Danny

She said in the Andrew Neil hustings that she opposed both the mansion tax and the 50p tax band.

That might be easier to believe if they hadn't all just abstained on these very cuts a few weeks ago. Kendall in particular has said she "won't oppose any cuts unless they can show how they'd pay for it". Since she's said even the laughably timid tax rises in this year's manifesto were "anti-aspiration", that presumably means she wouldn't oppose any cuts atall.

Two Tory MPs have said they oppose tax credit cuts. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politic...icle4522379.ece And there in a nutshell you have the reason why Labour members want a leader who will do some Opposition and actually take the chances to stop cuts happening NOW.

It might also be because Hillary, as uninspiring as she/her campaign is, is atleast not literally parrotting word-for-word Republican arguments on the economy, welfare, businesses, tax, etc.

This basically sums up how Andy Burnham has (most likely) thrown his chances of winning away: https://twitter.com/CalumSPlath/status/629342216331370496

Lol, well anyone who made that argument would have to explain why a candidate well to her left performs almost as well in polls against Republicans :P Although on second thoughts, it might've damaged her in that her pushing stances which go directly against everything she's stood for to date makes her seem more cynical and inauthentic than ever.

But what's 'the worst'? Being unable to win the presidential election if she's the nominee? Because she's heading rapidly to that place. Also, one of the more significant things about Hillary's ratings is she's falling particularly badly with white voters (while holding up well with ethnic minorities). Unfortunately for her, the first two primary states are overwhelmingly white, so defeats in one or both of them are now distinct possibilities.

Increasing speculation that Joe Biden will throw his hat in the ring, as Hillary's ratings go into freefall. Poll last week showed that in match-ups with the Republicans, Hillary would do only slightly better than the "unelectable" Bernie Sanders, and only equally or in some cases slightly worse than Biden would do.

Turns out I underestimated this. Apparently even EMMA REYNOLDS will deprive us of her talents if Labour members don't do The Right Thing.

As 2nd preference, or have even you abandoned Kendall now? :P Do you think Burnham would be a "successful" leader?

IPSOS-MORI also carried out a poll on Tory contenders at the same time, and Burnham's figures (and perhaps Cooper's) actually look surprisingly respectable Do you think [name] has what it takes to be a good PM? Boris Johnson - 32% Theresa May - 28% Andy Burnham - 27% George Osborne - 23% Yvette Cooper - 22% Jeremy Corbyn - 17% Liz Kendall - 16% Michael Gove - 13% https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Poll...015-topline.pdf https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Poll...ne-part-two.pdf

Tbh, I'm starting to see the attractiveness of this. He can be an interim leader, give the party a shake-up, do some proper opposition and start shifting the terms of debate back to the Left, then step down for someone a bit more moderate and prime-ministerial about a year before the election. Currently I'm leaning on preferences towards: 1) Corbyn, 2) Burnham, 3) Cooper For deputy, 1) Angela Eagle, 2) Stella Creasy, 3) Tom Watson, 4) Caroline Flint, 5) Ben Bradshaw.

It might not be an endorsement of a shift to the left of Corbyn proportions, but the findings certainly contradict the idea that the public are desperate for Labour to be in the so-called "centre-ground".

The public's views on whether the candidates are plausible Prime Ministers: Andy Burnham 27% Yvette Cooper 22% Jeremy Corbyn 17% Liz Kendall 16% (IPSOS-MORI) There was also a YouGov poll asking people why they thought Labour had lost the election - more answered "they didn't have an alternative to austerity" than "they wouldn't have reduced the deficit enough".

Quote from Blair: ""I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it." For all their claims, Blairites are just as ideological as the hard left. It was also amusing when he claimed how laughable the idea that Labour could win back Tory voters by takng a stronger line against austerity would be, how it was 'insulting to the electorate' to think they were wrong on austerity ..... before a minute later without a hint of irony he claimed UKIP voters were wrong about immigration and that the way to win them back was to make an unashamedly pro-immigration argument .

GAME-CHANGER ALERT: George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.

I don't get this argument. It's not a case of "preferring": they're in opposition for the next 5 years irrespective of what they prefer. So their main job for the next 5 years is to try to stop the Tories' policies as best they can, with the ample opportunities to do that that such a slender government majority provides - rather than feebly giving in all the time like the last 5 years and allowing the Tories to move the terms of debate rightwards, or on Monday by gifting them a majority for cuts that otherwise wasn't there.

Atleast in the 1980s they slowed down Thatcher's agenda, whereas now they're letting the Tories go full speed ahead with no resistance and letting them define ever more right-wing ideas as the norm. It's not like the appeasement strategy works electorally anyway, as we saw in May.

Times columnist hits the nail on the head: even if Corbyn wouldn't win an election for Labour, he would atleast be an effectual opposition, rather than be so spineless as to actively enable welfare cuts: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/colu...icle4504545.ece

Corbyn ahead in YouGov poll of Labour members: First preferences 43% Corbyn 26% Burnham 20% Cooper 11% Kendall Run-off 53% Corbyn 47% Burnham

Stephen Tall ‏@stephentall 22m22 minutes ago Tell you one thing. Tony Blair wouldn't have passed up the opportunity to defeat the Tories on welfare cuts if he were still Labour leader.

There was a "dormant" anger about immigration, before it exploded to the top of the agenda when UKIP came along. Just as there's a dormant anger about the rich getting away with blue murder while everyone else pays, yet Labour have been too timid to make that argument. And who cares how well UKIP did in the election? They still got what they wanted as a result of changing the narrative: tougher immigration controls and an EU referendum. Your whole argument seems to be based on the defeatist logic of "the public think this way, therefore it's inevitable that the public will always think this way so what's the point in even trying to make an argument". Labour would never have even got off the ground if previous generations thought like that, and they will allow the Tories to shift the terms of debate ever more rightwards until they man/woman-up and start actually fighting for things they believe in.

I'm sorry but this is just flatly untrue. The Tories changed the narrative on how important the deficit was from opposition. UKIP changed the narrative on immigration from opposition. The SNP changed the narrative on independence from opposition. Blair changed the narrative on how non-negotiable investment in public services was from opposition. I've got no idea how you can claim it's impossible for Labour to try it, when Miliband didn't even properly attempt to do it, and in any case didn't have the star quality to get any message to resonate. The bottom line is, for as long as people think the big questions are how to cut spending, how to tackle "scroungers", and how maximising big businesses' profits is the only thing that matters in the economy, people will always think the Tories have the answers no matter how much Labour cravenly triangulates. (And LOL at that focus group carried out by former Blair advisers being cited. I'll go find the polling showing people thought Labour would cut spending too much, were too soft on businesses and wouldn't tax the rich enough, again.)

I still can't make head nor tail of your argument that the Tories had enough votes to pass it on their own when.....they didn't. 308 votes is not an absolute majority. How those Tory MPs would've voted if the Tories 'resubmitted' it is purely hypothetical - for all we know, those same people may have mysteriously absented themselves yet again (especially those in marginal seats with some foresight to think about how to keep their job in 2020). The only thing we know for sure is that, if Labour had voted against, the cuts would've been defeated.

You know it's bad when even the Lib Dems are ripping you for being unprincipled: