Tony Blair warns his party of 'annihilation'

[webfact]

Blair warns his party of 'annihilation'

LONDON (AP) — Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says his party faces "annihilation" should Labour elect far-left lawmaker Jeremy Corbyn as its leader.

Writing in the Guardian on Thursday, Blair urged the party to reject Corbyn, who leads opinion polls and has alarmed centrists with calls to renationalize some industries and withdraw from NATO.

Blair says the contest is no longer just about choosing the next leader — it's about whether Labour will remain a viable party of government.

"If Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader it won't be a defeat like 1983 or 2015 at the next election," Blair wrote. "It will mean rout, possibly annihilation."

Acknowledging that he is a divisive figure, Blair says Labour supporters should reject Corbyn "whether you used to support me or hate me."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-13

[KarenBravo]

Seems the UK Labour party and the US Republican party have something in common.

When they lose an election, they come to the conclusion that they need to go further to the left (Labour), or, to the right (Republican).

Catering to their own party members instead of what will attract more voters.

[ABCer]

The funny part is

When the Left go all the way to the left

And when the Right go all the way to the right

....

they meet each other in one desire - get out of EU!

Don't you Brits miss M. Thatcher?

[lungbing]

Yes, very much. She was a divisive figure, but she stood up for the UK.

Blair is not a divisive figure. Everybody hates him and would love to see him brought

to court and branded as the traitor he is.

[DeaconJohn]

Seems the UK Labour party and the US Republican party have something in common.

When they lose an election, they come to the conclusion that they need to go further to the left (Labour), or, to the right (Republican).

Catering to their own party members instead of what will attract more voters.

None of the parties in either country ever really 'lose' an election.

The farce just goes on.

[emilymat]

Yes, very much. She was a divisive figure, but she stood up for the UK.

Blair is not a divisive figure. Everybody hates him and would love to see him brought

to court and branded as the traitor he is.

Just to apply some balance - particularly for our US friends.

Not everyone 'hates' Tony Blair. It is something that has built up over the recent years, specifically because of the Iraq invasion. I personally will await the Chilcot report (the 6 year UK enquiry into the circumstances lading up to the UK decision to join the US in the invasion). This hopefully will be out later this year.

1997 is a long time ago I agree, but Tony Blair won landslide victories, and 2 further elections in the UK on domestic policies, initially long before 9/11 and Iraq.

You see, Mrs Thatcher is portrayed as the great leader of the UK, yet half the country almost despised the woman. Also, you could argue that the loss of life in the Falklands war was unnecessary. As the UK fleet was sailing south a deal had been brokered by General Haig (US) which could have prevented the conflict and saved the lives of 250 UK military and countless Argentinians. But she would have none of it - given polls at the time showed her as the most unpopular PM in history. The conflict saved her and she went on to election victory on the back of the Falklands.

As I said, I'm simply trying to provide balance. I think Tony Blair is correct in his analysis of a victory for Jeremy Corbin - who is an honourable MP. The country will simply not return a Labour government ever, under those circumstances. The UK press with only about 2 exceptions would crucify him and his policies, and I'm afraid that is what decides elections.

It's a bit like the US poster earlier said. Would Donald Trump lead the Republicans to victory?. I'm sure the guy has many supporters but it's perceptions that decide elections.

I suppose it's time that can distort events. You would have to be over at least 25-30 to have a clear recollection of 9/11 etc. and over 45 to have been a student of the politics of the 1980's in the UK.

Maybe that's one advantage of being an old fogey

Edited August 14, 2015 by Scott

[nodomino]

Tony must have some profitable schemes that could be upset by an actual labor upset.

[NoshowJones]

Labour have already been annihilated, in Scotand anyway.

[Steely Dan]

I know of quite a few Conservative voters who have joined the Labour Party in order to vote for Corbyn. If they insist on ramming their ship against an iceberg it only seems proper to help stoke the boiler.

[FangFerang]

Warning. Annihilation is imminent. Urge all Americans to support Bush III.

Warning. Annihilation is imminent. Urge all Americans to support Bush III.

Warning. Annihilation is imminent. Urge all Americans to support Bush III.....

This is a recording.

[Baerboxer]

Yes, very much. She was a divisive figure, but she stood up for the UK.

