David Miliband quitting politics. Is Labour dead?

[gordondaviesmoustache]

50, but that's my final offer :-)

No, forget it, you want me to go to the upper end of my certainty but not the bottom end of yours. You've previously declared you foresee no Labour majority at all, that British electorates rarely chuck out a government after one term, yet you want me to go all the way up to 75? You're trying to set the terms heavily in your favour and not in the middle where they should be if you wanted a fair and proper bet. I'm having none of it. I think you've just pulled a bit of ****'s trick to be honest.

All the way to 75? I've just offered 50.

No wonder the Soviet Union went bust.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Just out of interest,how do you explain the fact that a Labour party under a man to the left of Blair is massive odds on to win the next election if left wing politics is anathema to the mainstream electorate?

Odds on to win a majority of one? Seems a little paradoxical.

That's Liberals for you - reneging on promises and goalpost-moving is their default setting.

Labour’s 2001 Manifesto commitment not to raise tuition fees.

An overall majority of one would still be an overall majority,and bookmakers would pay out accordingly.
You really do seem to have fundamental issues regarding what actually constitutes 'winning' an election.
Which is ironic,given that your party gets a say in things,despite finishing a remote third.

 

[Skashion]

All the way to 75? I've just offered 50.

No wonder the Soviet Union went bust.

Fuck off.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

It never ceases to amaze me how much in denial the left are on this, AC.

They only have to look to the outcome of the 1983 General Election, when there was an even smaller middle class than exists today, to see what the outcome would be if they went back to their roots.

Amazing indeed. Most on the far left of the labour party detest the bloke who made them attractive to the electorate, although I agree with them, I always thought him a slimy twat.

I'm amazed you're amazed.
Anyone with half a brain can see why Labour leftwingers would oppose a rightwing party leader who betrayed their core values and abandoned key policies.
It really isn't rocket science.

Those core values and key policies of the far left are the very reasons Blair abandoned them. Miliband may be to the left of Blair but he is nothing like the old guard of the labour party, he's even publicly admitted they 'Got it wrong' on immigration and has a far more pragmatic attitude towards the general consensus on deficit reduction.
Plus, halfway through electoral terms it is usual for incumbent parties to suffer in the polls, so it's not over yet.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Just out of interest,how do you explain the fact that a Labour party under a man to the left of Blair is massive odds on to win the next election if left wing politics is anathema to the mainstream electorate?

Odds on to win a majority of one? Seems a little paradoxical.

That's Liberals for you - reneging on promises and goalpost-moving is their default setting.

Labour’s 2001 Manifesto commitment not to raise tuition fees.

An overall majority of one would still be an overall majority,and bookmakers would pay out accordingly.
You really do seem to have fundamental issues regarding what actually constitutes 'winning' an election.
Which is ironic,given that your party gets a say in things,despite finishing a remote third.

If the most likely outcome is a narrow majority, as you assert, that is somewhat inconsistent with Labour being "odds on" to win the election. If they were odds on to win then mathematics would dictate a clear, decisive or dare I say it, "convincing" , majority. Surely an inveterate gambler like you can see that.

I suppose it is ironic that a party that opposes our unfair and disproportionate electoral system got to use it to their own ends :-)

 

[tidyman]

Odds on to win a majority of one? Seems a little paradoxical.

Labour’s 2001 Manifesto commitment not to raise tuition fees.

An overall majority of one would still be an overall majority,and bookmakers would pay out accordingly.
You really do seem to have fundamental issues regarding what actually constitutes 'winning' an election.
Which is ironic,given that your party gets a say in things,despite finishing a remote third.

If the most likely outcome is a narrow majority, as you assert, that is somewhat inconsistent with Labour being "odds on" to win the election. If they were odds on to win then mathematics would dictate a clear, decisive or dare I say it, "convincing" , majority. Surely an inveterate gambler like you can see that.

I suppose it is ironic that a party that opposes our unfair and disproportionate electoral system got to use it to their own ends :-)

Labour are odds on to win the next election.

Roughly 2 to 1 on with most bookmakers.

That's a fact and I didn't even need google.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Odds on to win a majority of one? Seems a little paradoxical.

Labour’s 2001 Manifesto commitment not to raise tuition fees.

An overall majority of one would still be an overall majority,and bookmakers would pay out accordingly.
You really do seem to have fundamental issues regarding what actually constitutes 'winning' an election.
Which is ironic,given that your party gets a say in things,despite finishing a remote third.

If the most likely outcome is a narrow majority, as you assert, that is somewhat inconsistent with Labour being "odds on" to win the election. If they were odds on to win then mathematics would dictate a clear, decisive or dare I say it, "convincing" , majority. Surely an inveterate gambler like you can see that.

I suppose it is ironic that a party that opposes our unfair and disproportionate electoral system got to use it to their own ends :-)

Well it took nine pages,but finally we have it.
A Liberal bemoaning the first-past-the-post electoral system.
Which is a bit like Oscar Pistorious claiming that the Brazilian had better artificial legs after he lost.
I don't care for the current system myself,and think it needs a much overdue overhaul,regardless of who wins,but for the moment that's the system we have,and we are stuck with it.
Although proportional representation/single transferrable vote could well end up in a situation like Italy,where nobody ever has a mandate,and the majority party ends up being propped up by a few chancers and political opportunists.
A bit like here,really!

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Would this not be worth betting on closer to the time when Labour have some clear polices and the tories are nearing the end of ripping the heart out of every young person alive

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Would this not be worth betting on closer to the time when Labour have some clear polices and the tories are nearing the end of ripping the heart out of every young person alive

Labour could be 1/25 nearer the time the way these tory cunts are going
So get the good price now :)

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Would this not be worth betting on closer to the time when Labour have some clear polices and the tories are nearing the end of ripping the heart out of every young person alive

Labour could be 1/25 nearer the time the way these tory ***** are going
So get the good price now :)

Just saying strange things can happen. We might strike oil in Plymouth and all be rich in 3 years time. Also we dont really know any Labour polices either way it doesn't bother me because im voting BNP all the way