next labour leader

Kaos said:
Labour members also make up the general population.

.
Click to expand...
Of course they do
They tend to be amongst the most left wing people amongst labour voters
Of course there wasn't enough labour voters to actually win the last election
and with most of the rest of the population being more centrist than your average labour party member perhaps the way to win an election would be to appeal to them...rather than run off to the left as it defies logic to think that's going to work
 
sun_tzu said:
Of course they do
They tend to be amongst the most left wing people amongst labour voters
Of course there wasn't enough labour voters to actually win the last election
and with most of the rest of the population being more centrist than your average labour party member perhaps the way to win an election would be to appeal to them...rather than run off to the left as it defies logic to think that's going to work
Click to expand...

Considering that Corbyn is almost certainly going to win the leadership election for one of the two biggest parties in British politics, I'd say his support base is substantial. You also don't have to be a radical leftie to see appeal in his policies - austerity, poor health and climate change will also effect those who consider themselves centrists, so you might be surprised with how much support his policies might garner by 2020. There's also the fact he's considered genuine, honest and principled, which isn't the same you can say for his rivals.
 
Kaos said:
Considering that Corbyn is almost certainly going to win the leadership election for one of the two biggest parties in British politics, I'd say his support base is substantial. You also don't have to be a radical leftie to see appeal in his policies - austerity, poor health and climate change will also effect those who consider themselves centrists, so you might be surprised with how much support his policies might garner by 2020. There's also the fact he's considered genuine, honest and principled, which isn't the same you can say for his rivals.
Click to expand...
Well I'm voting in the labour election... But should he win (and I expect him to) I won't be voting for them in any upcoming elections... Nor will I donate in future.
I think it will be a disaster... Others think differently and I guess over the next five years we will have a conclusive answer
Though my belief is that it will be a disaster I am optimistic that within five years the party outlook will be much more centrist with a genuinely electable figure like jarvis in charge
 
I don't go along with all the cheap predictions of the future on here, with folk claiming to know what's going to happen in five years time, and even beyond that. I've lived through enough big swings and changes to know to expect the unexpected.
Half our voters have never really lived with a right-wing government, how they react to one is unknown. With the Conservatives moving away from the centre-ground,and Labour potentially doing the same, it's a whole new scenario. Who will fill that gap? Anyone or no one?
 
Kaos said:
Labour members also make up the general population.

Furthermore, as discussed before Corbyn's ideas aren't as radical as the media and his rivals have depicted him to be. They're typical centre-left social democratic principles which have been successfully implemented in other countries. They're radical in the sense that they'd perhaps de-rail the gravy train which would upset the establishment but nothing beyond that.
Click to expand...
So, being generous and including affiliated trade union members and registered supporters to include with the membership, that currently stands at 611,000. The UK electorate is 46.4m. So yes, Labour members make up 1.3% of the (voting age) population. Okay okay, so a lot of those don't vote. 30.7m voted last time round, so the Labour membership is now at 2% of the active electorate. Fine, but plenty of those people will never vote Labour anyway, so let's take the number that voted Labour in 2001, 10.7m. We're now up to a lofty 5.7%. So whilst the membership are giving him a ringing endorsement, all that means is that Labour currently have enough solid votes in the bag under Corbyn to get slightly over half the amount the Greens got in May.
 
sun_tzu said:
Well I'm voting in the labour election... But should he win (and I expect him to) I won't be voting for them in any upcoming elections... Nor will I donate in future.
I think it will be a disaster... Others think differently and I guess over the next five years we will have a conclusive answer
Though my belief is that it will be a disaster I am optimistic that within five years the party outlook will be much more centrist with a genuinely electable figure like jarvis in charge
Click to expand...

None of us can really predict the political climate in 5 years. Though I expect a similar exodus if any of the other 3 candidates are elected.
 
Ubik said:
So, being generous and including affiliated trade union members and registered supporters to include with the membership, that currently stands at 611,000. The UK electorate is 46.4m. So yes, Labour members make up 1.3% of the (voting age) population. Okay okay, so a lot of those don't vote. 30.7m voted last time round, so the Labour membership is now at 2% of the active electorate. Fine, but plenty of those people will never vote Labour anyway, so let's take the number that voted Labour in 2001, 10.7m. We're now up to a lofty 5.7%. So whilst the membership are giving him a ringing endorsement, all that means is that Labour currently have enough solid votes in the bag under Corbyn to get slightly over half the amount the Greens got in May.
Click to expand...

Its obviously not a majority, but it dismisses this notion of Corbyn's supporters being a pocket of fringe lunatics. Depending on the political climate in 2020, we could see a shift in more favourable views towards Corbyn's policies from undecided voters, Green/SNP/UKIP voters and even those who voted Tory and have felt disillusioned by personal circumstances.

For what it's worth I wouldn't fancy any Labour candidate's chances in 2020 - Corbyn included, but I don't think his support base should be marginalised as a radical flash in the pan.
 
Minimalist said:
I know very little about the candidates truthfully but Andy Burnham comes across as a right two-faced wanker.
Click to expand...
Q: What walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck?

A: Andy Burnham after being told the electorate love ducks.
 
It should also be remembered that Andy Burnham said he'd serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet. Let's see if he sticks to that one.
 
Labour leadership: Lord Mandelson 'tried to orchestrate mass resignation of centre candidates to defeat Jeremy Corbyn'
Peter-Mandelson-Getty.jpg



Monday 17 August 2015


Lord Mandelson tried to orchestrate a mass resignation of the three mainstream Labour leadership candidates to halt Jeremy Corbyn’s bid for power, it emerged last night.

While Liz Kendall is reported to have urged Yvette Cooper to stand down clearing the path for Andy Burnham to win.

The claims in today’s Daily Telegraph reveal the strong measures the Labour hierarchy are willing to take to prevent left-winger Mr Corbyn succeeding Ed Miliband as party leader in September.

Lord Mandelson, a key figure and architect of New Labour, is said to have privately appealed to Kendall, Cooper and Burnham last week to leave the contest before the ballot papers went out to party members.

A party source told the Daily Telegraph: “Lord Mandelson and other Blairites were saying – this is a disgrace, let’s get this thing pulled. But it was not going to happen.”

It is understood Mandelson believed such a move would mean the contest would be suspended if only one candidate remained.

However, officials forced him to back down, saying mass resignation would leave Corbyn as default winner.

Claims also emerged in The Daily Telegraph that Liz Kendall had approached Yvette Cooper asking her to stand down and back Andy Burnham in a bid to beat Corbyn, a suggestion which was rejected by Miss Cooper.

Ms Cooper’s campaign camp insisted internal polling showed only she is able to defeat Mr Corbyn for the party’s leadership.

Former cabinet minister Liam Byrne said she was "clearly on course to beat Jeremy in the final round" of voting.

But a senior source from Miss Kendall’s camp allegedly confirmed polling data showed Andy Burnham was best placed to win against Corbyn.

But both Miss Kendall and Miss Cooper are said to have dismissed rumours of any such discussions.

The Labour Party declined to comment on the allegations last night.

The revelations come in the wake of Gordon Brown’s speech to party members in which he made a thinly-veiled attack on Mr Corbyn’s plans to become the next party leader.

And they emerge just hours ahead of Andy Burnham speech today where he is expected to say he is the “only candidate” in the leadership battle who can unite Labour and “lay the foundations for a Labour victory in 2020”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...didates-to-defeat-jeremy-corbyn-10458453.html
 
Yeah... that's an article consisting of a lot of not particularly credible rumours.

The only bit that I think rings true is that Cooper is the biggest threat to Corbyn, as she will do well on second preferences.
 
It was originally reported by the Corbyn-hating Telegraph, though, so hard to know.
 
Reading through some stuff on Spectator about voting patterns & the likely key areas in 2020 and saw this point

If Labour had won all 2.6 million votes from the parties to their left, all other things being equal they would still have lost in May. On the other hand, there are 71,512 existing Conservative votes in marginal seats who could have made Labour the largest party if they had lent them their support. That’s just 0.24 per cent of the voting population.
Click to expand...

Which probably says a lot more about our FPTP system more than anything it says about Labour, but still, thought it was interesting.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/charli...ries-must-position-themselves-to-win-in-2020/
 
Another Telegraph article from Dan Hodges, mostly a moan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...d-a-new-way-to-elect-leaders.-Good-grief.html

However it does have a rather horrible point in there when looking at how many trade union members have registered to vote. Edit - when considering the new Trade Union bill that the Tories are bringing in.

Any trade unionist who wants their money to be paid into the their union’s political levy – which is then used to finance the Labour Party – will have to proactively sign a form to that effect every five years. And it’s now possible to judge how many trade union members will bother to sign up in this way. Around 180,000. That compares with 4.5 million members who pay the levy now. Labour is about to lose 95 per cent of the income it receives from the unions.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind trade union donations represent about half the party's total income.

Hopefully the % of members signing up for this election won't be representative of those paying their levy. But intuitively speaking, its hard to see why 95% of members wouldn't be bothered to sign up to vote for a new leader but would be bothered enough to sign up and pay a monthly fee.
 