Blair is not a divisive figure. Everybody hates him and would love to see him brought

to court and branded as the traitor he is.

Just to apply some balance - particularly for our US friends.

Not everyone 'hates' Tony Blair. It is something that has built up over the recent years, specifically because of the Iraq invasion. I personally will await the Chilcot report (the 6 year UK enquiry into the circumstances lading up to the UK decision to join the US in the invasion). This hopefully will be out later this year.

1997 is a long time ago I agree, but Tony Blair won landslide victories, and 2 further elections in the UK on domestic policies, initially long before 9/11 and Iraq.

You see, Mrs Thatcher is portrayed as the great leader of the UK, yet half the country almost despised the woman. Also, you could argue that the loss of life in the Falklands war was unnecessary. As the UK fleet was sailing south a deal had been brokered by General Haig (US) which could have prevented the conflict and saved the lives of 250 UK military and countless Argentinians. But she would have none of it - given polls at the time showed her as the most unpopular PM in history. The conflict saved her and she went on to election victory on the back of the Falklands.

As I said, I'm simply trying to provide balance. I think Tony Blair is correct in his analysis of a victory for Jeremy Corbin - who is an honourable MP. The country will simply not return a Labour government ever, under those circumstances. The UK press with only about 2 exceptions would crucify him and his policies, and I'm afraid that is what decides elections.

It's a bit like the US poster earlier said. Would Donald Trump lead the Republicans to victory?. I'm sure the guy has many supporters but it's perceptions that decide elections.

I suppose it's time that can distort events. You would have to be over at least 25-30 to have a clear recollection of 9/11 etc. and over 45 to have been a student of the politics of the 1980's in the UK.

Maybe that's one advantage of being an old fogey

And, just for the balance you strive to show. UK was the sick man of Europe, and looking terminal, when Thatcher took over. The medicine might have been unpalatable and arguable went on too long and too far - but without it the UK would have been well and truly fcked. I know people who lost their lives, were wounded, or had mental issues as a result of the Falklands. But letting another country invade and take something by force, which was a diversion of their Junta dictator's poor government performance, was not an option.

Blair and his then bosom buddy Brown flogged off UK gold reserves cheaply and used some very creative accounting which came back to bite; as did his deregulation of the banking and financial industry which pleased his banker mates. After dear old Tone had bailed out of course and left Browny to get covered in the sticky brown stuff.

[Baerboxer]

Labour have already been annihilated, in Scotand anyway.

And they achieved that all on their own. No credible polices.

[NoshowJones]

Labour have already been annihilated, in Scotand anyway.

And they achieved that all on their own. No credible polices.

They do have policies (the labour party I mean) lie to the people (like all politicians do) tell them your the party of the working class

promise them everything, then put the country into worse debt.

They have done it time and time again.

[TimmyT]

The funny part is

When the Left go all the way to the left

And when the Right go all the way to the right

....

they meet each other in one desire - get out of EU!

Don't you Brits miss M. Thatcher?

Mrs Thatcher was a visionary. The last one with a common sense in British politics. British people didn't deserve such a wise prime minister as her.

[jazzyfrosty]

Blair has a cheek, he's a war criminal who needs arresting and taken to The Hague he committed a crime against peace under Nuremberg Principles “planning, preparing, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”. Iraq war was a crime of aggression and violated Article 33 and Article 51 of the UN Charter

Blair knowingly broke international law – 8 months before Iraq invasion Lord Goldsmith senior legal advisor in the British Government informed Blair that attacking Iraq would be a breach of international law/UN Charter. Lord Goldsmith stated that Britain could not use ‘self defense’ because Iraq had not threatened Britain. Blair ignored Goldsmith’s letter and banned him from attending cabinet meetings and denied him going public.

[Basil B]

Well the Labour party tried to entice new membership by offering a sign up to vote...

Seems so many people despise the Labour that the signed up to help the party shot itself in the foot.

They overwhelmingly elected Corbyn the only true socialist on the ballot paper...

Veteran left-wing MP Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour Party by a landslide.

Mr Corbyn, who began the contest as a rank outsider, saw off a challenge from frontbenchers Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall.

He gained 251,417 or 59.5% of first preference votes - his nearest rival, Mr Burnham, got 19%.

