I’ve had a break from the blog over the last few days, so I missed a YouGov poll of Labour members last week which suggested the first cracks in the hitherto solid support for Jeremy Corbyn among Labour members.

Back in May 72% of Labour members thought Corbyn was doing well, 27% badly; 60% wanted him to lead the party into the next election. Now 51% think he’s doing well, 48% badly and only 41% thought he should lead the party into the next election. However, for Labour MPs seeking to unseat him, their success of any leadership election is still questionable. 50% of members say they would probably still vote for Corbyn in a leadership election, 47% that they would probably not, and even that 47% relies upon finding a candidate who all those members unhappy with him could unite behind. Asked how they would vote in head-to-head contests between Corbyn and some potential challengers Corbyn still wins: he is ahead of Tom Watson by 50% to 39%, Angela Eagle by 50% to 40%, Dan Jarvis by 52% to 35%.

These figures are also just for fully paid up party members – an election would also include £3 supporters. Those £3 supporters from the last election would still break heavily for Corbyn, but in the case of an actual leadership election there would obviously be efforts by both sides to recruit new £3 supporters – we cannot tell how successful they’d be.

I can claim no particular insight into the mind of the Parliamentary Labour party, but I suspect one reason that none of Corbyn’s critics has yet triggered a leadership is that (as of last week at least) the polling of Labour party members did not suggest they could be sure of a victory in a leadership contest. Since then, of course, there has been another week of infighting and stand-off, and sooner or later there has to be some sort of resolution…

The tabs for the Labour leadership polling are here.


252 Responses to “Last week’s Labour Leadership Polling”

1 3 4 5 6
  1. @ Tancred

    “I think Boris is biding his time, having seen the awful mess to sort out. He doesn’t want to sort it out and neither does Osborne. Both of them are positioning themselves to be the ‘safe pair of hands’ candidates once Brexit negotiations go belly up. The new PM will be drinking from a poisoned chalice.”

    I agree.

    Viewed through this prism, Boris’ backing of Leadsom looks like an act of breathtaking and calculating opportunism.

    What Osborne is up to I’m less sure – in whose interest floating another massive cut to Corporation Tax was at this moment I don’t know.

  2. Assiduosity

    So it may not be the clarity of the rules, but their ambiguity that is putting the so-called ‘plotters’ off.

    I can’t see why that should put them off. All they need is to put up a candidate with the required nominations – no one is contesting the legal right to do that. What they’re really implying is that they don’t want to stand unless they can fix the result beforehand by excluding Corbyn.

    There’s a legal case that can be made for the interpretation you outlined. And indeed it has been put forward before – there was a piece in the NS last year. But it’s not a very convincing one, because the common sense interpretation is only ‘challengers’ would need nomination and that the higher level of support needed confirms that. I would imagine any Court would go with that.

    As to the Co-op Party, the problem is that that is a democratic organisation as well and nothing to stop Corbyn supporters joining that – if they aren’t members anyway. It may also already be having funding issues with the Co-op movement being less keen to fund it and its base tends to be the more Corbyn-friendly North. Even neutrals would be irritated by an attempted hijack.

    If the rebels do want their own Party then they should found one, no doubt funded by the wealthy backers they seem more comfortable with. But they would be unlikely to bring that many members or votes with them. The Gang of Four were much more widely respected figures and those were more deferential times. They were also able to bring new people into politics but those people are now being snapped up by Corbyn and the SNP.

    And frankly the ‘rebels’ are the sort of people who have expected things to come their way by right – a long slog from scratch isn’t really their style. So rather than put up or shut up they will continue to do neither and continue to damage the Labour Party.

  3. @ SYZYGY

    “Re: Co-op MPs new HoC grouping… do the Co-op members get a say?”

    Well, officially, the Cooperative Party doesn’t have a leader – part of the Cooperative ethos – so that’s one problem solved.

    Decision making is vested in the NEC, which is elected by all the members.

  4. TANCRED

    Most commentators consider the position of Home Secretary a poisoned chalice.

    May’s lead within the MPs is so strong that they could have influence on the second name on the ballot paper. The whole point of the process is to remove divisive characters at an early stage.

    From what I’ve read Leadsom is very much a marmite character which many May supporters might prefer to not see taken to the members. Her performance in the hustings last night sounded like she didn’t do herself any favours.

  5. ‘Most commentators consider the position of Home Secretary a poisoned chalice.’
    Roy Jenkins did well in the post – as did James Callaghan.

  6. LURKINGGHERKIN

    This of course now puts me at odds with what Corbyn & McDonnell are saying, on a major issue, because they immediately capitulated to ‘Leave’ after the referendum result was announced. Corbyn is pursuing that 1/3rd of Labour vote who voted ‘Leave’. Unfortunately he now risks losing the support of the 2/3 who voted ‘Remain’.

    I’m not sure that is true. I’ve seen a lot of talk, especially from McDonnell about ‘respecting’ the result, but like it or not, that is the current view of many who voted Remain as well as nearly all Leavers[1]. There’s no appetite at the moment for a re-run and defiance will be seen as anti-democratic.

    What I suspect we will see is some clever positioning where the possibility of not leaving is gradually brought into play. But so much depends on how the new PM and the government handle things that leaving options open is the wisest thing politically at the moment. If we’ve learnt anything over the last 12 days, it’s that a week is a very long time in politics.

    [1] 58% in this YouGov poll for example:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8jgy2vu2ft/ChannelFiveResults_160628_EUReferendum_W.pdf

    including 29% of Remain voters, though even in the week since things may have shifted as the implications of leaving become clear.

  7. @TANCRED

    “You sound like Farage yourself.”

    I take that as a compliment of the highest order. Farage, whether you agree with him or not, has a talent for oratory which leaves all the potential leadership contenders (Tory and Labour) in the shade.

  8. David Carrod: “I see Juncker is now sniping at Johnson and Farage for ‘leaving the boat’.
    Hasn’t this bloated bureaucrat got anything better to do,”

    As the elected President of the European Commission, he’s a politician, not a bureaucrat (and, of course, by CV). So I don’t see why you should take exception to his voicing an opinion on whether the architects of Brexit should stick around to handle the potentially disastrous consequences. Or do you think Brexit is a purely UK concern, upon which the rest of the EU should not be allowed to have a pint of view?

    “If you break it, you own it” would have been a pithier and more forceful way of putting it, but I don’t suppose many of us would be masters of pithiness in a second language.

  9. “upon which the rest of the EU should not be allowed to have a pint of view?”

    That should of course be a litre of view. Apologies.

  10. ” If we’ve learnt anything over the last 12 days, it’s that a week is a very long time in politics.”

    Brilliantly encapsulated by a cartoon by Matt in the Sunday Telegraph.

    Two University students are walking across the campus, and one is saying to the other “I’m studying Politics next term. The course covers the period from 8am on June 23rd to 7pm on June 30th”

  11. @ Roger Mexico

    If I may say so, I think your obvious allegiances are beginning to fray both your normally impeccable logic and unflappably polite tone.

    As I made clear I’m not personally invested in the Labour leadership – other than a general wish that the party establishes clear leadership that holds the government to account.

    Turning to some individual points you make.

    “I can’t see why that should put them off. ”

    Really? You then go on to outline exactly why the position I outlined would put ‘the plotters’ off.

    They don’t want a vote with Corbyn on the ballot paper but equally they don’t want to drag the Labour Party through the courts to achieve this (uncertain) outcome.

    They may not want to admit that publicly, but surely it’s plain for all to see.

    “There’s a legal case that can be made for the interpretation you outlined. And indeed it has been put forward before – there was a piece in the NS last year. But it’s not a very convincing one, because the common sense interpretation is only ‘challengers’ would need nomination and that the higher level of support needed confirms that. I would imagine any Court would go with that.”

    There is no such thing as ‘common sense’ in law, as I’m sure you know – and I’m fully aware of how strange and amusing that statement will sound to many.

    I didn’t put forward any interpretation, I set out where the ambiguity lay.

    As to your particular point that the higher number of nominations indicates that the rule applies solely to challengers. Why is this self-evident? Could it not also be said that the higher threshold was intended to apply to all candidates where a contested situation involving an incumbent leader came about.

    Some might argue that it would be logical that an incumbent leader if challenged by another MP nominated by say 85% of the parliamentary party should be able to demonstrate at least a certain level of support within the parliamentary party before being able to contest to continue in that role. Otherwise that leader risks being subject to continual challenges under the party rules.

    Indeed it might be argued that it would be a legitimate aim of election rules to prevent such instability and the situation of a party leader remaining in office without the support of the parliamentary party.

