Who will be the new Labour leader?

[turbobloke]

edh said:

Halb said:

Garvin said:

You could well be right - time will, as ever, tell! Possible reasons for the Labour vote collapsing at the last GE could be a) Ed being the absolute antithesis of a charismatic leader; and b) the Labour policies offering a lot of close to Tory policies without any real 'leftie' content. Corbyn could negate both these 'flaws'.

Milliband's Labour actually increased it's votes in the last election, up to 9,347,304 from 8,606,517. Tories increased from 10,703,654 to 11,334,576. Roughly the same jump, Labour nudges it by 100k.

It's an odd myth..this collapse in labour vote.

The turnout in 2015 was greater so that would account for some but perhaps not all of any increases being discussed.

Also what folks may be referring to is the lack of seats won by those votes, this was behind my 'shrunk to a shrivel' description earlier in the thread which was illustrated by a map of Labour-win regions coinciding with former coalfields and the London communist borough republics.

ComRes polling showed a drop of 6 points for Labour with Corbyn winning the leadership contest, and coupled with boundary changes levelling, the playing field the chances of Corbyn turning the UK political map red are remote.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

Also what folks may be referring to is the lack of seats won by those votes, this was behind my 'shrunk to a shrivel' description earlier in the thread which was illustrated by a map of Labour-win regions coinciding with former coalfields and the London communist borough republics.

The map overstates your case though, as I don't think trees & fields get to vote yet (Is it a Green policy?)

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Also what folks may be referring to is the lack of seats won by those votes, this was behind my 'shrunk to a shrivel' description earlier in the thread which was illustrated by a map of Labour-win regions coinciding with former coalfields and the London communist borough republics.

The map overstates your case though, as I don't think trees & fields get to vote yet (Is it a Green policy?)

Thanks, I think, but what is that saying? There's a discussion of the maps at the link below, I had thought it was a familiar image by now. There was no suggestion that vegetables vote, even the Greens

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/two-...

"the two maps below...show the seats they (Labour) now hold and how closely they correlate to the traditional mining areas around the country"

In addition I acknowledged the need to add the usual communist borough republics in London.

[colonel c]

Politics aside for a moment.
The next election should be very about three weeks before Mr Corbyn's 71'st birthday. Should he win, he will become the oldest PM at first appointment. The current holder of that particular stat was Henry Temple who was 70 years and 109 days old when appointed on the 6th of February 1855.
Also it's been well over 100 years since a bearded man won an election.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Also what folks may be referring to is the lack of seats won by those votes, this was behind my 'shrunk to a shrivel' description earlier in the thread which was illustrated by a map of Labour-win regions coinciding with former coalfields and the London communist borough republics.

The map overstates your case though, as I don't think trees & fields get to vote yet (Is it a Green policy?)

Thanks, I think, but what is that saying? There's a discussion of the maps at the link below, I had thought it was a familiar image by now. There was no suggestion that vegetables vote, even the Greens

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/two-...

"the two maps below...show the seats they (Labour) now hold and how closely they correlate to the traditional mining areas around the country"

In addition I acknowledged the need to add the usual communist borough republics in London.

I think you'd need to overlay the maps to show correlation, they are close, but not "that" close. Correlation doesn't equal causation. I think if you extend this to mining + industrial centres (probably a bigger factor), it would make more sense. Mining seems to have created lots of small one-industry towns, not large urban centres.

Labour wins in most large cities, maybe a map of population density vs labour seats would show you some correlation? Whether it's got any useful meaning is debatable.

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Also what folks may be referring to is the lack of seats won by those votes, this was behind my 'shrunk to a shrivel' description earlier in the thread which was illustrated by a map of Labour-win regions coinciding with former coalfields and the London communist borough republics.

The map overstates your case though, as I don't think trees & fields get to vote yet (Is it a Green policy?)

Thanks, I think, but what is that saying? There's a discussion of the maps at the link below, I had thought it was a familiar image by now. There was no suggestion that vegetables vote, even the Greens

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/two-...

"the two maps below...show the seats they (Labour) now hold and how closely they correlate to the traditional mining areas around the country"

In addition I acknowledged the need to add the usual communist borough republics in London.

I think you'd need to overlay the maps to show correlation, they are close, but not "that" close. Correlation doesn't equal causation. I think if you extend this to mining + industrial centres (probably a bigger factor), it would make more sense. Mining seems to have created lots of small one-industry towns, not large urban centres.

Labour wins in most large cities, maybe a map of population density vs labour seats would show you some correlation? Whether it's got any useful meaning is debatable.

Claims that it's mere coincidence are also highly debatable. The Labour core vote does indeed rest now around the former coalfields and the London communist borough republics. There may never be logical proof but the case is well enough made for 'balance of probabilitites' to apply. Combined with upcoming boundary changes, Corbyn's challenge is immense and a red letter day in 2020 is most unlikely.

[Garvin]

Halb said:

Garvin said:

You could well be right - time will, as ever, tell! Possible reasons for the Labour vote collapsing at the last GE could be a) Ed being the absolute antithesis of a charismatic leader; and b) the Labour policies offering a lot of close to Tory policies without any real 'leftie' content. Corbyn could negate both these 'flaws'.

Milliband's Labour actually increased it's votes in the last election, up to 9,347,304 from 8,606,517. Tories increased from 10,703,654 to 11,334,576. Roughly the same jump, Labour nudges it by 100k.

I'm not sure that is very comforting to the staunch Labour supporters/voters! Against the shouts and screams of austerity and the like and the Tories not really making inroads into the debt mountain and modest success with the deficit you would think that the Labour vote should have increased markedly. Relative to the turnout it didn't.

