I'd call that a draw between Corbyn and Kendall. Burnham the winner, having opted both for his first name and a number.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
Check my edit too, it's the best part
Of course not. I very much doubt we're going to manage to do a lot of reasoning with ISIS, although I do agree that there'll probably be elements of the group who are pragmatic and will abandon ISIS as soon as things go really downhill for them.
I just find it particularly hypocritical that our governments can get a free pass for allying with some incredibly dodgy groups over the years, while Corbyn's slated for suggesting a different approach to ISIS. Granted, I don't expect that rational discussion with them will particularly work, but trying to bomb extremism out of existence over the years has hardly done much good either. Corbyn's suggestion of a more pragmatic approach isn't that bad in comparison, even if I personally don't agree with it as such.
So they've all done it!In the interests of impartiality - https://twitter.com/Corbyn4Leader https://twitter.com/Andy4Leader
Liz gets plus points for at least spelling "for".
EDIT - Oh GOD, in possibly my favourite and perfect Burnham moment of this campaign, I just realised his "Andy4Leader" account is actually following more people than he has followers
the bad following to followers ratio.Was a bad idea going through her feed. I don't have that strong dislike of the Tories like I know many Labour supporters have but going through her feed just made me angry. To me anyway, she just comes across as a horrible woman.
Check my edit too, it's the best part
I don't think any government's come out looking rosy from all those terrible decisions though and plenty of reputations were ruined. Similarly I don't think Corbyn should be exempt from criticism if he says something dumb and or worrying on the subject. I'd also say it's far further into the realm of idealism than pragmatism, based on winning people over with words and ideas rather than bullets and bombs. But you can't even put international pressure or sanctions on these guys, it's them against the world and they probably fully believe they're winning.
Saudi Arabia are not intent on taking over the world and killing all anyone that refuses to bow to Sharia law. ISIS are a very different case. The possibility of them putting down legitimate roots is unthinkable for us.
Blair was panned for talking to Gadafi, by the hard left as well, let's not pull out the 'hypocrite' card for this one.
I'm far from qualified to talk about this issue, but the solution will not be killing every fighter, member or supporter of ISIS. That will just fuel further hatred towards the west. Having said that I have no idea how you can begin to negotiate with the less monstrous elements.
I would say the best possible solution is what is happening now, supporting regional opposing forces like the Kurds. ISIS have enough enemies in the Middle East to work it like that. There is absolutely no reason to sit down with ISIS.
There's clearly no option other than military confrontation with ISIS. I know Corbyn's against our bombing of Syria & Iraq, which I'm also against for several reasons, but to the best of my knowledge he has never suggested negotiating with them. He condemned them in the strongest possible words yesterday on Any Questions. I think the best option right now is arming and supporting the Kurds.
Indeed, I do think military intervention via arming regional groups is the only way this can pan out against the ISIS force. However, could opening a dialogue serve to chip away at the ideals and propaganda pushed by the extremists?
Anyway just popped in to laugh at Louise Mensch, never liked that woman.
Finally did all the futile voting malarkey. Glad a lot of the regional and youth candidates included their twitter names, helped a lot when choosing.
Anything cringeworthy in your research?
Nah didn't really go back that far, just more useful to know where they stood than their little statements in the booklet.
For those of you claiming Corbyn's enonomic policies are not credible:
Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing for anti-austerity policies
Former adviser to Bank of England among signatories to letter dismissing criticism of economic plans, saying they are ‘not extreme’
More than 40 leading economists, including a former adviser to the Bank of England, have made public their support for Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, dismissing claims that they are extreme, in a major boost to the leftwinger’s campaign to be leader.
The intervention comes as the Corbyn campaign reveals that a Labour government led by the MP for Islington North would reserve the right to renationalise Royal Bank of Scotland and other public assets, “with either no compensation or with any undervaluation deducted from any compensation for renationalisation” if they are sold at a knockdown price over the next five years.
The leftwinger’s economic policies – dubbed Corbynomics – have come under sustained attack in recent days, including by members of his own party, with Andy Burnham warning his party in an interview with this paper not to forget the lessons of the general election about the importance of economic credibility.