    If guaranteeing the support of a cohort of the PLP were not an objective of the rules, why have such nomination quotas in the first place? Their presence would seem, it could be argued, an inconsistency, if they did not apply to all candidates equally.

    I would suggest that such interpretations are a matter of perspective, and that it would be for the courts to decide.

    As I clearly said, I have no view on what the courts would decide, merely that it would be likely that courts would allow appeal in each instance extending the whole process over time, until it reached a final court of determination.

    ” As to the Co-op Party, the problem is that that is a democratic organisation as well and nothing to stop Corbyn supporters joining that – if they aren’t members anyway. It may also already be having funding issues with the Co-op movement being less keen to fund it and its base tends to be the more Corbyn-friendly North. Even neutrals would be irritated by an attempted hijack.”

    I was half in jest about the Cooperative Party – but it’s telling that things have reached such a point of disarray in Labour that such things might actually be considered.

    You may well be in a better place to comment on the finances and membership composition of the Cooperative party – though I note the absence of any data to support your claims that ‘its base tends to be the more Corbyn-friendly North’. To the contrary, I note, a majority of its current MPs are in London, the Midlands, Wales and the South and that it has good representation amongst London Assembly members.

    I suspect whether defectors would be welcomed would be a question for th NEC of the Coop.

    Perhaps it would be the more legitimate and honest for any MPs seeking realignment to establish their own party – but this is politics rather than a game of moral superiority.

  12. @ Roger Mexico

    To be clear, in terms of my statement:

    “There is no such thing as ‘common sense’ in law, as I’m sure you know – and I’m fully aware of how strange and amusing that statement will sound to many.”

    This should really have read ‘pure common sense’ and been broken down more precisely in that:

    + statute, precedent and ‘common sense’ / interpretation have been taken to have a role in the development of common law

    + within these precedent and statue have primacy

    + within commercial and contract law, the role of ‘common sense’ is hugely diminished and arguably now defunct post the Supreme Court ruling of May 2015

    + the Labour Party’s rules and elections are essentially forms of contract (or at least codified regulation)

    Given the above, the courts may well be unwilling to assert the kind of common sense judgement you are looking for. As I said, horribly ambiguous.

  13. David Carrod

    “Every time this clown opens his mouth, it’s further confirmation that ……….”Leave was the correct choice.”

    He has every right to say hs piece about Brexit, but as you say “Leave was the correct choice.”

    Couper280

    “‘this is why we voted Leave’ or ‘about time someone said this’
    Not able to vote in that particular election but definitely nodding in agreement.

  14. The obvious reason the coup leaders don’t want to go to court is then it would be obvious that they were trying to exclude JC from the vote. In which case the membership and ordinary labour supporters would go berserk guaranteeing a massive JC win or in the event that they win said court case, losing 400,000 members almost instantaneously

  15. @ASSIDUOSITY

    I think your logic goes a bit off by ignoring that we are talming about a political process – there is no way the plotters can go to court. That’s suicidal, and would certainly be perceived as unfair play by the public (like when the rich decided that only the rich could be elected and can vote).

    So to me the lack of move by the plotters (and their maneuvers with the unions) suggests fear lf their own members.

  16. Ken Clarke caught in a “unaware the camera and microphone were live” moment by Sky News, talking down the entire field of Conservative candidates. And that the Conservative party could never deliver on the demands to leave the EEC.

  17. For an hilarious take on the candidates for our next Prime Minister, here are two ‘Conservative grandees’ caught off guard while miked up waiting for an interview on Sky:

    http://news.sky.com/story/1721982/watch-ken-clarke-ridicules-tory-candidates

    I don’t really approve of broadcasters doing this kind of thing, but it is something of a guilty pleasure.

  18. Jayblanc

    I presume that putting “unaware the camera and microphone were live” in inverted commas was to indicate that it looks as staged as so many such moments?

    Sarah Vine’s email came to mind.