Ms Cooper was third on 17% and Ms Kendall a distant fourth with 4.5% of the vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34223157

Edited September 12, 2015 by Basil B

[RuamRudy]

Yes, very much. She was a divisive figure, but she stood up for the UK.

Blair is not a divisive figure. Everybody hates him and would love to see him brought

to court and branded as the traitor he is.

Just to apply some balance - particularly for our US friends.

Not everyone 'hates' Tony Blair. It is something that has built up over the recent years, specifically because of the Iraq invasion. I personally will await the Chilcot report (the 6 year UK enquiry into the circumstances lading up to the UK decision to join the US in the invasion). This hopefully will be out later this year.

1997 is a long time ago I agree, but Tony Blair won landslide victories, and 2 further elections in the UK on domestic policies, initially long before 9/11 and Iraq.

You see, Mrs Thatcher is portrayed as the great leader of the UK, yet half the country almost despised the woman. Also, you could argue that the loss of life in the Falklands war was unnecessary. As the UK fleet was sailing south a deal had been brokered by General Haig (US) which could have prevented the conflict and saved the lives of 250 UK military and countless Argentinians. But she would have none of it - given polls at the time showed her as the most unpopular PM in history. The conflict saved her and she went on to election victory on the back of the Falklands.

As I said, I'm simply trying to provide balance. I think Tony Blair is correct in his analysis of a victory for Jeremy Corbin - who is an honourable MP. The country will simply not return a Labour government ever, under those circumstances. The UK press with only about 2 exceptions would crucify him and his policies, and I'm afraid that is what decides elections.

It's a bit like the US poster earlier said. Would Donald Trump lead the Republicans to victory?. I'm sure the guy has many supporters but it's perceptions that decide elections.

I suppose it's time that can distort events. You would have to be over at least 25-30 to have a clear recollection of 9/11 etc. and over 45 to have been a student of the politics of the 1980's in the UK.

Maybe that's one advantage of being an old fogey

And, just for the balance you strive to show. UK was the sick man of Europe, and looking terminal, when Thatcher took over. The medicine might have been unpalatable and arguable went on too long and too far - but without it the UK would have been well and truly fcked. I know people who lost their lives, were wounded, or had mental issues as a result of the Falklands. But letting another country invade and take something by force, which was a diversion of their Junta dictator's poor government performance, was not an option.

Blair and his then bosom buddy Brown flogged off UK gold reserves cheaply and used some very creative accounting which came back to bite; as did his deregulation of the banking and financial industry which pleased his banker mates. After dear old Tone had bailed out of course and left Browny to get covered in the sticky brown stuff.

There is no doubt that the UK needed a change of direction in the 70s, but do you really think that Thatcherism was the only solution? There are many communities in Wales, Scotland and Northern England who would contest that the medicine of 30 years ago devastated them at the time and is still causing them pain today. Thatcher and Raygun may forged a path that the rest of the capitalist world clamoured to follow, but was the naked greed that they espoused and their continual onslaught against the working classes really something to be respected? The inequality that they deliberately fostered has cemented itself into a global system where governments are controlled by corporations and the poor are too busy fighting amongst themselves for the meagre scraps they are afforded, to see the massive lie that is 'democracy' today.

[RuamRudy]

Blair has a cheek, he's a war criminal who needs arresting and taken to The Hague he committed a crime against peace under Nuremberg Principles “planning, preparing, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”. Iraq war was a crime of aggression and violated Article 33 and Article 51 of the UN Charter

Blair knowingly broke international law – 8 months before Iraq invasion Lord Goldsmith senior legal advisor in the British Government informed Blair that attacking Iraq would be a breach of international law/UN Charter. Lord Goldsmith stated that Britain could not use ‘self defense’ because Iraq had not threatened Britain. Blair ignored Goldsmith’s letter and banned him from attending cabinet meetings and denied him going public.

Don't forget the dodgy dossier that Alistair Campbell 'sexed up', and the mysterious death of UN weapons expert Dr David Kelly. So many reasons to drag Blair to the Hague in chains.

[Publicus]

First heard of and saw Tony Blair on television in the USA in his speech accepting leadership of Labour and he blew me away, which is what he did to voters in three consecutive elections over there.

Until then Thatcher benefited in each of her victories by Labour's ideologies, dogmas, bone headedness. Thatcher won those elections for sure, but she got a big default assist from Labour's utter failures to be a viable political party the broad electorate could have any confidence in. The first election after Blair, Gordie made the first Cameron government possible by driving enough voters to the LibDems that Labour had to throw in the towel. Not enough voters could go with Cameron but not enough could go for Gordie either, so the LibDems sent the moving lorry to Number 10 to let the Mr Has-Bean Gordo Prudence clear out tout de suite while the well scrubbed Dave went to see HRM.

As the first poster noted, in the US the Republican party is where Labour was during the Thatcher years. Unlike the UK PM, the US leader is constitutionally limited to two terms which means the Democratic party will be able to continue building itself with another leader to carry the party forward in ways the Torries of the time were unable to do.

It is anyway the case the UK has a center-right Conservative party whereas the US has an actual conservative party driven by a hard core right wing the old Vichy French would kiss on both cheeks.

[RuamRudy]

Well the Labour party tried to entice new membership by offering a sign up to vote...

Seems so many people despise the Labour that the signed up to help the party shot itself in the foot.

They overwhelmingly elected Corbyn the only true socialist on the ballot paper...

Veteran left-wing MP Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour Party by a landslide.

Mr Corbyn, who began the contest as a rank outsider, saw off a challenge from frontbenchers Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall.

He gained 251,417 or 59.5% of first preference votes - his nearest rival, Mr Burnham, got 19%.

Ms Cooper was third on 17% and Ms Kendall a distant fourth with 4.5% of the vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34223157

He took almost 50% of the votes cast by full Labour members (121,751 from 245,520 votes) so the £3 agents provocateurs made no difference. This is not a success for the nasty party, but a success for democracy.

[fish fingers]

Tony Blair is worried that he'll eventually go to jail ..

JC actually touched on the subject a few months back

[MAJIC]

Seems the UK Labour party and the US Republican party have something in common.

When they lose an election, they come to the conclusion that they need to go further to the left (Labour), or, to the right (Republican).

Catering to their own party members instead of what will attract more voters.

Yep once again Labour in desperation have shot themselves in the foot,admittedly they didn't have much to chose from the Candidates standing for election. Sadly they went overboard and Elected another no hoper like Michael Foot,who also wanted to turn the clock back to extreme left wing rules,and Party Union control Policies,Labour had moved on from the Reds under the bed days,and may now be looking forward to another decade out of power,unless they can find another credible leader.Jeremy Corbyn is a long way from that leader! and a big vote loser,if the Party faithful have in the past rejected many leaders,then Corbyn is unlikely to be around in 2020,just his Immigration Policies are enough to put him out of favour,The Tories must be loving it,and never been so Lucky! For once I agree with Tony Blair.

Edited September 12, 2015 by MAJIC

[MAJIC]

Labour have already been annihilated, in Scotand anyway.

And they achieved that all on their own. No credible polices.

They do have policies (the labour party I mean) lie to the people (like all politicians do) tell them your the party of the working class

promise them everything, then put the country into worse debt.

They have done it time and time again.

Put the Country in debt,or do like the Tories do sell all the peoples assets off to their rich buddies! and their problem is there isn't much left to sell!

[thaibeachlovers]

Yes, very much. She was a divisive figure, but she stood up for the UK.

Blair is not a divisive figure. Everybody hates him and would love to see him brought

to court and branded as the traitor he is.

Just to apply some balance - particularly for our US friends.

Not everyone 'hates' Tony Blair. It is something that has built up over the recent years, specifically because of the Iraq invasion. I personally will await the Chilcot report (the 6 year UK enquiry into the circumstances lading up to the UK decision to join the US in the invasion). This hopefully will be out later this year.

1997 is a long time ago I agree, but Tony Blair won landslide victories, and 2 further elections in the UK on domestic policies, initially long before 9/11 and Iraq.

You see, Mrs Thatcher is portrayed as the great leader of the UK, yet half the country almost despised the woman. Also, you could argue that the loss of life in the Falklands war was unnecessary. As the UK fleet was sailing south a deal had been brokered by General Haig (US) which could have prevented the conflict and saved the lives of 250 UK military and countless Argentinians. But she would have none of it - given polls at the time showed her as the most unpopular PM in history. The conflict saved her and she went on to election victory on the back of the Falklands.

