No, no, you’ve got this the wrong way around

Senior Labour MPs are plotting to oust Jeremy Corbyn if he is elected party leader, amid growing fears that the leadership contest has been hijacked by far-Left infiltrators.
Shadow cabinet sources have told The Telegraph that Mr Corbyn would never be allowed to remain in the job long enough to fight the 2020 general election, if he is elected on September 12.
A coup could be launched within days of the result, which would plunge the party into even deeper crisis and division, but would be necessary to prevent an electoral “disaster” under Mr Corbyn’s leadership, senior figures said.
The veteran Left-winger, who has said he only stood because it was his “turn” to be the token socialist in the race, has confounded established political wisdom to take the lead in a series of polls among party members and supporters.
However, a growing number of Labour MPs believe Mr Corbyn’s campaign is being boosted by tens of thousands of radical Left-wing socialists who have paid £3 to sign up as an “affiliated supporter” in order to vote in the election.

It’s tens of thousands of righties paying their £3 to get a vote……

And there’s an interesting corollary to “couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery” here. Labour, the political party that couldn’t organise an election.

23 thoughts on “No, no, you’ve got this the wrong way around”

  1. I’m a member of an affiliated TU and thus have a vote which will be going to JC, so I would probably be classed by Labour stooges as one of these far left infiltrators: though not if I voted for any of the other three.

  2. How does the voting system work?

    If two of the three pointless ones dropped out then would the pointless vote, assuming it united behind the chosen nonentity, keep JC out?

    Let’s face it.. they could pick a winner from the other three by locking them in a room and giving the prize to the last one to piss themselves. It would be a better gauge of things than the views of anyone wet enough to vote for them.

  3. The only article I read that actually gave hard figures said that most of the £3 voters were from “affiliated organisations” (unions and a few lefty pressure groups).

    Which is precisely how the system was supposed to work – remove the union block vote and let the members sign up individually.

  4. A coup, eh? I’m looking forward to seeing men in army uniforms and dark glasses sat on Labour’s NEC. Cuba! Cuba!

  5. It’s tens of thousands of righties paying their £3 to get a vote

    No, it isn’t, Tim. Don’t be silly. A few right-wing politics geeks may well have done this. Such people simply do not have significant numbers. It’s a great joke down the pub and on here, but no: Corbyn is popular enough with the Left not to need the support of a few score Tories.

    What I find really funny is this cluelessness:

    fears that the leadership contest has been hijacked by far-Left infiltrators. … a growing number of Labour MPs believe Mr Corbyn’s campaign is being boosted by tens of thousands of radical Left-wing socialists

    It apparently hasn’t occurred to these eejits that, if Corbyn is elected, his far-Left supporters will cease to be “infiltrators” and will become Labour supporters and members and voters. Which is surely the whole point of the party political system.

  6. TTG

    It’s AV – hence no reason for anyone to stand down. First one to get to over 50%. If it’s down to two, with AV one of them must by then have got themselves to over 50%.

    I am not sure that all voters are going to see it as 3 vs 1. Ie I don’t believe all alternative votes for “the three” will stay amongst those three. Some of them are bound to go to Corbyn.

  7. Quite, Tim.

    Those geniuses of the Currajus State who, if we only put them in charge of Central Planning, could predict and mitigate all unforseen twists and turns of the UK’s economy.

    The same ones who built an election system that can be gamed for £3.


    As some investor once said (I forget who), “I would trust my secretary to win a negotiation against any Government official”.

  8. My only major concern with Corbyn is that he appears to have allowed Ritchie’s involvement in formulating his taxation plans. Now THAT does need to be nipped in the bud!

  9. I find it odd that everyone’s talking about Corbyn, and no-one’s talking about the real problem (for Labour) here, which is that the other candidates are so weak that the joke candidate has a real chance of winning.

  10. The real problem is that the other three are shitting themselves so much that the ‘joke’ candidate might win they’re rallying the troops to try and put a stop to his ‘socialist’ nonsense. Can’t have a bloody ‘socialist’ in charge of the ‘workers party’, that’ll never do.

  11. @KJ

    Hmmm. Most of the people rooting for Corbyn don’t actually appear to be ‘workers’.

    They seem mostly to be gobby students, job insecure quangocrats, union organisers and unemployed sociologists – greedy bastards, essentially, who want other people to be forced to give them free stuff.

    Which was always the way, and was why Labour had to change.

    Actual workers – people who have to get up in the morning and do unpleasant, grafty-type stuff – never make good ‘socialists’ because they insist on objecting to their hard-earned ackers being taken off them to be given to a client state of single mums to spend on flat screen lager (cf other thread).

    If we’re reducing things to their simplest cliche, mind, which you seem keen to do.

    Forget Corbyn. In fact, forget socialism. You’ll be happier once you realise it’s over.

  12. Bloke no Longer in Austria

    Interesting when the boot is on the other foot.
    Coups like this were the tactics employed by Militant in the 1980s.
    This is how Red Ken became leader of the GLC: Labour won the election in 1980 or 81, I forget now, with a swathe of militant councillors. In the first meeting, they voted out Andrew McIntosh as leader and installed Ken in his stead.

    Plus ca change, eh ?

  13. @PF “It’s AV – hence no reason for anyone to stand down.”