But with just under three weeks until Ed Miliband’s replacement is announced, Corbyn’s credibility receives a welcome endorsement as 41 economists make public a letter defending his positions.
In the letter to which David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is a signatory, the economists write: “The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies. His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity.”
Corbyn remains the frontrunner to be Labour leader, but as his policies, and the risks he poses to the unity of the Labour party, have come under scrutiny, rivals believe he is losing momentum.
Burnham’s campaign shared data with the Observer that suggested some of those who had previously committed to voting for Corbyn were now recognising the dangers and either opting for the shadow health secretary or describing themselves as “don’t knows”.
But writing in the Observer, Corbyn defended his platform and said the government’s “free market dogma” had to be fought and vowed that a Labour government under his leadership would re-empower the state. The chancellor, George Osborne, intends to sell off £31bn of public assets in 2015-16.
Corbyn writes: “Parliament can feel like living in a time warp at the best of times, but this government is not just replaying 2010, but taking us back to 1979: ideologically committed to rolling back the state, attacking workers’ rights and trade union protection, selling off public assets, and extending the sell off to social housing.
“This agenda militates against everything the Chancellor says he wants to achieve. If you want to revive manufacturing and rebalance the economy, you need a strategic state leading the way.”
Burnham told the Observer that he feared the political consequences of going into a 2020 election on Corbyn’s platform. “Economic credibility is all and unless you have got that you haven’t got a basis for winning an election,” he said. “So Labour can’t unlearn that lesson three months away from the general election. That was the thing that told against us in the end and we have to be serious about that.”
In defence of the Corbyn camp’s plans to renationalise privatised industries, John McDonnell MP, who is the candidate’s campaign agent, said that privatisation had been “a confidence trick”. He said: “Privatisation over the last four decades has been a history of the British people being robbed and the spivs snatching up the public assets being given the licence to print money. From the earliest privatisations of water, energy and rail to the PFI schemes from the last decade, it has been one long confidence trick.
Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing for anti-austerity policies
Former adviser to Bank of England among signatories to letter dismissing criticism of economic plans, saying they are ‘not extreme’
More than 40 leading economists, including a former adviser to the Bank of England, have made public their support for Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, dismissing claims that they are extreme, in a major boost to the leftwinger’s campaign to be leader.
The intervention comes as the Corbyn campaign reveals that a Labour government led by the MP for Islington North would reserve the right to renationalise Royal Bank of Scotland and other public assets, “with either no compensation or with any undervaluation deducted from any compensation for renationalisation” if they are sold at a knockdown price over the next five years.
The leftwinger’s economic policies – dubbed Corbynomics – have come under sustained attack in recent days, including by members of his own party, with Andy Burnham warning his party in an interview with this paper not to forget the lessons of the general election about the importance of economic credibility.
But with just under three weeks until Ed Miliband’s replacement is announced, Corbyn’s credibility receives a welcome endorsement as 41 economists make public a letter defending his positions.
In the letter to which David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is a signatory, the economists write: “The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies. His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity.”
Corbyn remains the frontrunner to be Labour leader, but as his policies, and the risks he poses to the unity of the Labour party, have come under scrutiny, rivals believe he is losing momentum.
Burnham’s campaign shared data with the Observer that suggested some of those who had previously committed to voting for Corbyn were now recognising the dangers and either opting for the shadow health secretary or describing themselves as “don’t knows”.
But writing in the Observer, Corbyn defended his platform and said the government’s “free market dogma” had to be fought and vowed that a Labour government under his leadership would re-empower the state. The chancellor, George Osborne, intends to sell off £31bn of public assets in 2015-16.
Corbyn writes: “Parliament can feel like living in a time warp at the best of times, but this government is not just replaying 2010, but taking us back to 1979: ideologically committed to rolling back the state, attacking workers’ rights and trade union protection, selling off public assets, and extending the sell off to social housing.
“This agenda militates against everything the Chancellor says he wants to achieve. If you want to revive manufacturing and rebalance the economy, you need a strategic state leading the way.”