  19. Afternoon to you all from the sunny and bright People’s (Socialist) Republic of London.

    @Assiduosity

    Well-made points on Labour’s vote in the North, however whoever leads Labour into the next election they face a real challenge in appealing to voters in their traditional heartlands without alienating its voters in metropolitan areas.
    The most likely course of events atm is for May to become PM, she will go for EEA membership (pressure from the City) which will come with retaining freedom of movement. This will have a relatively negligible impact on the Tory VI, as a large number of the Tories (party members and voters) who were motivated by immigration have already defected to UKIP. As it mitigates the negative economic impacts of Brexit it will therefore placate their voters who voted remain. This will cause more of a headache for Labour as Labour voters who went for Leave, feeling betrayed by politics in general could go for UKIP. I view this as a far more fatal threat to Labour than the current shenanigans going on at Westminster.
    On the plot/coup/farce, it looks like some kind of compromise is inevitable. Any split up of the party would be electoral suicide for the centre left. The PLP realises this hence the hesitation. Also for many who want Corbyn to step down it is more to do with leadership/competence/electability than policy. As others have pointed out Corbyn/McDonnell are not espousing particularly ultra-left-wing policies. Hence a solution to the impasse can be found that doesn’t cause the party to rip itself apart.
    On the one side the PLP can press the ‘nuclear button’, argue Corbyn needs to get the required number of nominations which he won’t. Corbyn could then challenge in the courts. It would then go to court, and a split in the party is inevitable. If it goes to court the real objective will be who gets hold of the coffers and the Labour brand (tarnished but still worth something), as Corbyn will win if it goes to a vote of the members. Such a chain of event could tempt a Tory PM to call an election and obtain their key objective of destroying the Labour Party (Labour Party members should always remember who the real enemy is).
    .

  20. ASSIDUOSITY

    Interesting bloke Ken, shares my enthusiasm for bird watching and did a fair job as CoE in his time. Quite amusing clip but clearly not a good loser like so many it would appear.

  21. Constitutional matters (even if parties are not constitutional entities, but informally, and by common understanding, they are) and laws don’t mix well. This is why kings use to employ executioners rather than lawyers (and sometimes used the former to deal with the latter).

  22. @ Laszlo

    “I think your logic goes a bit off by ignoring that we are talming about a political process – there is no way the plotters can go to court. That’s suicidal, and would certainly be perceived as unfair play by the public (like when the rich decided that only the rich could be elected and can vote).”

    I was talking about a legal quandary – many have claimed that Corbyn would be on the ballot legally without question – my view is that it is ambiguous and at least subject to challenge.

    Now where that challenge might come from is a different matter. There is – of course – an instant (and rather revealing) assumption that the legal challenge would come from ‘the plotters’.

    However, that is far from necessarily the case. It all depends on what the first de facto ‘court’ in this process decides – the NEC of the Labour Party.

    If the NEC were to decide that all candidates required the quota of nominations, the legal challenge might quite as easily come from Corbyn and his supporters.

    The formal legal courts would only become involved if two elements within the Labour Party could not settle the case using internal processes.

    Now, I wonder, would some of those around Mr Corbyn desist from legal action, even if it meant the destruction of the Labour Party?

    As I say, it is a matter of perspectives.

    As yet, there doesn’t seem to be a consensus here on what view the NEC is likely to take – I have no idea on the shading of its composition. That said, there certainly seem to be attempts on both sides to ‘manage’ its membership – suggesting how important its role could be in all of this.

  23. REDRICH

    “Labour Party members should always remember who the real enemy is”

    The Popular Front of Judea?

  24. I made much the same comment days ago, but it seems not to have been taken in, so I’ll make it again…

    The rules for the Labour leadership contest set out who can be on a Labour leadership contest ballot. The ballot is drafted by the NEC, who has final say of the wording and organisation of the ballot.

    The rules establish how challengers can be placed on a ballot, and are specific in this regard.

    The rules do not say anything at all about if a sitting leader is or is not on the ballot.

    There has been legal advice to the Labourship Leaders office, by their private council, that as the phrase ‘challenger’ is used it means someone is being challenged so the leader must be on the ballot. So Corbyn’s name appears on the ballot without nomination.

    There has been legal advice to the Labour Party in general, by their private council, that the specified process is the only way to be listed on a ballot to be elected leader, and a challengers who was uncontested by any other nominee automatically becomes the new leader of the party. So Corbyn must contest to be on the ballot by nomination.

    The arbitrators of this conflict are the NEC. Who would be drafting the final ballot anyway.

    It is unclear at this time how the NEC would decide, but I don’t think either side have a clear majority of it’s members. And that’s why there’s been a stand-off, with Corbyn being the default benefactor since he hasn’t been pushed out yet.

  25. The NEC also don’t want to meet until after Chilcot Inquiry is out of the immediate headlines, in order to clear the boards for as clean a campaign as can be feasibly possible in the circumstances.

  26. Redrich

    ” she will go for EEA membership”

    However, EEA membership is open only to EU or EFTA member states – and Norway has said it is very dubious about letting the UK join EFTA.

    The UK can’t assume that it can get anyone’s agreement to anything!

  27. @Alan

    No the Popular People’s Front – splitters

  28. @ TOH

    “Interesting bloke Ken, shares my enthusiasm for bird watching and did a fair job as CoE in his time. Quite amusing clip but clearly not a good loser like so many it would appear.”

    He is an interesting chap. Used regularly to ride the number 3 bus home at night from Westminster in the 1990s, often accompanied by his wife – now deceased – they were very clearly, very much in love.

    I didn’t pay too much heed to the stuff about policy – I’m sure he would have said that on camera, he’s pretty blunt and his Europhile tendencies well known – it was more about personality.

    On Gove I think he and Rifkind were spot on – a little ball of repression waiting to explode. I thought the line ‘we’d have at least three wars under Micheal’ (I paraphrase), was most amusing, if also a little discomforting.

    Not sure how much weight either of these too old guns carry these days.

  29. @Oldnat

    The UK can’t assume that it can get anyone’s agreement to anything

    Agreed – but I think it will be the UK’s objective and in France and Germany’s economic interests. Its not 100% certain that it will come off, but personally I think its the most likely outcome – subject to horse trading etc

  30. @THE OTHER HOWARD

    So you would be a ‘good loser’ if remain had won? I very much doubt it. I expect you would be calling for a new referendum next year.

  31. @ Jayblanc

    I think you’ve summed up the situation perfectly.

    The courts will be looking for the NEC to make a decision (as they always look for mediated resolution of civil cases).

    Only if one ‘element’ disagrees with this outcome and there is not possibility of mediation will there be any possibility of a legal hearing – that recourse to law could come from either side.

    If such a legal stand off were to occur, it would be protracted and complicated.

    On the internal politics of the Labour Party, you are much better placed than me to comment.

  32. Oldnat: ” Norway has said it is very dubious about letting the UK join EFTA.”

    I hadn’t heard this, so explored further. Here’s the link:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/norwegian-option-for-u-k-brexiters-is-not-so-clear-for-norway

    I think it underlines that it’s dangerous to take anything for granted in assessing future options. I suspect we are viewed pretty widely in the rest of the world as an awkward partner to deal with, and the events of the last fortnight will have done nothing to undermine that impression.

  33. @ Redrich

    “whoever leads Labour into the next election they face a real challenge in appealing to voters in their traditional heartlands without alienating its voters in metropolitan areas.”

    Absolutely.

    However, it is also worth remembering that even in Labour heartlands such as the North East a majority of Labour voters plumped for remain.

    A cautious holding position – accepting the vote – and highlighting the government’s handling of the situation is the best possible for Labour.

    To much else is likely to change – UKIP could implode without Farage – the economy could flourish or flounder badly.

    I wonder how the closure or scaling down of the Nissan plant – or the threat of such – would impact on that now legendary ‘leave’ vote?

    From a strategic point of view, Labour would be best to let the Conservatives run with the Brexit ball and be seen for ‘sticking up for ordinary people’s interests’ as negotiations unfurl.

  34. @Jayblanc

    I was assuming irrespective of the way the NEC (which I currently think would back the PLP but very slimly) that it would end in court.

  35. Its ironic that norway has doubts about letting the UK into the EFTA. This is an organization that the UK set up after being rejected for EEC membership, apparently De Gaulle thought we would awkward.

  36. In order to appeal an arbitrated issue to a court of law, it would have to be a point of english law at dispute, and a legal entity would have to present some harm they have or will suffer.

    Corbyn could claim unlawful dismissal, but that’s a massive stretch. Otherwise, I don’t see how this actually gets to the court without some torturous logic employed.

  37. @Assiduosity

    I wonder how the closure or scaling down of the Nissan plant – or the threat of such – would impact on that now legendary ‘leave’ vote?

    From a strategic point of view, Labour would be best to let the Conservatives run with the Brexit ball and be seen for ‘sticking up for ordinary people’s interests’ as negotiations unfurl.

    One of the reasons I was surprised at the level of Leave support in NE and Midlands was the potential risk to the car industry. If this does materialise will be interested to see if it shifts opinion towards EU.