As I said, I'm simply trying to provide balance. I think Tony Blair is correct in his analysis of a victory for Jeremy Corbin - who is an honourable MP. The country will simply not return a Labour government ever, under those circumstances. The UK press with only about 2 exceptions would crucify him and his policies, and I'm afraid that is what decides elections.

It's a bit like the US poster earlier said. Would Donald Trump lead the Republicans to victory?. I'm sure the guy has many supporters but it's perceptions that decide elections.

I suppose it's time that can distort events. You would have to be over at least 25-30 to have a clear recollection of 9/11 etc. and over 45 to have been a student of the politics of the 1980's in the UK.

Maybe that's one advantage of being an old fogey

And, just for the balance you strive to show. UK was the sick man of Europe, and looking terminal, when Thatcher took over. The medicine might have been unpalatable and arguable went on too long and too far - but without it the UK would have been well and truly fcked. I know people who lost their lives, were wounded, or had mental issues as a result of the Falklands. But letting another country invade and take something by force, which was a diversion of their Junta dictator's poor government performance, was not an option.

Blair and his then bosom buddy Brown flogged off UK gold reserves cheaply and used some very creative accounting which came back to bite; as did his deregulation of the banking and financial industry which pleased his banker mates. After dear old Tone had bailed out of course and left Browny to get covered in the sticky brown stuff.

I was in the UK during the Blair years, and the tragedy of Blair is that with two majorities he could have done great things for Britain, but he threw it all away to be Bush's poodle.

As for Brown, he should never have been PM as he proved his incompetence already. He wasted 6 billion quid by throwing it at the NHS where it got squandered.

IMO those two destroyed any prestige the Labour party had before. I voted against Labour the second time, just because of Blair, though Labour would have been my first choice otherwise.

[thaibeachlovers]

First heard of and saw Tony Blair on television in the USA in his speech accepting leadership of Labour and he blew me away, which is what he did to voters in three consecutive elections over there.

Until then Thatcher benefited in each of her victories by Labour's ideologies, dogmas, bone headedness. Thatcher won those elections for sure, but she got a big default assist from Labour's utter failures to be a viable political party the broad electorate could have any confidence in. The first election after Blair, Gordie made the first Cameron government possible by driving enough voters to the LibDems that Labour had to throw in the towel. Not enough voters could go with Cameron but not enough could go for Gordie either, so the LibDems sent the moving lorry to Number 10 to let the Mr Has-Bean Gordo Prudence clear out tout de suite while the well scrubbed Dave went to see HRM.

As the first poster noted, in the US the Republican party is where Labour was during the Thatcher years. Unlike the UK PM, the US leader is constitutionally limited to two terms which means the Democratic party will be able to continue building itself with another leader to carry the party forward in ways the Torries of the time were unable to do.

It is anyway the case the UK has a center-right Conservative party whereas the US has an actual conservative party driven by a hard core right wing the old Vichy French would kiss on both cheeks.

It's HRH, not HRM.

[johna]

New Labour morphed into Conservative under Blair, a man who came to power with a massive majority after Thatchers, bargain basement sale of Britain's public utilities. Blair spent so much time on overseas trips it would have embarrassed Yingluck. news readers commented "this week Tony Blair will visit the UK" and Tony's love of the USA earned him the title "Americas ambassador to the UK".

Tony's exploits as Middle East Peace envoy rubbed salt into every wound in the Middle east except Israel whose puddle he has become.

His business activities since stepping down from parliament have become so controversial that he has moved them into complex offshore entities to hide them from public scrutiny.

This week Tony denied that he had any knowledge that JP Morgan which pays him $2 million a year was involved in a phone company deal he was promoting for the West Bank,

Here is a very amusing look at Tonys double dealing,

The Spectator

Rod Liddle 14 January 2012

How can we persuade our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to devote a little more time to making money for himself and rather less time for his many charitable concerns?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/7568253/tony-blair-is-relentlessly-selfsacrificing-hes-an-example-to-us-all/

[Basil B]

Well the Labour party tried to entice new membership by offering a sign up to vote...

Seems so many people despise the Labour that the signed up to help the party shot itself in the foot.

They overwhelmingly elected Corbyn the only true socialist on the ballot paper...

Veteran left-wing MP Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour Party by a landslide.

