Labour Leadership and Deputy voting intentions

[Johnny Yesno]

fucking hell mate

Well, Corbyn and McDonnell jemmied open the door and let the hoi polloi in and New Folder wants them all to leave again. It's utterly dispiriting to read.

[BlodwynPig]

Well, Corbyn and McDonnell jemmied open the door and let the hoi polloi in and New Folder wants them all to leave again. It's utterly dispiriting to read.

Cheer up, at least we've got abject misery and servitude to evil to look forward to

[New folder]

Hey, you're preaching to the converted.

[Johnny Yesno]

?

[New folder]

Don't worry about it mate, it's just my shit sense of humour. But I don't think that JC and McD's legacy was getting people into the Labour party. It was getting people interested, engaged and, most of all, passionate about radical politics. Harnessing people's anger, instead of dampening it. And I really don't want for that to disappear as the Labour party increasingly becomes a vehicle for apathy and compromise once again.

However, if you don't agree, then don't be dispirited -- nobody will listen to me, I'm just a little new folder trying to make its way through this crazy messed up world.

[colacentral]

1.  RLB 
I think she's the only candidate worth voting for so I'm just voting for her.

1.   Burgon
2.   Butler?
3.   Rayner? 
Might only vote Burgon.  He's the only one out of them I trust.  I simply cannot face another Watson.

Unless I completely misunderstand how the voting works, I think you'd be better off ranking them all and putting Starmer at the bottom, as Starmer will be getting 2nd pref from Phillips and Nandy supporters.

I've changed my mind to Burgon and Butler 1st and 2nd in the DL race for the point made in the other thread - funnily enough made by Burgon the next day - that the DL shouldn't be a leader in waiting. Just go as left as you can to weight the party further in that direction - personality doesn't mean that much. Rayner will still be a strong visible media presence.

[Buelligan]

Mmm.  Me neither.  I understand that No.1 pref gets, say 5 votes, No.2 4 and so on (maybe not literally 5, 4, 3 etc for literal-minded people reading this, but you understand the principle, I hope).  Anyway, then, if no candidate gets more than 50% of No.1 prefs, second prefs come into play. 

In other words, all the 4s, 3s and so on are totted up and the person with the highest score wins.  This means to me that if enough people give a centrist candidate, like Starmer, for instance middle placings, he could conceivably win if he has a few but not most No.1s.  For this reason, I will give nul points (second and so on) to anyone I do not want as Leader or Deputy.

[Johnny Yesno]

Don't worry about it mate, it's just my shit sense of humour. But I don't think that JC and McD's legacy was getting people into the Labour party. It was getting people interested, engaged and, most of all, passionate about radical politics. Harnessing people's anger, instead of dampening it. And I really don't want for that to disappear as the Labour party increasingly becomes a vehicle for apathy and compromise once again.

However, if you don't agree, then don't be dispirited -- nobody will listen to me, I'm just a little new folder trying to make its way through this crazy messed up world.

Sorry for being arsey with you. All I'm saying is that Corbyn and McD gave the membership a level of control it hasn't had for years and a lot of that power comes from the fact that there's fucking legions of us and we know it. Now is not the time to throw in the towel.

[NoSleep]

Mmm.  Me neither.  I understand that No.1 pref gets, say 5 votes, No.2 4 and so on (maybe not literally 5, 4, 3 etc for literal-minded people reading this, but you understand the principle, I hope).  Anyway, then, if no candidate gets more than 50% of No.1 prefs, second prefs come into play. 

In other words, all the 4s, 3s and so on are totted up and the person with the highest score wins.  This means to me that if enough people give a centrist candidate, like Starmer, for instance middle placings, he could conceivably win if he has a few but not most No.1s.  For this reason, I will give nul points (second and so on) to anyone I do not want as Leader or Deputy.

A vote gets taken on first preferences in the first round. If no candidate has reached the 50% mark then the candidate who did worse in the first round is eliminated and the second preference for all the people who voted for them is added to the total. If there is no clear winner then the lowest of the remaining four is eliminated and the third preference of all the people who voted for them is added to the total and so forth.

