RugbyRebels

Can the MEPs nominate candidates this time around?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Each candidate needs to be nominated by a union or 5% of constituency parties. Beyond that, presumably, Unison will advise its members to vote for its nominated candidate.

Cheers. Any 'feel' for who will win? Rayner is storming the deputy race with the PLP. Not sure why. other than the lack of visibility of the others or being Burgon.

Starmer seems like the favourite from the press, certainly is with betfair...

Who was favourite in 2015?

Starmer is ahead with the PLP and the membership (as far as one poll can tell us)

Currently 4 of the contenders - Starmer, RLB, Nandy and Phillips - have enough MP's backing them to go through to the next phase.

Deputy leadership looks to be Rayners, though i wouldnt discount Ian Murray or Dr Rosena Allin-Khan just yet.

Burgon, who really is one of the thickest MP's in the house, is plainly the joke candidate.

Bit old, but....
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... eader-race

fivepointer wrote: Burgon, who really is one of the thickest MP's in the house, is plainly the joke candidate.

The last election was low on quality but he and JRM were bottom of the barrel.

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote: Burgon, who really is one of the thickest MP's in the house, is plainly the joke candidate.

The last election was low on quality but he and JRM were bottom of the barrel.

Tories had the sense to lock JRMs coffin after the first day. Burgon just kept popping up with something from the thesaurus of stupidity.

If anyone is interested, the turnout amongst 18-24 year olds has been estimated at 47% by Ipsos-Mori (54% in 2017) For over 65's its c 74% (71%)

Banquo wrote:If anyone is interested, the turnout amongst 18-24 year olds has been estimated at 47% by Ipsos-Mori (54% in 2017) For over 65's its c 74% (71%)

Poor.

But... I would love to see a breakdown on that with demographics, geographically, etc.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:If anyone is interested, the turnout amongst 18-24 year olds has been estimated at 47% by Ipsos-Mori (54% in 2017) For over 65's its c 74% (71%)

Poor.

But... I would love to see a breakdown on that with demographics, geographically, etc.

I haven’t look at this one but normally if you go their website they will have this sort of info.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:If anyone is interested, the turnout amongst 18-24 year olds has been estimated at 47% by Ipsos-Mori (54% in 2017) For over 65's its c 74% (71%)

Poor.

But... I would love to see a breakdown on that with demographics, geographically, etc.

Its all out there, govt website I think.

Here's a link to ipsos
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/ ... 9-election

Is common sense about to break out in the Labour Party? I’m not entirely sure about Starmer. Is he as committed a socialist as he makes out of is he just trying to win over the membership?

Sandydragon wrote:Is common sense about to break out in the Labour Party? I’m not entirely sure about Starmer. Is he as committed a socialist as he makes out of is he just trying to win over the membership?

His history suggests he is very much a humanist. And that's what Labour needs more than idealistic/theoretical socialists.

He's been one of the only politicians I'd trust since his election. He always speaks well, calmly, and with compassion, and his background is very good.

He's exactly what's needed.

I'm not going to comment too strongly on most of the others, except to say that Thornberry should be nowhere near leadership. I wouldn't even have her on the front bench, there are far better politicians out there.

I think Starmer is their best bet but, from the little I’ve seen, I like Nandy. I think RLB or Thornberry, for different reasons, would be disastrous for them.

Thornberry because if she wins their entire voting system is fraudulent on a massive scale?

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Is common sense about to break out in the Labour Party? I’m not entirely sure about Starmer. Is he as committed a socialist as he makes out of is he just trying to win over the membership?

His history suggests he is very much a humanist. And that's what Labour needs more than idealistic/theoretical socialists.

He's been one of the only politicians I'd trust since his election. He always speaks well, calmly, and with compassion, and his background is very good.

He's exactly what's needed.

I'm not going to comment too strongly on most of the others, except to say that Thornberry should be nowhere near leadership. I wouldn't even have her on the front bench, there are far better politicians out there.

Completely agree about Thornberry. Not that the Labour front bench was that impressive over the last few years and she was by no means the worst. But still not a top flight politician.

Jess Phillips quits race, claiming she can't unite the Labour Party; code for she can't get unions to back her and is hated by momentum

Banquo wrote:Jess Phillips quits race, claiming she can't unite the Labour Party; code for she can't get unions to back her and is hated by momentum

She's right. But she's plenty young enough to have another go and will not have burned any bridges yet with the early exit. Possibly ill-advised to say she'd back one of the other female candidates, even if Labour are well behind the other parties in promoting female leaders

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Jess Phillips quits race, claiming she can't unite the Labour Party; code for she can't get unions to back her and is hated by momentum

She's right. But she's plenty young enough to have another go and will not have burned any bridges yet with the early exit. Possibly ill-advised to say she'd back one of the other female candidates, even if Labour are well behind the other parties in promoting female leaders

They'd all be right in saying that, I'd think.

Interesting thread:

Mellsblue wrote:Interesting thread:

Gawd

Is George Lansbury getting such a bad favourable rating because he's being confused with George Lazenby?

So, the NHS then...

£350M a week? Or increased political interference and privatisation?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24761.html


"Boris Johnson to seize control over NHS with new law

Ministers want new powers to instruct health bosses to force pace of change, amid fears that private-sector involvement could be expanded across health service

..."

Your link doesn’t work for me so I’m not sure what you mean with regards privatisation. I haven’t read anything about that.
I’m surprised those on left, and particularly a Corbyn supporter, are now against greater govt control in the NHS. That’s an interesting volte face. This is pretty much about rolling back the Lansley reforms of 2012 away from the internal market model. I’m surprised you are against that.

Sorry. Typo fixed.

Your surprise would be easily explained by your obvious ignorance of my politics though - starting at the fact that I am not, nor ever have been, a Corbyn supporter, and working up from there.