Last edited:
bishblaize said:
Another Telegraph article from Dan Hodges, mostly a moan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...d-a-new-way-to-elect-leaders.-Good-grief.html

However it does have a rather horrible point in there when looking at how many trade union members have registered to vote.



Bear in mind trade union donations represent about half the party's total income.

Hopefully the % of members signing up for this election won't be representative of those paying their levy. But intuitively speaking, its hard to see why 95% of members wouldn't be bothered to sign up to vote for a new leader but would be bothered enough to sign up and pay a monthly fee.
Click to expand...
I remember this being discussed when Ed brought in the changes, I'm sure there was some reason that it wouldn't be disastrous funding wise, though I can't recall it at the moment. Bit thick to bring it in otherwise. Have to admit it's slightly funny that the one member one vote system championed by the modernisers to reduce union influence has basically resulted in Corbyn, given the simultaneous loss of MPs getting a third of the vote. If that was still in place, you'd have to think he'd do so poorly with the PLP that he'd not get anywhere near overall.
 
Ubik said:
I remember this being discussed when Ed brought in the changes, I'm sure there was some reason that it wouldn't be disastrous funding wise, though I can't recall it at the moment. Bit thick to bring it in otherwise. Have to admit it's slightly funny that the one member one vote system championed by the modernisers to reduce union influence has basically resulted in Corbyn, given the simultaneous loss of MPs getting a third of the vote. If that was still in place, you'd have to think he'd do so poorly with the PLP that he'd not get anywhere near overall.
Click to expand...

Sorry that wasn't clear from me, the article refers to the impact of the Trade Union bill that the Tories are bringing in.
 
Ubik said:
I remember this being discussed when Ed brought in the changes, I'm sure there was some reason that it wouldn't be disastrous funding wise, though I can't recall it at the moment. Bit thick to bring it in otherwise. Have to admit it's slightly funny that the one member one vote system championed by the modernisers to reduce union influence has basically resulted in Corbyn, given the simultaneous loss of MPs getting a third of the vote. If that was still in place, you'd have to think he'd do so poorly with the PLP that he'd not get anywhere near overall.
Click to expand...

And yeah it is rather funny. While the PLP aren't the be all and end all, the idea that 232 MPs, each of whom stood and won an election in their constituency, have no more say in the party than 232 random people who might never have even voted for the party before, seems a bit silly on reflection.
 
bishblaize said:
Sorry that wasn't clear from me, the article refers to the impact of the Trade Union bill that the Tories are bringing in.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they were pre-empted by Miliband who introduced the reform of individual opting-in of trade union funding last year. It's not clear from the language of the Tories' Trade Union bill that there is any difference to the Labour reforms which were already passed last spring, maybe you can point out what I'm missing?
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Labour leadership: Lord Mandelson 'tried to orchestrate mass resignation of centre candidates to defeat Jeremy Corbyn'
Peter-Mandelson-Getty.jpg



Monday 17 August 2015


Lord Mandelson tried to orchestrate a mass resignation of the three mainstream Labour leadership candidates to halt Jeremy Corbyn’s bid for power, it emerged last night.

While Liz Kendall is reported to have urged Yvette Cooper to stand down clearing the path for Andy Burnham to win.

The claims in today’s Daily Telegraph reveal the strong measures the Labour hierarchy are willing to take to prevent left-winger Mr Corbyn succeeding Ed Miliband as party leader in September.

Lord Mandelson, a key figure and architect of New Labour, is said to have privately appealed to Kendall, Cooper and Burnham last week to leave the contest before the ballot papers went out to party members.

A party source told the Daily Telegraph: “Lord Mandelson and other Blairites were saying – this is a disgrace, let’s get this thing pulled. But it was not going to happen.”

It is understood Mandelson believed such a move would mean the contest would be suspended if only one candidate remained.

However, officials forced him to back down, saying mass resignation would leave Corbyn as default winner.

Claims also emerged in The Daily Telegraph that Liz Kendall had approached Yvette Cooper asking her to stand down and back Andy Burnham in a bid to beat Corbyn, a suggestion which was rejected by Miss Cooper.

Ms Cooper’s campaign camp insisted internal polling showed only she is able to defeat Mr Corbyn for the party’s leadership.

Former cabinet minister Liam Byrne said she was "clearly on course to beat Jeremy in the final round" of voting.

But a senior source from Miss Kendall’s camp allegedly confirmed polling data showed Andy Burnham was best placed to win against Corbyn.

But both Miss Kendall and Miss Cooper are said to have dismissed rumours of any such discussions.

