The Politics Thread

[thebish]

I met Andy Burnham on the tube yesterday. He has a very red nose. Wished him luck in the campaign.

Can someone explain why, now the candidates have been chosen, it's going to take 6 weeks for those eligible to vote for their choice? Or is this campaign time with a vote at the end?

the candidates were chosen back in june... the deadline that just passed was about becoming a member/affiliate member/whatever and being eligible to vote so that then the ballot papers could be sent out... we are still in the campaigning period..

when the NEC announced the timetable, there were plenty who asked why it had to drag on into september... you're certainly not alone in that bemusement!

[thebish]

from a while ago now - but...

HUGE headline tiny apology..

[bobo the clown]

Can someone explain why, now the candidates have been chosen, it's going to take 6 weeks for those eligible to vote for their choice? Or is this campaign time with a vote at the end?

the candidates were chosen back in june... the deadline that just passed was about becoming a member/affiliate member/whatever and being eligible to vote so that then the ballot papers could be sent out... we are still in the campaigning period..

when the NEC announced the timetable, there were plenty who asked why it had to drag on into september... you're certainly not alone in that bemusement!

Nowt wrong with big red noses Gary. What are you suggesting ? Clownism needs rooting out.

The 'vacancy' arose following the resignation very soon after the May election. It was a party decision not to rush things and which means they were hindered by the impending holiday period when Parliament closes down for 3 months.

The actual voting period, once all else is done, is inevitably a bit drawn out due to being a postal ballot.

But the real drag was because it was decided to announce the winner at or around the Party Conference period. Understandable but a bit desifned for drama. So the opening and closing dates were always going to be too far apart to make it seem swish.

They therefore had loads of time for nominations, those who got 35 MP's being eligible to go forward and in that time encourage more & more potential voters to sign up.

Once, from today, voting papers go out with a deadline for return and then secret counting (by, I assume, the Electoral Reform Society? ) for the announcement at Conference a person may vote and pop the envelope into the post at any time in the next couple or so weeks.

It all makes perfect .... protracted ... sense if you accept the original premise of not wanting to rush things. It could be argued that it would have been better to get the new guy in and settled so they 'own' the Conference but that wasn't the preference.

[Hoboh]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh dear, the victim card, next gender, thank God she cannot get a three card trick.
Kendall you are a Tory lite, cross the floor and stop living the lie, you owe it to your constituents who thought they voted labour.

[Prufrock]

Yeah what a cow!

Not everyone in the Labour party is a socialist like you Hobes.

[thebish]

Kezia Dugdale has won the Scottish Labour party leadership contest



if Corbyn won nationally, that would do interesting things in scotland for those who fled to the SNP because they judged that the SNP had stolen Labour's clothes...

dunno what Corbyn's (or the other candidates) stance is on the relative independence of the scottish labour party...

figting the tories in England and the SNP in scotland has recently been a bit of a balancing act - one which scots labour thought was not tilted in their favour...

[Hoboh]

If this leadership election wasn't all about the me, me, me show and the right of the party so worried about Corbyn, surely Kendall and Balls would step down to let Burnham have a fair crack?

Neither of those two stand a chance and are divisive and splitting the party more than Corbyn.

[BWFC_Insane]

If this leadership election wasn't all about the me, me, me show and the right of the party so worried about Corbyn, surely Kendall and Balls would step down to let Burnham have a fair crack?

Neither of those two stand a chance and are divisive and splitting the party more than Corbyn.

Yes. I agree. Burnham is the only chance of pulling the party together and re-assembling in some sort of vaguely credible middle ground.

[thebish]

I think the idea that Burnham could be vaguely credible to the electorate is wishful thinking!

[jaffka]

Andy Burnham with his painted on eyebrows.

[bobo the clown]

Corbyn is going to win.

Even if he didn't none of the other 3 are credible. It did initially seem Burnham was, but he's proven to be a floating policy on legs. Committed to nothing and always 24 hrs behind the soundbite. Mrs Balls may as well not have bothered .... in fact it seems like she didn't and Lizzie thingie is just not going to get the support of her own party even if she gets the support of all the others.

IF .... unlikely as it is ... Corbyn doesn't win the genie is now out of the bottle and properly unpleasant activism isn't going to cease. Whoever did is going to have an unmanageable group making life impossible.

Oh ... & in the greatest irony of all Gordon Brown today advises against having a leader who is unelectable. Great irony there.

[Worthy4England]

So not unlike the current party of government then? No split on Europe (for example) and that clearly hasn't rumbled on since the 1980's? Obviously that makes them an unelectable rabble...

[thebish]

So not unlike the current party of government then? No split on Europe (for example) and that clearly hasn't rumbled on since the 1980's? Obviously that makes them an unelectable rabble...

indeed... the tories have yet to see what happens when Cameron (the cork in the bottle) is popped and Boris, Therea and Georgie-boy all come fizzing out!

[BWFC_Insane]

I think the idea that Burnham could be vaguely credible to the electorate is wishful thinking!

More credible than any of the others. And more critically probably able to hold the party together.

[thebish]

I think the idea that Burnham could be vaguely credible to the electorate is wishful thinking!

More credible than any of the others. And more critically probably able to hold the party together.

as i said - wishful thinking! holding the party together is not the same as getting elected...

as I said before - none of the four really inspires me with any confidence of a general election win next time around..

so - what to do in that case? vote for the one who says stuff I agree with - and whose record in the commons backs him up. simple.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think the idea that Burnham could be vaguely credible to the electorate is wishful thinking!

More credible than any of the others. And more critically probably able to hold the party together.

as i said - wishful thinking! holding the party together is not the same as getting elected...

as I said before - none of the four really inspires me with any confidence of a general election win next time around..

so - what to do in that case? vote for the one who says stuff I agree with - and whose record in the commons backs him up. simple.

Fair enough, though I think Burnham has a small chance of winning a general election. Whereas I think under Corbyn if Labour end up only 50 seats worse off than they are now it will be a minor miracle.

[thebish]

time will tell... I just think electing yet another empty sock-puppet politician-leader is one more too many...

[Bijou Bob]

I do think Corbyn may shock a few. He has mobilised the youth vote and hundreds of thousands of people who feel disenfranchised from tge Westminster elite. If he can do that at a general election, the results could be interesting.

[thebish]

I do think Corbyn may shock a few. He has mobilised the youth vote and hundreds of thousands of people who feel disenfranchised from tge Westminster elite. If he can do that at a general election, the results could be interesting.

indeed - I think it's worth a go! you might as well lose believing in something than lose believing in nothing...

[bobo the clown]

100% commitment @ 99% certainty of losing .v. 60% commitment @ 60% likelihood of losing.

Which gets most achieved ?