    I think Labour does need to do something to counter the ‘it was Labour that lost it’ narrative before it sticks as did blame for the financial crisis. It does also need to offer something to those who have been left behind or seen a drop in living standards as a result of globalisation to see off the threat from UKIP.

  38. @ Jayblanc

    “In order to appeal an arbitrated issue to a court of law, it would have to be a point of english law at dispute, and a legal entity would have to present some harm they have or will suffer.”

    On the face of it yes.

    In reality no. I’ve seen much more tenuous instances come to court, often involving very torturous logic.

    The fact that the body is in receipt of public funds will be considered, that the matter determines a de facto paid public appointment (though the party could divorce the two ie leader of Labour Party and Leader of HM Opposition) may also be relevant. Likewise there could be issued of the denied ‘rights’ of Labour Party members etc etc

    Of course the first court could agree with you and refuse to consider the matter, but given the public interest they would probably refer the decision.

    Any way you look at it – a mess awaits.

    As @ Laszlo point out, it’s essentially the difficulty created by trying to get the law to resolve a political (or constitutional – small ‘c’) problem.

  39. @Corbyn could claim unlawful dismissal, but that’s a massive stretch. Otherwise, I don’t see how this actually gets to the court without some torturous logic employed

    I’ve just been skimming through the European Convention on Human Rights to see if there is a basis for Corbyn supporter to challenge – wouldn’t that be Ironic ;-)

  40. @ Redrich

    “I think Labour does need to do something to counter the ‘it was Labour that lost it’ narrative before it sticks as did blame for the financial crisis. It does also need to offer something to those who have been left behind or seen a drop in living standards as a result of globalisation to see off the threat from UKIP.”

    Agreed.

    The Labour Party can probably achieve this whilst being ‘neutral’ on the EU and positive about Europe.

    As each element comes up for negotiation Labour could establish a ‘better for Britain test’ – requiring that the government demonstrate how the negotiated settlement is better for the key constituencies you describe, at the same time as advancing some cherished policies.

    If the answer comes back ‘we can’t afford that’ – Labour could respond – is that because we’re leaving?

    Three hits – showing that the leave policy doesn’t benefit Labour’s voters, questioning the Conservatives economic handling (Labour’s old weakness), gradually signally that leaving Europe is causing more pain rather than providing gain.

    Of course, this policy only has any traction if there is economic down turn and poor handling of negotiations – and if Labour have attractive policies to offer.

    Lots of ifs…

  41. Until a Blairite plucks up enough guts to throw his or her hat in the ring, then this is a non-story….

    Angela Eagle keeps saying she’s going to do it, but still hasn’t got around to actually doing it.

    Newsflash, Angela! Corbyn is NOT going to resign, so either challenge him, or shut up….

  42. ASSIDUOSITY

    Generlly agree with you, I always rather liked Ken even though he was a Europhile. Yes , Rifkind and co amusing re Gove.

    I meant to post that i very much agreed with your piece on Wales.

  43. Assiduosity

    “It’s interesting that we hear so much talk about all the voters who ‘abandoned Labour at the last GE’ in the North.”

    The original comment from @BT was

    “Those percentages of Labour voters don’t, of course, take into account the large numbers of Labour voters who had already deserted Labour PRIOR TO the 2015 election”

    Prior to 2015 isn’t “at the last election.”

    A quick google shows what happened to the Lab vote after 1997

    http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/chart2.jpg

    roughly 20 pt drop in C2DE, 10 pts of C1 and 5 pts of AB

    They got some of that back in 2015 with the the collapse of the LDs.

    #

    Valerie

    “Surely most plotters planning coups have in mind the actual person they want to become the new leader – and how that person will be put in place.”

    True – which implies either

    a) the person the instigators want as leader isn’t currently in the PLP

    or

    b) the person doesn’t want to show their face directly unless Corbyn resigns first

    in which case Angela Eagle is being bullied into the stalking horse role.

    #

    CR

    “Having said all that, while I wouldn’t inflict it on other people I’m quite prepared to swallow it whole myself. I think that its mostly true, but prehaps because I want it to be! Why do I have to be so cynical?”

    In a way it’s anti-cynical because it’s the vast majority trustingly bumbling their way through life that allows little groups of plotters to have an outsize influence.