The Labour Party declined to comment on the allegations last night.

The revelations come in the wake of Gordon Brown’s speech to party members in which he made a thinly-veiled attack on Mr Corbyn’s plans to become the next party leader.

And they emerge just hours ahead of Andy Burnham speech today where he is expected to say he is the “only candidate” in the leadership battle who can unite Labour and “lay the foundations for a Labour victory in 2020”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...didates-to-defeat-jeremy-corbyn-10458453.html
Click to expand...

You couldn't make this up. The Blairite bullies realise that pesky democracy won't get their candidate selected, so instead they throw their toys out the pram and threaten to cancel the whole thing. If us 'heartless morons' don't want to listen to credible and trustworthy beacons of wisdom like Blair, Campbell and Mandelson, then we can't have a democratic election.

What's even more pathetic is how the other three candidates are openly plotting together to undermine Corbyn - there's something hilarious about Liz Kendall encouraging her alleged rival Yvette Cooper to stand down so her other rival Andy Burnham can win. This election may as well be officially contested between two candidates - Corbyn and the Blairite hive mind.
 
Kaos said:
You couldn't make this up. The Blairite bullies realise that pesky democracy won't get their candidate selected, so instead they throw their toys out the pram and threaten to cancel the whole thing. If us 'heartless morons' don't want to listen to credible and trustworthy beacons of wisdom like Blair, Campbell and Mandelson, then we can't have a democratic election.

What's even more pathetic is how the other three candidates are openly plotting together to undermine Corbyn - there's something hilarious about Liz Kendall encouraging her alleged rival Yvette Cooper to stand down so her other rival Andy Burnham can win. This election may as well be officially contested between two candidates - Corbyn and the Blairite hive mind.
Click to expand...
I think that was the idea.
 
Kaos said:
You couldn't make this up. The Blairite bullies realise that pesky democracy won't get their candidate selected, so instead they throw their toys out the pram and threaten to cancel the whole thing. If us 'heartless morons' don't want to listen to credible and trustworthy beacons of wisdom like Blair, Campbell and Mandelson, then we can't have a democratic election.

What's even more pathetic is how the other three candidates are openly plotting together to undermine Corbyn - there's something hilarious about Liz Kendall encouraging her alleged rival Yvette Cooper to stand down so her other rival Andy Burnham can win. This election may as well be officially contested between two candidates - Corbyn and the Blairite hive mind.
Click to expand...

The Labour right truly have utterly disgraced themselves.

What's funny about the plotting of the three Blairite candidates is that if they could act collectively they could possibly successfully sabotage Corbyn's chances, but it's clear that neither Burnham nor Cooper is willing to sacrifice careerist self-interest in order to do so.
 
Crono said:
The Labour right truly have utterly disgraced themselves.

What's funny about the plotting of the three Blairite candidates is that if they could act collectively they could possibly successfully sabotage Corbyn's chances, but it's clear that neither Burnham nor Cooper is willing to sacrifice careerist self-interest in order to do so.
Click to expand...

There's a poetic irony to New Labour's mantra of self-interested, careerist ways being their downfall in this election :lol:

On a similar note, if the three drones pull out why does that cancel the election? Wouldn't that just make Corbyn the winner by default?
 
sun_tzu said:
Well I'm voting in the labour election... But should he win (and I expect him to) I won't be voting for them in any upcoming elections... Nor will I donate in future.
I think it will be a disaster... Others think differently and I guess over the next five years we will have a conclusive answer
Though my belief is that it will be a disaster I am optimistic that within five years the party outlook will be much more centrist with a genuinely electable figure like jarvis in charge
Click to expand...

Who are you thinking of voting for instead?
 
Kaos said:
There's a poetic irony to New Labour's mantra of self-interested, careerist ways being their downfall in this election :lol:

On a similar note, if the three drones pull out why does that cancel the election? Wouldn't that just make Corbyn the winner by default?
Click to expand...

Yes it does. :lol:

They probably thought it might delegitimise the victory if he was effectively elected unopposed, but it's simply too late for that. Without any pretext for them all pulling out it will be perceived precisely as what it is, open sabotage of a fair democratic process.

I really don't think Corbyn stands a chance at leading the party with any stability unless he gets serious and proactive about annihilating these traitors from the off. But he doesn't seem to get it at all. He keeps talking about reaching out and being 'charitable' to the right. They're going to stab him in the back with every chance they get unless he defends himself and the movement he's trying to build.
 
Crono said:
Yes it does. :lol:

They probably thought it might delegitimise the victory if he was effectively elected unopposed, but it's simply too late for that. Without any pretext for them all pulling out it will be perceived precisely as what it is, open sabotage of a fair democratic process.