You only really need to vote for up to four preferences as, if it goes to a fourth round, it will be a knockout between your fourth preference versus your least favourite candidate. I haven't worked out if it's worth adding names at the bottom if you hate those candidates or if it's better to only vote for candidates you actually like. I think the latter is probably the case. So far, my votes are going to:

1. RLB

1. Burgon
2. Butler
3. Rayner

[Buelligan]

Yup, that's pretty much as I understand it and pretty much how I'll be voting.

[greencalx]

You should only leave candidates unranked if you really don't care who wins if your ranked candidates are all eliminated. Put another way, each time you rank a candidate, imagine a parallel universe where they are not standing and the entire race was between those who remain. If you get to the point where you say "in that case, I wouldn't bother voting", then fine, don't bother ranking any further. But if you said "in that miserable situation I would hold my nose and vote for X to stop Y getting in" then you should place X next in the ranking.

You will not be sending any kind of message by leaving boxes blank, other than that you don't give a shit.

[Replies From View]

Most people seem to be saying that if RLB doesn't win the leadership they don't mind who gets in.

[Buelligan]

You should only leave candidates unranked if you really don't care who wins if your ranked candidates are all eliminated. Put another way, each time you rank a candidate, imagine a parallel universe where they are not standing and the entire race was between those who remain. If you get to the point where you say "in that case, I wouldn't bother voting", then fine, don't bother ranking any further. But if you said "in that miserable situation I would hold my nose and vote for X to stop Y getting in" then you should place X next in the ranking.

You will not be sending any kind of message by leaving boxes blank, other than that you don't give a shit.

Yes, I understand that.  I literally feel, in the case of the Leadership, that any other candidate (apart from RLB) would make me reconsider whether or not to vote Labour in any forthcoming election.  I really do feel that all of the others would be unacceptable.  So I may personally loathe Jess Phillips the most but I can't, in good conscience, vote for any of them (a bit like I felt when Corbyn stood).

A bit like would you prefer Ken Clarke, Rees Mogg or Francois to lead the Labour Party?  The answer is, obviously, none of them, although I may dislike some of them less.

[Replies From View]

Yes, I understand that.  I literally feel, in the case of the Leadership, that any other candidate (apart from RLB) would make me reconsider whether or not to vote Labour in any forthcoming election.  I really do feel that all of the others, would be unacceptable.  So I may personally loathe Jess Phillips the most but I can't, in good conscience, vote for any of them (a bit like I felt when Corbyn stood).

As long as you understand that those second, third etc preferences are only counted once RLB is already out of the race.

[thugler]

Yes, I understand that.  I literally feel, in the case of the Leadership, that any other candidate (apart from RLB) would make me reconsider whether or not to vote Labour in any forthcoming election.  I really do feel that all of the others would be unacceptable.  So I may personally loathe Jess Phillips the most but I can't, in good conscience, vote for any of them (a bit like I felt when Corbyn stood).

A bit like would you prefer Ken Clarke, Rees Mogg or Francois to lead the Labour Party?  The answer is, obviously, none of them, although I may dislike some of them less.

Ken Clarke obviously.

Really don't understand this point of view, we barely know anything about how rlb or the others will actually be. Also not voting labour unless you get your goldilocks candidate will again lead to another  tory win.

[NoSleep]

Or another New Labour.

[thugler]

Or another New Labour.

Even that is preferable to another tory win. Plus i don't believe any of the leadership candidates except maybe phillips have this in mind. I don't even think it will be used as a strategy as it's no longer a vote winner.

[Fambo Number Mive]

Leader: RLB

Deputy: 1 Butler
2 Rayner
3 Burgeon

Why do we have only one decent candidate for leader but three for the deputy leadership?

[NoSleep]

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/thousands-sign-open-letter-urging-long-bailey-reverse-commitment-board-deputies

Thousands of people are calling on Rebecca Long Bailey to oppose the 10 pledges advocated by the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) over fears that they seek to censor criticism of Israel.

The letter praises shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon and shadow women and equalities secretary Dawn Butler for saying that they would not sign up to the pledges at a Labour leadership hustings in Liverpool on Saturday.

[thugler]

Leader: RLB

Deputy: 1 Butler
2 Rayner
3 Burgeon

Why do we have only one decent candidate for leader but three for the deputy leadership?

