Danny

Except it's not 'opposition positioning' when Labour actively makes the difference between cuts happening or not.

I'm not sure the people who will see their incomes drop as a direct result of how Labour voted last night will share the view that it's worth it just to get people wearing red rosettes into government.

Anyway, I think Burnham may have lost the contest last night. A typical comment on my timeline today: Glenn Kitson ‏@Glenn_Kitson 17h17 hours ago Never stop? 48 Labour MPs who voted against #WelfareBill - the rest are a f***ing disgrace.

Harriet Harman was pushing this disingenuous line yesterday that this move was worthwhile so that Labour could get elected next time. Even leaving aside the issue of whether this type of thing helps them get elected (pandering to Tory arguments didn't work out so well at this year's election, did it), it shows how craven and unprincipled they are that they think the only thing that matters is their "team" winning irrespective of how many cuts to poor people they enable the Tories to pass in the process.

Um, except the arithmetic says otherwise!!! 308 MPs voted for it. If all Labour MPs had joined with other MPs in voting against, it would've been defeated. I'm genuinely not understanding what your argument is. You continually stating that the Tories have a majority doesn't change the fact that they didn't have an absolute majority on this occasion, and that welfare cuts are now only happening because of Labour.

Are you really pretending government rebellions never happen?

Who says? There are going to be many Tory MPs who quietly have enough foresight to know it's not a good idea to have their names dipped in blood if ever these cuts become unpopular. The bottom line is if every Labour MP had voted against, there wouldn't be welfare cuts. Now, there will be. Despite the bullshit that prats like Chuka Umunna have been peddling, their main job is not to just get "Labour into power" as an end in itself and get cushy jobs for themselves, - their job is to stand up for the poorest people, rather than actively enabling cuts to their benefits.

Meanwhile, Labour continue to have amnesia about what the word "opposition" means, after tonight abstaining on a vote on welfare cuts. Had they voted against, it would've been defeated. The party which is supposed to represent the poor is now actively contributing to throwing people into poverty.

Which do you think is the best of the 3 other candidates?

Newsnight encapsulating why Corbyn is surging. Two posh boys (Chuka and Tristram) smugly telling members that they have to forget about helping the poor and getting better public services, and instead obsess about surpluses and smacking people "who can work but refuse to work".

I can actually see a mini-revival for them in the South West, although the Guardianistas are off-limits for the foreseeable future.

It was you who was talking about 2015 specifically! It's been a long process in Merseyside starting from the 1980s, because of the robust approach local politicians have taken. And hasn't Exeter mainly been swung by the university?

Wirral West, Wirral South, Sefton Central (formerly Crosby), Wallasey (to some extent Ellesmere Port and perhaps Chester). All were Tory until either 1992 or 1997, but have swung away massively - a couple even have higher Labour votes now than in 1997. And the difference is that the other seats you mention have had major demographic change (different racial mix in London, influx of young people in Brighton). The middle-class Merseyside seats are still overwhelmingly white and older than average, but have swung because the right-wing arguments have all been confronted and defeated through argument.

It speaks volumes about how interested you really are in winning over Tory voters when you dismiss Merseyside, one of the few areas of the country where Tory seats have majorly moved over to the Labour column. And it certainly wasn't done with the "Blairite" formula. Anyway, you're kidding yourself if you think a Blairite is EVER getting elected leader again. If they had any sense, they'd now be trying to meet the activists halfway by uniting behind the soft left and dropping their ideological bollocks about "balancing the books", "reforming public services", "pro-business", etc.

I wonder if that Harriet Harman interview will be seen as the turning point of the contest: 14 of 19 nominations since Sunday have gone to Corbyn.

Also, Corbyn has now drawn level with Burnham on nominations from local branches. It couldn't happen....could it?

Love how Burnham's gay rights record is described as "dodgy" because of one relatively minor transgression from the party line, yet Kendall is defeded as a socialist even though she has far bigger departures from the party line on the economy than Burnham does on gay rights.

Latest tally of nominations from local Labour branches: Leader: Burnham - 48 Corbyn - 39 Cooper - 29 Kendall - 5 Deputy: Tom Watson - 40 Stella Creasy - 19 Caroline Flint - 9 Angela Eagle - 6 Ben Bradshaw - 4

O-Jo has a point on this occasion (though "Lexit" is never going to happen).

Andy Burnham should be leader, but will probably vote for Corbyn. The Labour high command are clearly not going to learn unless he has a strong showing.

No - there were loads of abstentions from Tory MPs on the bedroom tax vote in 2013.

Fine, but the point still stands - it only takes a few rebels (less than Tory rebels on the bedroom tax) with some foresight of how their voters will receive things to swing the outcome. Labour's position on things this time is not just posturing, it could make the decisive difference.

Eh? The Tories have a majority of 6, and I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few Tories from marginal seats abstain. Labour could actively allow this to happen.

Harriet Harman doing her best to boost the Corbyn vote with her "Labour won't oppose anything" argument.

Disagree completely - the moderates before Blair were about not going for some socialist uptopia, sure, but they always had red lines they wouldn't cross even if (on the surface) those positions weren't popular.