if Corbyn gets the most 1st preferences but loses to AB because of Cooper/Kendall votes

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm more interested in what Kendall (or more importantly the powers that be behind her candidacy) do if (as expected) she finishes a poor fourth. Will they do a Hodges, so to speak?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Here's a bit of a fun turnaround: Burnham (Blair-aligned, member of the traditionalist right) was attacked in his opposition to benefit cuts by Harriet Harman (Brownite, vetoed the Frank Field reforms). How times change.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Burnham seems to be the preferred second choice of most of the louder Corbyn backers, so I don't think that scenario would be particularly problematic.

I'm more interested in what Kendall (or more importantly the powers that be behind her candidacy) do if (as expected) she finishes a poor fourth. Will they do a Hodges, so to speak?

By 'powers that be' I presume you mean the noble Lord Mandelson?

[Silent Hunter]

Starting to get worried about Corbyn-from what I've heard in the party at this rate he could come second to Andy Burnham. It would be pretty bad if Corbyn gets the most 1st preferences but loses to AB because of Cooper/Kendall votes

One advantage of PR is that the "hard-left" and the "centre-left" tend to end up in different parties. Not really a solution here.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, and possibly some of his protégés in the Commons (although the prominent ones are too ambitious to start being outright wreckers).

[Famous Mortimer]

Starting to get worried about Corbyn-from what I've heard in the party at this rate he could come second to Andy Burnham. It would be pretty bad if Corbyn gets the most 1st preferences but loses to AB because of Cooper/Kendall votes

Don't know why this would be a problem. This is exactly how it's supposed to work.

[afleitch]

As for the child benefits issue: Limiting the credits to the first two children is something popular with the country at large. People can't see why they should have to pay for those who can't engage in proper family planning, especially if they can't afford to have three or four kids themselves.

Because the parents aren't the only people who have to live in those families, you see.

This, this, one hundred times this.

[Famous Mortimer]

If you keep having children when you can't afford the ones you already have, that's child abuse and your children should be taken away.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If you keep having children when you can't afford the ones you already have, that's child abuse and your children should be taken away.

Some would say it's child abuse to break up families for having the temerity to be poor.

[afleitch]

If you keep having children when you can't afford the ones you already have, that's child abuse and your children should be taken away.

Financial assistance given to children has to be paid through their parent/guardian, but it is not a payment made FOR the parent; it’s paid on behalf of the child to the parent. So it’s depriving children of assistance because they happen to be ‘child 3’ or ‘child 4’. While we cannot police how that money is utilised by the parent (for good or for ill) to take it away from the child is absolutely horrific. It’s essentially saying they are worthless to the state. At least until they are old enough to pay taxes and vote. The state (same goes for the USA) actually gives comparatively little financial assistance to children as it is, preferring to throw freebies to pensioners and workers.

[ChrisDR68]

Corbyn well ahead according to this article in the New Statesman:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/jeremy-corbyn-course-come-top-labour-leadership-election 

If he won the Labour leadership it would certainly shake things up politically in the UK.

What level of support in terms of the popular vote would the party achieve at the next general election if he were leader?

My guess would be somewhere in the 25-28% range.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Seems about right. Maybe if he achieves some sort of miracle and keeps the right flank bolted on, he can grab a minority or something in a neutral year; but yeah the odds would be stacked against him.

i wonder if Corbyn gets a Shadow Cabinet position out of this?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A pretty transparent attempt to scare people on the Labour Right into a) mobilising and b) to cast tight preference chains: I personally wouldn't believe even a published poll of this sort of contest, let alone questionable leaks of supposed private 'polling'.

Still, there's no doubt that Corbyn is doing very well; maybe he really will top the poll. Actually winning would be much harder as he's unlikely to be transfer friendly. I think he would need a very large lead on first preferences and for their to be little transferring between the other candidates, which seems like a stretch.

[minionofmidas]

A pretty transparent attempt to scare people on the Labour Right into a) mobilising and b) to cast tight preference chains: I personally wouldn't believe even a published poll of this sort of contest, let alone questionable leaks of supposed private 'polling'.

Still, there's no doubt that Corbyn is doing very well; maybe he really will top the poll. Actually winning would be much harder as he's unlikely to be transfer friendly. I think he would need a very large lead on first preferences and for their to be little transferring between the other candidates, which seems like a stretch.

Well if the fear of Corbyn mobilizes the right, and they vote Kendall first pref, maybe - maybe - a Corbyn vs Kendall last round is a possibility.

[Silent Hunter]

Seems about right. Maybe if he achieves some sort of miracle and keeps the right flank bolted on, he can grab a minority or something in a neutral year; but yeah the odds would be stacked against him.

i wonder if Corbyn gets a Shadow Cabinet position out of this?

Assuming he even gets to 2020. Corbyn will be a year older than Michael Foot was then and Foot had a difficult time keeping with the pace of 1983. The chances of Corbyn, who has never held a high-profile office in his life, suffering some major health event before then are significant enough that they have to be taken into consideration.

[Phony Moderate]

Seems about right. Maybe if he achieves some sort of miracle and keeps the right flank bolted on, he can grab a minority or something in a neutral year; but yeah the odds would be stacked against him.

i wonder if Corbyn gets a Shadow Cabinet position out of this?

Assuming he even gets to 2020. Corbyn will be a year older than Michael Foot was then and Foot had a difficult time keeping with the pace of 1983. The chances of Corbyn, who has never held a high-profile office in his life, suffering some major health event before then are significant enough that they have to be taken into consideration.

Which is strange as few said that about Churchill, who a. was the same age in 1940 as Corbyn is now, b. liked his drink and wasn't exactly a picture of fitness and c. had far more stressful circumstances to deal with than Corbyn would almostly certainly ever have to

Of course if he had the appearance of Mitt Romney (who was in his mid 60s in 2012 and hasn't aged much since) then no one would give the slightest about his age.

[Silent Hunter]

Churchill suffered major health problems during the war

[Phony Moderate]

Churchill suffered major health problems during the war

Point, but a 40-something may well have done so too under such circumstances, and again his age wasn't of concern to many.