  44. I’ve been out all day and just caught up. Very interesting discussion and good posts especially from Assiduosity.

    A couple of comments occurred to me:

    “The highly complicated story of UKIPs rise is not properly understood – it can be put down to churn, but the observable facts are massive LibDem collapse and significant UKIP rise in region after region.”

    I think a couple of GEs with 50+ seats led the LDs to believe that there were actually a lot of people who believed in their policies. My belief is that real support was never very high, but they attracted protest votes in big numbers, which has now gone to UKIP and some to the Greens.

    “UKIP could implode without Farage”

    That is possible, but the Referendum result showed that there are at least 35% of voters who wanted to Leave the EU but wouldn’t vote UKIP. If a less confrontational leader is appointed, it’s also possible that they could increase their vote still further.

  45. ASSIDUOSITY
    I rather like Barba as it reminded me of Barbapapa et al, but I understand if you don’t wish to be associated with a 1970s shapeshifting pink blob and erstwhile star of children’s books and animations.

    I was an adult in the 1970s but my kids weren’t born until the 1980s so I am afraid I’ve not previously heard of them. I really do have a ginger [coloured] beard, though.

  46. Hireton

    “The financing of the deficit is reliant on continuing material inflows of portfolio and foreign direct investment, which have been used to finance the public sector deficit and corporate investment, including in commercial real estate.

    A sudden shift in the supply of foreign capital and in the current account deficit would be associated with a sharp increase in risk premia and adjustment in sterling.”

    My translation of that would be

    the pricing distortions caused by the massive housing crisis (currently being hidden by the media and political class) is effectively funding the deficit by pulling in huge amounts of money from abroad for speculative property investment.

    #

    This ties in with the people who have been making a fortune out of the housing crisis (via rents and housing benefit) reportedly being behind the legal challenge to Brexit.

    Obviously any slackening of the housing crisis through a drop in immigration would cut into the fortune they’ve been making off the return of the slums.

  47. VALERIE & OLDNAT
    Ginger works too! 8<)}

  48. http://www.politico.eu/article/migration-terrorism-biggest-concerns-for-eu-citizens-poll-muslims-europe/

    Poll / Survey by by the Szazadveg Foundation, a center-right Hungarian think tank

    Doesn’t make comfortable reading for the people of Europe if it’s results are accurate:

    The foundation surveyed 1,000 people in each of the 28 EU member nations. The poll — Project 28: Report on the condition of the European Union — was carried out in April but publication of the results delayed until after the Brexit referendum.

    70 percent of those polled believing an increase in Muslim migration is a serious threat to the Continent and 86 percent saying a terrorist attack is likely in their country.

    77 percent feeling the EU is not doing a good job of tackling the migration crisis and 83 percent wanting the bloc to do more to strengthen its external borders.

    64 percent said they would not sign a petition calling for their country to leave — with support for the EU strong in Hungary and Poland, countries with Euroskeptic governments. The figures from the U.K. did not match the Brexit referendum result, with the survey showing that 40 percent would sign a petition to leave the EU, 50 percent would not, and 10 percent did not know or refused to answer.

  49. So, in case anyone hasn’t seen this:

    Liam Fox drops out.

    Theresa May – 165

    Andrea Leadsom – 66

    Michael Gove – 48

    Stephen Crabb – 34

    Liam Fox – 16

  50. http://www.politico.eu/article/migration-terrorism-biggest-concerns-for-eu-citizens-poll-muslims-europe/

    Poll / Survey by by the Szazadveg Foundation, a center-right Hungarian think tank

    Doesn’t make comfortable reading for the people of Europe if it’s results are accurate:

    The foundation surveyed 1,000 people in each of the 28 EU member nations. The poll — Project 28: Report on the condition of the European Union — was carried out in April but publication of the results delayed until after the Brexit referendum.

    70 percent of those polled believing an increase in Muslim migration is a serious threat to the Continent and 86 percent saying a terrorist attack is likely in their country.

    77 percent feeling the EU is not doing a good job of tackling the migration crisis and 83 percent wanting the bloc to do more to strengthen its external borders.

    64 percent said they would not sign a petition calling for their country to leave — with support for the EU strong in Hungary and Poland, countries with Euroskeptic governments. The figures from the U.K. did not match the Brexit referendum result, with the survey showing that 40 percent would sign a petition to leave the EU, 50 percent would not, and 10 percent did not know or refused to answer.

1 3 4 5 6