Mr Corbyn, who began the contest as a rank outsider, saw off a challenge from frontbenchers Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall.

He gained 251,417 or 59.5% of first preference votes - his nearest rival, Mr Burnham, got 19%.

Ms Cooper was third on 17% and Ms Kendall a distant fourth with 4.5% of the vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34223157

He took almost 50% of the votes cast by full Labour members (121,751 from 245,520 votes) so the £3 agents provocateurs made no difference. This is not a success for the nasty party, but a success for democracy.

Do not forget the affiliate supporters, mainly trade unionists...

What is known is that many of the elected MP's did not support him, be interesting to see who's in the new shadow cabinet... Cooper, Kendall and Burnham have all said they will not participate.

Wonder if we will see a breakaway party "The New New Labour"

[Basil B]

New Labour morphed into Conservative under Blair, a man who came to power with a massive majority after Thatchers, bargain basement sale of Britain's public utilities. Blair spent so much time on overseas trips it would have embarrassed Yingluck. news readers commented "this week Tony Blair will visit the UK" and Tony's love of the USA earned him the title "Americas ambassador to the UK".

Tony's exploits as Middle East Peace envoy rubbed salt into every wound in the Middle east except Israel whose puddle he has become.

His business activities since stepping down from parliament have become so controversial that he has moved them into complex offshore entities to hide them from public scrutiny.

This week Tony denied that he had any knowledge that JP Morgan which pays him $2 million a year was involved in a phone company deal he was promoting for the West Bank,

Here is a very amusing look at Tonys double dealing,

The Spectator

Rod Liddle 14 January 2012

How can we persuade our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to devote a little more time to making money for himself and rather less time for his many charitable concerns?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/7568253/tony-blair-is-relentlessly-selfsacrificing-hes-an-example-to-us-all/

The Israelis are welcome to JWB's Brown Nosed Two Faced Poodle...

Personally I still think he is a war criminal along with JWB

[RuamRudy]

Well the Labour party tried to entice new membership by offering a sign up to vote...

Seems so many people despise the Labour that the signed up to help the party shot itself in the foot.

They overwhelmingly elected Corbyn the only true socialist on the ballot paper...

Veteran left-wing MP Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour Party by a landslide.

Mr Corbyn, who began the contest as a rank outsider, saw off a challenge from frontbenchers Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall.

He gained 251,417 or 59.5% of first preference votes - his nearest rival, Mr Burnham, got 19%.

Ms Cooper was third on 17% and Ms Kendall a distant fourth with 4.5% of the vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34223157

He took almost 50% of the votes cast by full Labour members (121,751 from 245,520 votes) so the £3 agents provocateurs made no difference. This is not a success for the nasty party, but a success for democracy.

Do not forget the affiliate supporters, mainly trade unionists...

What is known is that many of the elected MP's did not support him, be interesting to see who's in the new shadow cabinet... Cooper, Kendall and Burnham have all said they will not participate.

Wonder if we will see a breakaway party "The New New Labour"

They would be better off joining the nasty party - there is not a huge gulf between many Blairites and the Tories.

[Steely Dan]

Well the Labour party tried to entice new membership by offering a sign up to vote...

Seems so many people despise the Labour that the signed up to help the party shot itself in the foot.

They overwhelmingly elected Corbyn the only true socialist on the ballot paper...

Veteran left-wing MP Jeremy Corbyn has been elected leader of the Labour Party by a landslide.

Mr Corbyn, who began the contest as a rank outsider, saw off a challenge from frontbenchers Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall.

He gained 251,417 or 59.5% of first preference votes - his nearest rival, Mr Burnham, got 19%.

Ms Cooper was third on 17% and Ms Kendall a distant fourth with 4.5% of the vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34223157

He took almost 50% of the votes cast by full Labour members (121,751 from 245,520 votes) so the £3 agents provocateurs made no difference. This is not a success for the nasty party, but a success for democracy.

Do not forget the affiliate supporters, mainly trade unionists...

What is known is that many of the elected MP's did not support him, be interesting to see who's in the new shadow cabinet... Cooper, Kendall and Burnham have all said they will not participate.

Wonder if we will see a breakaway party "The New New Labour"

Yes an SDP mark II is on the cards, at least this would lead to an accurate head count of how many far left loons, useful idiots and proponents of Sharia the red-green alliance can muster.