Burnham told the Observer that he feared the political consequences of going into a 2020 election on Corbyn’s platform. “Economic credibility is all and unless you have got that you haven’t got a basis for winning an election,” he said. “So Labour can’t unlearn that lesson three months away from the general election. That was the thing that told against us in the end and we have to be serious about that.”
In defence of the Corbyn camp’s plans to renationalise privatised industries, John McDonnell MP, who is the candidate’s campaign agent, said that privatisation had been “a confidence trick”. He said: “Privatisation over the last four decades has been a history of the British people being robbed and the spivs snatching up the public assets being given the licence to print money. From the earliest privatisations of water, energy and rail to the PFI schemes from the last decade, it has been one long confidence trick.
Labour's economic plans at the last election made a lot more sense than the Tories', yet the most common reasons for not voting Labour (among both voters and non-voters) were that they would spend too much and make it too easy for people to claim benefits (a close third for non-voters was that they'd raise taxes). That's where the "credibility" term is used, just because something's credible to leftwing academics doesn't mean they're credible to the public.For those of you claiming Corbyn's enonomic policies are not credible:
Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing for anti-austerity policies
Former adviser to Bank of England among signatories to letter dismissing criticism of economic plans, saying they are ‘not extreme’
More than 40 leading economists, including a former adviser to the Bank of England, have made public their support for Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, dismissing claims that they are extreme, in a major boost to the leftwinger’s campaign to be leader.
The intervention comes as the Corbyn campaign reveals that a Labour government led by the MP for Islington North would reserve the right to renationalise Royal Bank of Scotland and other public assets, “with either no compensation or with any undervaluation deducted from any compensation for renationalisation” if they are sold at a knockdown price over the next five years.
The leftwinger’s economic policies – dubbed Corbynomics – have come under sustained attack in recent days, including by members of his own party, with Andy Burnham warning his party in an interview with this paper not to forget the lessons of the general election about the importance of economic credibility.
But with just under three weeks until Ed Miliband’s replacement is announced, Corbyn’s credibility receives a welcome endorsement as 41 economists make public a letter defending his positions.
In the letter to which David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is a signatory, the economists write: “The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies. His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity.”
Corbyn remains the frontrunner to be Labour leader, but as his policies, and the risks he poses to the unity of the Labour party, have come under scrutiny, rivals believe he is losing momentum.
Burnham’s campaign shared data with the Observer that suggested some of those who had previously committed to voting for Corbyn were now recognising the dangers and either opting for the shadow health secretary or describing themselves as “don’t knows”.
But writing in the Observer, Corbyn defended his platform and said the government’s “free market dogma” had to be fought and vowed that a Labour government under his leadership would re-empower the state. The chancellor, George Osborne, intends to sell off £31bn of public assets in 2015-16.
Corbyn writes: “Parliament can feel like living in a time warp at the best of times, but this government is not just replaying 2010, but taking us back to 1979: ideologically committed to rolling back the state, attacking workers’ rights and trade union protection, selling off public assets, and extending the sell off to social housing.
“This agenda militates against everything the Chancellor says he wants to achieve. If you want to revive manufacturing and rebalance the economy, you need a strategic state leading the way.”
Burnham told the Observer that he feared the political consequences of going into a 2020 election on Corbyn’s platform. “Economic credibility is all and unless you have got that you haven’t got a basis for winning an election,” he said. “So Labour can’t unlearn that lesson three months away from the general election. That was the thing that told against us in the end and we have to be serious about that.”
In defence of the Corbyn camp’s plans to renationalise privatised industries, John McDonnell MP, who is the candidate’s campaign agent, said that privatisation had been “a confidence trick”. He said: “Privatisation over the last four decades has been a history of the British people being robbed and the spivs snatching up the public assets being given the licence to print money. From the earliest privatisations of water, energy and rail to the PFI schemes from the last decade, it has been one long confidence trick.