Genuinely don't understand how burgon is anything but a complete liability.

If we wasn't left wing you wouldn't want him anywhere near a big role. That's not enough of a qualifier to me, nor is it all that clear that rlb is orders of magnitude more left wing than other candidates.

Imagining if RLB wasn't running and abbott was as the supposed corbyn candidate? Would she get your vote regardless?

[Buelligan]

Ken Clarke obviously.

Really don't understand this point of view, we barely know anything about how rlb or the others will actually be. Also not voting labour unless you get your goldilocks candidate will again lead to another  tory win.

But Ken Clarke to lead the Labour Party?  How would it be the Labour Party if Ken Clarke was voted in to be its leader?

During his tenure as leader Blair turned Labour into some sort of centrist non-Labour Party.  Millions of Labour voters stopped voting Labour.  Stopping another tory win is all about stopping another Iraq War, stopping PFI, stopping tuition fees, building council houses instead of selling them off.  If we wanted a centrist party, we could've voted LibDem, we could've voted TINGE.

[thugler]

But Ken Clarke to lead the Labour Party?  How would it be the Labour Party if Ken Clarke was voted in to be its leader?

What a bizarre question. None of the candidates for leader are remotely close to any of those. I was pointing out that it's pretty easy to pick out the least worst, and pretending if you don't get the precise person you want it's all the same is delusional.

This is very much the same issue as your refusal to countenance tactical voting even when there is virtually zero chance of your preferred option winning.

Blair was fucking awful but it was far better than having a tory government.

[Buelligan]

It may be a bizarre question, here it is again just to refresh your memory

A bit like would you prefer Ken Clarke, Rees Mogg or Francois to lead the Labour Party?  The answer is, obviously, none of them, although I may dislike some of them less.

but that was what I asked and what you chose to answer.

To me, it's as obvious as a thing can be, I'm not voting Labour because it's called Labour, I vote Labour because what they propose is what I believe in.  If they stop making those proposals, I will stop voting for them no matter how much I hate the tories or how nicely they present themselves.

[Big Mclargehuge]

RLB/AR

I'm warming to Burgeon though; I need to read into it more honestly. I know enough about Rayner to feel safe voting for her.

[imitationleather]

Mark Francois leading the Labour party would be pretty funny. Would watch a documentary about that happening definitely.

[Replies From View]

But Ken Clarke to lead the Labour Party?  How would it be the Labour Party if Ken Clarke was voted in to be its leader?

Superman without his clothes on?  I reckon he'd be good, albeit a little too US-friendly.

[holyzombiejesus]

Don't really mind if Rayner wins but will be voting for Burgon on the basis of this...

https://twitter.com/chelleryn99/status/1219194256541343744

Still don't really like his delivery or think he comes across very well - just as an example, someone else would have fucking buried that dick on QT who said he wasn't in the 5% of earners whereas Burgon just looked a bit gormless - but fuck it, he stood up for Corbyn when hardly anyone else was.

[Paul Calf]

It may be a bizarre question, here it is again just to refresh your memorybut that was what I asked and what you chose to answer.

To me, it's as obvious as a thing can be, I'm not voting Labour because it's called Labour, I vote Labour because what they propose is what I believe in.  If they stop making those proposals, I will stop voting for them no matter how much I hate the tories or how nicely they present themselves.

You've just post-justified all of the attacks on Corbyn's leadership.

[NoSleep]

Genuinely don't understand how burgon is anything but a complete liability.

How is he a liability? He stood out in the first hustings as the most genuine of the candidates; explaining his position rather than sloganeering for votes (reminiscent of Corbyn's own authenticity).

[holyzombiejesus]

I can see how he might be thought of as a liability. He's the anti-Starmer. He seems a bit slow, he looks really 'unpolished' (whatever that is) and his voice is annoying.  You know how Rayner received widespread praise for her performance in the GE debates? I can't imagine that ever happening with Burgon, even if ideologically he's bob on. Also, there's some "anti-semitism" thing that was caught on film and he subsequently lied about saying. I'm sure Rayner will win but I'd like him to have a respectable share of the vote. I believe he's a really decent man and some of the people I canvassed with at the GE couldn't speak highly enough of him, although I do get that he comes across quite poorly.