Now the Tories have an unfettered term to really straighten things out and if they do it will put more pressure on Corbyn to turn things around. The point still holds though. By being charasmatic and with very leftish (but barking mad) policies he could well attract a lot of those with leftish tendencies back into the fold, particularly those in Scotland if he plays his cards right.

The next year or so will be very interesting.

[Halb]

edh said:

It's an odd myth..this collapse in labour vote. Without checking the figures, I think we saw a very big collapse in 2005?

Cefinitely a collapse in Scotland & was very damaging, coupled with the SNP FUD that the Tories sold very successfully. Scottish labour was obviously rotten & complacent.

It illustrates the crazy system that the Houses of Commons currently uses.
Solid seats where the oft-mentioned red/blue donkeys always get in, and the swing seats, which get all the money and attention come election time.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

Claims that it's mere coincidence are also highly debatable. The Labour core vote does indeed rest now around the former coalfields and the London communist borough republics. There may never be logical proof but the case is well enough made for 'balance of probabilitites' to apply. Combined with upcoming boundary changes, Corbyn's challenge is immense and a red letter day in 2020 is most unlikely.

Still don't buy it..

No coalfields in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds/Bradford for example, although some in Lancs in between Manchester & Liverpool. Yorkshire coalfields to the East & South of Leeds/Bradford I think.

Agree that winning in 2020 will be very tough, particularly with the changes to electoral roll & fiddling with constituencies. I've read estimates of 10m people missing under the new system.

Still, this result is incredible. It would be like the Tories electing Bill Cash maybe? Uncharted waters & that's what makes it interesting.

[Tuna]

Someone has just posted on my feed a picture comparing what Corbyn and Cameron were doing in the 80's. It has Corbyn protesting against Apartheid and Cameron in the Bullingdon club.

Of course, Cameron was in University in the time and Corbyn was already in his thirties - but it's an image that will play well with the voters. If Corbyn continues to play it as "man of principle going up against the old boy's club", it won't matter to the man on the street if he makes gaffes in Parliament. To the politically engaged, sure there are some scary things he has said - but the politically engaged are an absolute minority.

The shift in voters at the last election was largely about punishing the Lib Dems for their part in the coalition and then choosing between two equally bland guys in suits. If Corbyn turns this into 'class war', he might horrify a few, but he might mobilise a whole portion of the population who didn't vote in the last election - those non-voters vastly outnumber the ones who think the guys in suits are doing a nice job really.

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Claims that it's mere coincidence are also highly debatable. The Labour core vote does indeed rest now around the former coalfields and the London communist borough republics. There may never be logical proof but the case is well enough made for 'balance of probabilitites' to apply. Combined with upcoming boundary changes, Corbyn's challenge is immense and a red letter day in 2020 is most unlikely.

Still don't buy it..

No coalfields in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds/Bradford for example, although some in Lancs in between Manchester & Liverpool. Yorkshire coalfields to the East & South of Leeds/Bradford I think.

What about Bradford Colliery, Forge Lane, Bradford and the Roger mine, central Manchester? Apparently the Bradford coal seam was part of the Manchester coalfield. There were and are mines in those areas operating and closing over the years including those with shafts both nearby and away from the overground locations mentioned. Some schools being rebuilt in those areas within the disrupted BSF programme had to have special treatment due to being located over historical mines.

Even so the agreement doesn't have to offer perfection to exist. I did take the obvious step of adding the communist London borough republics, in so doing I acknowledged already that the agreement is good but not perfect.

edh said:

Agree that winning in 2020 will be very tough, particularly with the changes to electoral roll & fiddling with constituencies.

[sidicks]

edh said:

Agree that winning in 2020 will be very tough, particularly with the changes to electoral roll & fiddling with constituencies. I've read estimates of 10m people missing under the new system.

Do you mean reversing the fiddling that took place under the previous Labour government?

[Einion Yrth]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

Agree that winning in 2020 will be very tough, particularly with the changes to electoral roll & fiddling with constituencies.

I'm not sure that rectifying an historical bias towards Labour in current constituency boundaries can really be best described as "fiddling with". However so long as it happens and that bias is removed you can describe it as anything you like.

[turbobloke]

Einion Yrth said:

turbobloke said:

edh said:

Agree that winning in 2020 will be very tough, particularly with the changes to electoral roll & fiddling with constituencies.

I'm not sure that rectifying an historical bias towards Labour in current constituency boundaries can really be best described as "fiddling with". However so long as it happens and that bias is removed you can describe it as anything you like.

That's most accommodating of you EY

[edh]

sidicks said:

edh said:

Agree that winning in 2020 will be very tough, particularly with the changes to electoral roll & fiddling with constituencies. I've read estimates of 10m people missing under the new system.

Do you mean reversing the fiddling that took place under the previous Labour government?

No

[Cobnapint]

Chukky has officially declared himself off the front bench.

And the shadow Northern Ireland sec who said he was willing to work with Corduroy, has been sacked.

Unity...!

[Vaud]

My random musing...

... many students today who paid their £3 to vote for Corbyn, will be the tax paying, loan paying worker in 2020. Given many of his policies can't / wouldn't be retrospective, will we see the same support - or will they back off, or seek a party that supports workers?

Some have commented that that he might create a new voting group - but even the Fabian Society has raised key questions against that. My take is the next 18 months will be hay for the Tories. A fractured party divided much, much, more that the Tories are over Europe, and over many more issues.

The Council elections next May will be an indicator. "Second" term Tory party should do badly (?) but I suspect they will increase share.

[tim0409]

Shadow cabinet to be announced within the hour.....(according to Sky)

This should be interesting.

[KTF]

Don't forget that he said it would be 50/50 male/female split (regardless of suitability for the positions).

[TankRizzo]

Mary Creagh has also left Team Corbyn.