It's worth reading the actual letter as well, which is basically the same argument of the past 5 years reheated and doesn't mention any of his actual policies like the cost of renationalisation, the effects of his QE plan and the somewhat bizarre idea of "replacing Trident with jobs". http://www.theguardian.com/politics...to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics
For those of you claiming Corbyn's enonomic policies are not credible:
Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing for anti-austerity policies
Former adviser to Bank of England among signatories to letter dismissing criticism of economic plans, saying they are ‘not extreme’
More than 40 leading economists, including a former adviser to the Bank of England, have made public their support for Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, dismissing claims that they are extreme, in a major boost to the leftwinger’s campaign to be leader.
The intervention comes as the Corbyn campaign reveals that a Labour government led by the MP for Islington North would reserve the right to renationalise Royal Bank of Scotland and other public assets, “with either no compensation or with any undervaluation deducted from any compensation for renationalisation” if they are sold at a knockdown price over the next five years.
The leftwinger’s economic policies – dubbed Corbynomics – have come under sustained attack in recent days, including by members of his own party, with Andy Burnham warning his party in an interview with this paper not to forget the lessons of the general election about the importance of economic credibility.
But with just under three weeks until Ed Miliband’s replacement is announced, Corbyn’s credibility receives a welcome endorsement as 41 economists make public a letter defending his positions.
In the letter to which David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is a signatory, the economists write: “The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies. His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity.”
Corbyn remains the frontrunner to be Labour leader, but as his policies, and the risks he poses to the unity of the Labour party, have come under scrutiny, rivals believe he is losing momentum.
Burnham’s campaign shared data with the Observer that suggested some of those who had previously committed to voting for Corbyn were now recognising the dangers and either opting for the shadow health secretary or describing themselves as “don’t knows”.
But writing in the Observer, Corbyn defended his platform and said the government’s “free market dogma” had to be fought and vowed that a Labour government under his leadership would re-empower the state. The chancellor, George Osborne, intends to sell off £31bn of public assets in 2015-16.
Corbyn writes: “Parliament can feel like living in a time warp at the best of times, but this government is not just replaying 2010, but taking us back to 1979: ideologically committed to rolling back the state, attacking workers’ rights and trade union protection, selling off public assets, and extending the sell off to social housing.
“This agenda militates against everything the Chancellor says he wants to achieve. If you want to revive manufacturing and rebalance the economy, you need a strategic state leading the way.”
Burnham told the Observer that he feared the political consequences of going into a 2020 election on Corbyn’s platform. “Economic credibility is all and unless you have got that you haven’t got a basis for winning an election,” he said. “So Labour can’t unlearn that lesson three months away from the general election. That was the thing that told against us in the end and we have to be serious about that.”
In defence of the Corbyn camp’s plans to renationalise privatised industries, John McDonnell MP, who is the candidate’s campaign agent, said that privatisation had been “a confidence trick”. He said: “Privatisation over the last four decades has been a history of the British people being robbed and the spivs snatching up the public assets being given the licence to print money. From the earliest privatisations of water, energy and rail to the PFI schemes from the last decade, it has been one long confidence trick.
The headine doesnt represent the content of the article.
A handful of economists think that some of his prospective economic policies are not completely absurd and regressive would be more accurate.
Jeez, those quotes from McDonnell - could this guy really end up shadow chancellor?
He had a bit of an online spat with Chris Leslie earlier too regarding compensating shareholders in nationalisations (he doesn't plan to). Him as shadow chancellor is even more absurd than Corbyn as leader. Both look like they're going to happen. Diane Abbott for defence? How do you think this is going to play out, bish? I'm not going to Hodges levels on doom-predicting yet but it's beginning to head in that direction.
Put Diane Abbott on education... The hypocrisy would be fantastic.
Skinner for foreign secretary I'd love to see what other countries made of him
God knows. Labour's about to set off in a radically different direction with less than 10% of their MPs supporting the change. They're consigning pretty much all their most talented, high profile members to the backbenches and then trying to win over an electorate based on policies that almost every poll I've looked at says are completely at odds with what the country wants. And they're doing it in an age where unhappy voters have more alternative parties to vote for than ever before, and with a Tory party that are as concerned with destroying the opposition as with running the country. That could be a truly toxic mix.
At this point almost any outcome is possible I guess. My best guess would be Labour to come a distant second at the next election, and in 5 years time be having the same discussions we are now but in an even worse position. But really, anything goes.
Corbyn's repeatedly stated his shadow cabinet would be from across the party. The thing the fearmongers seem to be forgetting is that he's not just a left-wing Blair. He actually believes in the party being more democratic. I don't think we'll see him parachuting 'his' people into positions to solidify his position or creating a cosy little clique at the top like Blair did, that's exactly the sort of politics he hates.
Also, if he gets elected he's explicitly talked about making the leader more accountable and giving the party the chance to vote him out before the next election if they don't like what they see. If Corbyn's in charge in 2020 he'll be in charge because the Labour Party think he's the best man for the job. At the same time, if no figure from the centre or right of the PLP can put together a convincing counter-argument to both Corbyn and the Tories in the next 3 years or so they've only themselves to blame.
Also, if he gets elected he's explicitly talked about making the leader more accountable and giving the party the chance to vote him out before the next election if they don't like what they see. If Corbyn's in charge in 2020 he'll be in charge because the Labour Party think he's the best man for the job. At the same time, if no figure from the centre or right of the PLP can put together a convincing counter-argument to both Corbyn and the Tories in the next 3 years or so they've only themselves to blame.
That depends on the people he asks to join his shadow cabinet accepting the position, many of whom will not. And he's already backed away from returning to shadow cabinet elections. Burnham might, depending on whether he thinks it'll make him more popular or not.
Well the fairly obvious problem is that with over 200 MPs not supporting him, if he accepts a wholly democratic process then he has no hope of getting through any of his policies. Instead what we'll have is a lame duck as a leader.
There's also been talk the party is trying to stop the voting preferences of MPs being made public so as to prevent it being known how many had him as last choice (or maybe there'll be a surprising number with him higher up, be nice to know one way or the other though).
If those 200 MPs think they're going to get re-elected by Labour voters after 5 years of attempting to undermine the party's democratically elected leader they'll be in for a shock. In the scenario that Corbyn gets in with over 50% of the first preference votes, those members of the PLP who try to fight him will be lucky to be candidates in 2020 if Corbyn gives the CLPs more say in who gets to run. Disgruntled Labour MPs would do better to remember that they owe their positions to the Labour membership and practice a bit of humility, although that perhaps goes slightly against the strategy of the PLP during the Blair/Brown years of taking their members for granted until over a third of them leave.
As above, it'd reflect poorly on them if they turned it down. People, and certainly Labour members, are utterly sick of that petty, adversarial style of politics.
Would you have expected Corbyn to go into a Blair cabinet and then out to the public and argue for the changes being made, even though he didn't agree with them? Or would he instead go and become the most rebellious MP in the Commons? Blair who won the leadership convincingly and then had the backing of the wider population through general election victories to boot. He was taking principled stands, fine, let's not pretend though that he's anything other than adversarial himself. If current Labour MPs don't believe the decisions he's taking are right for the party or country then it's for them to return to the backbenches, preferably without threats of deselection.
Firstly, threatening deselection has resurfaced very quickly indeed, which is sad, but hardly surprising. I heard owen jones make the same point on the guardian podcast the other day. Suffice to say that really could lead to another split, it was one of the main factors last time round.
Secondly, given his voting record Corbyn has no choice but to fully support their desire to disagree with what he says, and demand that no action be taken whenever it happens. If he says anything else, he'll be a hypocrite.
Finally, MPs are not responsible to people voting in the leadership election, only the leader is. They are responsible to their constituents. If their constituents think they are standing in the way of a better party/country/life, then yes they'll vote him or her out. However, with Corbyn as the best example, if your constituents happen to agree with you and like you, it doesn't matter if you support the leader or not.
Style of leadership is again the difference. Blair basically cut the cabinet out of his decision-making by creating his own little cabal of advisors. He then got Campbell to sell the sofa cabinet's ideas to the public and strong-arm his ministers into toeing the line. You're right to say that Corbyn wouldn't have lasted in that environment, other principled politicians didn't when policy was dictated to them from on high.