    I’m afraid that’s totally wrong. Spoilers exist in AV (also called IRV) elections. Here’s a real world example:

    “3. Also, in this IRV election, Wright was a “spoiler”; if Wright had not been in the race then Montroll would have won (which the Wright voters would have preferred: 1513 were for Montroll versus 495 for Kiss). Any voters who voted for Wright as their favorite “without any fear of inadvertently electing Kiss” were foolish to lack such fear, because, in fact, if they instead had “calculated” right, they could have strategically voted Montroll and thus avoided electing Kiss. (That’s an example of “favorite-betrayal.”)”

    “6. Finally – and probably craziest of all – this election also featured non-monotonicity. If 753 of the W-voters (specifically, all 495 of the W>K>M voters plus 258 of the 1289 W-only voters) had instead decided to vote for K, then W would have been eliminated (not M) and then M would have beaten K in the final IRV round by 4067 to 3755. In other words, Kiss won, but if 753 Wright-voters had switched their vote to Kiss, that would have made Kiss lose!”

  14. RA

    That’s interesting.

    Yes, I agree with you that the order in which they drop out can impact on this.

    This wouldn’t happen obviously but, let’s pretend that Cooper’s 2nd votes all go to Burnham, and Burnham’s 2nd votes all go to Corbyn.

    Kendall drops out, then Kendall’s small number of second votes become crucial.

    If they go to Cooper, so that Burnham drops out next, Corbyn wins.

    If instead they go to Burnham, and Cooper then drops out, Burnham wins.

    Kendall’s small number of 3rd votes have less influence than “Cooper versus Burnham’s second votes”.

    And assuming there will be any large difference in Cooper versus Burnham’s second vote profile?

    Don’t worry about it though – the pollsters can’t even get normal polls right!

  15. RA

    And it’s not as much a reason for Kendall to stand down, but for her 2nd AV votes to be used sensibly?

    Ie, if Kendall’s voters don’t want Corbyn, best (at second choice) to go straight for the most likely anti-Corbyn winner (whoever that is), ie what they would do in any case if it was just a straightforward vote between two candidates.

    Standing down simply means they don’t have to guess who that most likely winner is, ie you don’t give them a choice..!? Hmmm…:)

    It’ll be fun whatever!

  16. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Die Fehleinschätzung

    After the YouGov poll of the 22nd of July
    A Shadow Cabinet minister
    Did an off-the-record briefing in the Telegraph
    Stating that the party members
    Had forfeited the confidence of the Parliamentary Labour Party
    And could win it back only
    By voting for its preferred candidate. Would it not be easier
    In that case for the Party
    To purge its membership
    And select another?

  17. Didn’t Arrow publish a paper showing that no voting system will always give a “fair” result under various definitions of “fair”?

    Mind you, I think the demand that things be “fair” is usually childish. Adults should be prepared to settle for “not grossly unfair”.

  18. Bloke in Costa Rica

    The main thing that was counter-intuitive about Arrow’s result was that rank preferences were non-transitive. So people could prefer candidate A over candidate B, and candidate B over candidate C, but still end up choosing candidate C over candidate A. The proof was that a given set of relatively uncontentious desiderata could not all be simultaneously satisfied, but it’s the inability to get a consistent preference ranking that usually throws people for a loop (and makes life fun for psephologists and other tealeaf-readers).

  19. Dave,
    “the other candidates are so weak”

    Liz Kendall would get my vote; and more importantly she’d keep the Tories on their toes. She’s sometimes described as the female Tony Blair, which most Labour party members consider a bad thing.

    Bloke in CR, others,
    Whether it’s wind farms or immigration, there are real decisions to be made. Tinkering with the electoral system can’t satisfy opposing demands from different groups of voters. A Green/Ukip coalition will give you renewable energy powered by burning immigrants at the stake: the worst of both worlds.

  20. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Andrew M: Arrow’s proof was that a voting system that satisfied all the criteria one would normally associate with a ‘fair’ (normative sense) process was unattainable even in principle. The details of who is in coalition with whom, or how the votes are counted, or which candidates are eligible to stand, etc., all these things operate at a much higher level and are invisible to the Impossibility Theorem. The criteria are really basic things like if everyone prefers policy A over policy B then the electoral outcome should reflect that, and no one person’s preferences should override everyone else’s. They’re all things that most people would agree a fair system should have, and if you’ve got three or more candidates, you simply cannot have, as a matter of mathematical logic, a result that ranks everyone’s preferences consistently. It’s like the Uncertainty Principle. It doesn’t arise as a function of our technical ability but is a constraint that’s baked into the cake.

  21. My only major concern with Corbyn is that he appears to have allowed Ritchie’s involvement in formulating his taxation plans. Now THAT does need to be nipped in the bud!

    Nope, it only adds to the humour value, equally such exposure might prove once and for all that the Lord High Tax Denouncer is a moron.

    I would also point out that the meme that Corbyn is in the lead because of Left-wing or Right-wing infiltration is unlikely because since 1994 (i.e. opposition under Blair/Brown) the leadership of the Labour party has been centre-left than the core party and the NEC who remain left/hard-left.

    The polls of Labour party members (as opposed to general populace polls) shows Corbyn in the lead:

    AYouGov poll of Labour party members (including £3 supporters and trade unionists who have registered to vote) in tomorrow’s Times has first round preferences are CORBYN 43%, BURNHAM 26%, COOPER 20%, KENDALL 11%. As might be expected, Corbyn’s large lead on the first round is chipped away by reallocations of the second preferences of Kendall and Cooper voters in the second and third rounds, but it’s not enough – Corbyn still narrowly beats Burnham by 53% to 47% in the final round.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *