Best Of

The problem for mandelson is, surely, that if he was Epstein’s “best friend” he SAW something

He might be personally and completely innocent, but how can you become the best friend of this guy and not think “hold on, why is this private island full of underdressed 14 year old girls giving massages to wealthy men”?

Mandelson is far from stupid. He’s famously observant and astute. He didn’t see ANYTHING?

This is a tricky spot for Peter M. I see Starmer has come out to defend him…

All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples.
Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet:
Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree.
Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.”
Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag.
You may take one apple from one child’s bag.
From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?

Child A

I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...

Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?

No. At least not to my mind.

They clearly aren't, as one child is telling you something about his whole set, and the other is not (if you read the re-statement of the problem).

+1, child a has said something about his bag, child b had talked about an individual apple.

Everything else is supposition and I think it’s fair to say that child A has at least 1 good apple while child B has 1 decent apple and 3 bad ones given the lack of conment as to the quality of the other apples

See the restated problem at 1.17.
All we know is that child B has taken one of his four apples at random and shown it to us.
Whereas child A...

Mandleson up to his eyebrows in Epstein scandal.

I have no time for Mandelson but it’s obvious he wouldn’t be interested in under age girls . So it’s a nothing burger . More questions should be aimed at Trump and his creepy birthday message .

Er, Epstein has also been accused of molesting boys

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-21/epstein-accused-of-sexual-abuse-by-male-teen-intern-in-lawsuit

Again - I don’t think we can so easily exonerate anyone who was close to Epstein. That goes for left or right - Clinton or Trump. Or royal or famous or billionaire or whatever

Agreed.
It's notable, though, that one party is fairly consistently saying release all the evidence, and the other party, which has the power to do so, is saying 'nothing to see here'.

Did Biden have the evidence?

Surely he would have released it if it fucked Trump?

Not if it destroyed the Clintons. And lots of very wealthy Democrat donors. And other powerful people

That was Epstein’s dark genius. He made sure he ensnared left and right, royal and rich, so he was protected by the vast powerful network of the guilty

Indeed they’re still protecting each other now. Including, it seems, the most powerful man on earth

Yes Biden couldn’t release evidence just implicating Trump as then there would have been calls to release everything so they kept it under wraps . I expect there’s a lot of dirt on a lot of people which will never be released .

Emily Thornberry should be favourite. She wants to change the policy towards Israel which will be very popular in the Party (and the country) and she's one of the few with the legal background to explain how the Israeli leadership should be at the Hague.

If Cyclefree is around can she explain following her post to me on Sunday how following a load of Israeli flag wavers is the best way to to counter anti semitism when the Israelis are almost certainly guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sorry I didn't reply to your post to me on Sunday but I was out and missed it.

I will explain my Greville Jenner reference at another time. Suffice to say he claimed as president of the board of depuries to represent 'the Jewish community'. He possibly represented the Zionist community but there are many Jews who do NOT accept the BoD as a body who speaks for anyone other than Israel.

Emily Thornberry should be favourite. She wants to change the policy towards Israel which will be very popular in the Party (and the country) and she's one of the few with the legal background to explain how the Israeli leadership should be at the Hague.

If Cyclefree is around can she explain following her post to me on Sunday how following a load of Israeli flag wavers is the best way to to counter anti semitism when the Israelis are almost certainly guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sorry I didn't reply to your post to me on Sunday but I was out and missed it.

I will explain my Greville Jenner reference at another time. Suffice to say he claimed as president of the board of depuries to represent 'the Jewish community'. He possibly represented the Zionist community but there are many Jews who do NOT accept the BoD as a body who speaks for anyone other than Israel.

The problem I see at the moment is that any criticism of Israel seems to instantly result in people being attacked as anti-Semitic which while it silents some people now it’s creating a bigger long term issue

All this talk about polling reminds me of an intriguing puzzle I devised from recent experiences with wasp-damaged apples.
Anyone who is into the difficulties of polling and sampling may find it interesting. Please post your answers but don't spoil the fun by giving any reasoning or explanation yet:
Two children pick apples from the same wasp-busy tree.
Child A picks 3 apples and says: “At least one of mine has no wasp holes.”
Child B picks 4 apples and shows you one that is definitely hole-free, then puts it back in the bag.
You may take one apple from one child’s bag.
From which bag do you have the better chance of getting an apple without holes — A’s or B’s?

Child A

I make it about 2.3 times more likely ...

Child A and Child B's statements are identical in effect, no?

No. At least not to my mind.

@Stefan_Boscia
NEW: Weekly YouGov voting intention poll for The Times/Sky News

Reform goes backward after party conference

RFM 27% (-2)
LAB 22% (+2)
CON 17% (=)
LDEM 15% (=)
GRN 10% (+2)

YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.

TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source)
Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach

Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.

Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.

As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them

Indeed.

There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.

But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.

Is that the Nigel Farage who took a fringe party to the top of national polls TWICE, won several national elections, is the most feared and skilled political operator in the country, changed British history by enabling then winnng Brexit and is right now on course for an unprecedented victory in a general election?

That nigel Farage? Yeah. Stupid. Doesn’t understand elections

Fucksake the level of discourse on this forum

Learn to read. I said Farage does not understand FPTP elections; contrasted those with his success at European elections; and illustrated same with his taking Reform to be our third party in terms of votes but whose MPs could share a taxi.

The point is, which can even be discerned in your rant, that Farage is good at racking up votes but not in the targeted manner needed to win FPTP elections.

@Stefan_Boscia
NEW: Weekly YouGov voting intention poll for The Times/Sky News

Reform goes backward after party conference

RFM 27% (-2)
LAB 22% (+2)
CON 17% (=)
LDEM 15% (=)
GRN 10% (+2)

YouGov is consistently giving slightly lower readings for Reform compared to most other pollsters. I'd be interested to know why this might be.

TSE posted about it earlier. They weight down non voters from last time (which is a key Ref support source)
Pretty much inverse mirror of FoN approach

Yes, because non-voters are habitual non-voters and habitual non-voters do not vote.

Except when they do which is why even Nigel Farage thought Remain won the Brexit referendum.

As thing stand, the next GE is going to play along very similar lines to the referendum. There is a party with momentum fuelled by a distrust of the status quo, it could be a mistake to discount those who say they’re going to vote for them

Indeed.

There is a reason to question Reform's chances and that is that Nigel Farage has never understood FPTP elections. That is why in previous guises he racked up lots of MEPs and hardly any MPs. Last year, Reform got more votes than the LibDems but Ed Davey has 15 times as many MPs (ironically for a party that claims to believe in proportional representation). Never mind the polls now; on votes last year, Reform is Britain's third party.

But Nigel Farage doesn't get it and doesn't listen to, well, anyone.