I really don't think Corbyn stands a chance at leading the party with any stability unless he gets serious and proactive about annihilating these traitors from the off. But he doesn't seem to get it at all.
Click to expand...
How exactly is he going to annihilate them?
 
Again all that seems to be happening is that Corbyn's opposition are focusing on why not to vote for Corbyn rather than focusing on why one should vote for one of the other candidates. Now I'm not saying I would normally vote for Corbyn, but this for me would be reason alone to vote for Corbyn if I was a Labour party member.
 
Silva said:
How exactly is he going to annihilate them?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not privy to every tool available in the leader's arsenal but it stands to simple logic that he can do what Blair did in reverse.
 
Crono said:
Yes, but they were pre-empted by Miliband who introduced the reform of individual opting-in of trade union funding last year. It's not clear from the language of the Tories' Trade Union bill that there is any difference to the Labour reforms which were already passed last spring, maybe you can point out what I'm missing?
Click to expand...

Miliband gave the unions 5 years to implement the change for existing members and I think they only have to opt-in once. That meant that the Unions had plenty of time to get people signed up & get their new systems in place. It’ll cost millions in cash and staff time to try and get up to 4.5M people to opt-in in writing, but spread out over five years its doable, and the long timescale means that they’ll capture a high % of the people who want to sign up. Unite, for example, expected about a 50% drop in the levy by 2020, which gives a sense for what they were thinking of.

The Tory bill has to have everyone opted in within three months of the bill I believe, in writing, or the levy stops. And it has to be repeated every five years. The Tory Bill also adds some bureaucracy in how the donations are handled and recorded. This means that the Unions have to splash a large amount of cash immediately and repeat the trick every five years to keep the opt-in rates high. The likely outcome is a fractional sign up rate within the first three months, followed by a costly ongoing programme if they ever want to approach even that 50%. That’s why the leadership election might be a reflection of what to expect post-Tory bill, due to the similar timescales and resource costs involved.

Another difference is that this bill counts whether a Union is affiliated with Labour or not, while Miliband’s proposals only counts for affiliated unions. Some unions don’t officially support Labour, but undertake policy research that indirectly benefits Labour.

Plus of course there’s one more difference - Miliband’s was party policy and could be changed with nothing worse than a little egg-on-the-face, the Tory Bill will become law and will need a majority to change it back, one that Labour can’t really expect to change anytime soon (its open for debate whether a left wing coalition would want to empower Labour by turning the taps back on).

Now obviously Hodge’s back of the fag packet conclusion could be totally wrong for any number of simple reasons - here’s hoping - but if the leadership election is a bellwether for future sign up rates, then its worrying.
 
bishblaize said:
Miliband gave the unions 5 years to implement the change for existing members and I think they only have to opt-in once. That meant that the Unions had plenty of time to get people signed up & get their new systems in place. It’ll cost millions in cash and staff time to try and get up to 4.5M people to opt-in in writing, but spread out over five years its doable, and the long timescale means that they’ll capture a high % of the people who want to sign up. Unite, for example, expected about a 50% drop in the levy by 2020, which gives a sense for what they were thinking of.

The Tory bill has to have everyone opted in within three months of the bill I believe, in writing, or the levy stops. And it has to be repeated every five years. The Tory Bill also adds some bureaucracy in how the donations are handled and recorded. This means that the Unions have to splash a large amount of cash immediately and repeat the trick every five years to keep the opt-in rates high. The likely outcome is a fractional sign up rate within the first three months, followed by a costly ongoing programme if they ever want to approach even that 50%. That’s why the leadership election might be a reflection of what to expect post-Tory bill, due to the similar timescales and resource costs involved.

Another difference is that this bill counts whether a Union is affiliated with Labour or not, while Miliband’s proposals only counts for affiliated unions. Some unions don’t officially support Labour, but undertake policy research that indirectly benefits Labour.

Plus of course there’s one more difference - Miliband’s was party policy and could be changed with nothing worse than a little egg-on-the-face, the Tory Bill will become law and will need a majority to change it back, one that Labour can’t really expect to change anytime soon (its open for debate whether a left wing coalition would want to empower Labour by turning the taps back on).

Now obviously Hodge’s back of the fag packet conclusion could be totally wrong for any number of simple reasons - here’s hoping - but if the leadership election is a bellwether for future sign up rates, then its worrying.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. If there's no cap, I suppose the unions could just donate to the extent they were paying the party in affiliation fees. All unions ballot their members on whether to continue paying for affiliation anyway, we just had ours in Unite recently as did GMB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.