Corbyn's idea of a being a party leader or prime minister will be far closer to the 'first amongst equals' approach then Blair's presidential approach. As he's said - his shadow cabinet would partially serve as a policy sounding board involving figures from across the party. No-one has anything to lose from being involved in that process and if the right of the party are truly worried about Labour's direction, rather than just in a sulk because their candidate isn't in charge, they'd be idiots to turn down an opportunity to temper the ideology of a Corbyn-led party.
How is it a 'threat'? If Corbyn himself was kicking these people out then I agree that'd be unacceptable and undemocratic, but if a CLP doesn't like what their representative has been doing of course they have the right to deselect them. If, as my scenario suggested, Corbyn gets over 50% of the popular vote, many of the MPs you mention as not backing Corbyn will find that their constituency parties are dominated by people who did. Unfortunately for them, it just so happens that the 'people voting in the leadership elections' you say they're not responsible to also happen to be their constituents.
What the MP does with that information is up to them, but they can't complain if they make the decision to go against the wishes of their members and get replaced. That's democracy, not a powergrab or a purge as some would doubtless claim. I'm sure those who would cry foul at certain MPs getting deselected weren't complaining when Blair was parachuting his acolytes into safe seats in the North against the wishes of the local CLPs. That was an undemocratic powergrab, whereas this would be the exact opposite.
You're completely changing the rules now. Blair won over 50% of the leadership vote in each of the union, CLP and MP divisions. Now that doesn't matter when it comes to supporting the leader, and you can rebel all you want and go against the will of the leadership vote (and later the country) if it suits you? It's all about running the cabinet a particular way? So if Jeremy Corbyn's cabinet voted to pledge matching Tory spending plans because it would regain credibility with the public and allow them to focus on matters that were stronger for them, Corbyn would go along with that you think? And he'd of course not just appoint about enough allies to make sure he won any such vote in the first place. Another scenario - in Corbyn's carefully selected representative cabinet (why he'd not just make this easier for himself and bring back shadow cabinet elections as he originally planned I'm not sure, hmm), if his side won by about 55%-45% on a policy decision, would the losing side have to go out to the TVs studios and defend said policy even if they were fully against it? Or would they be allowed to speak their minds and give off the impression of a fractured party?
He was allowed to because that was Tony Blair, who it's proven is the biological offspring of Skeletor and a plague of locusts.
It is worse than that - he is a Tory is disguise!
I know you're a big fan of Corbyn yourself, but the idea of CLPs being so in love with him that they'd rise up en masse against their MPs merely for failing to sufficiently evangelize for his policies? Be serious.
I'm not saying they'd 'rise en masse', but if it became a rule that there was a formal selection process in every constituency (which may well happen) do you not concede that anti-Corbyn MPs in pro-Corbyn constituencies might not get re-selected?
Regardless of any left-right struggle, I think we'd see a certain degree of changeover anyway. I think if CLPs had more say we'd probably see a lot more locally active candidates representing constituencies and far fewer career politicians sent by head office.
edit - as for the CLPs 'being in love' with him, more of them backed him than backed any of his rivals, and its predicted that he's going to get ~50 of the membership vote, so it's clear he has strong support there.
Honestly, I think Corbyn will take everyone into account when he's making decisions within the Shadow Cabinet, but he'll see the cabinet, including himself, as ultimately being subordinate and accountable to the party membership - I imagine reform and empowerment of the national policy forum will be pretty high on his agenda in that regard. How Labour's MPs react to becoming more accountable to their members is something I can't really predict. You'd hope that for the party's sake they'd step up to the role, listen to their CLPs and act accordingly, whilst offering their own expertise, but if not, and there's a split because of it, I'd blame that on those MPs, not Corbyn.
Last edited:
If Labour want a realistic chance of winning the next elections, they'll need either Kendall or Burnham as leader imo.
Sneering at private investors and charities isn't a campaign strategy i'd have adopted, but presumably this plays well in the Corbyn heartlands.
Unless the Tories suddenly begin to implode, I don't really see any of the candidates as that much of a threat to be honest. They're not particularly charismatic, nor are they interesting.
Kendall doesn't really have any hope now, anyway. She's at something like 100/1 and isn't going to win.