Categories
A 75/1 and 80/1 tip for next PM – politicalbetting.com
A 75/1 and 80/1 tip for next PM – politicalbetting.com
?Don't tell Brenda from Bristol?Oct 27 snap gen election floated by @BorisJohnson alliesWhy??'Wedge week' – NIProtocol, Rwanda, rail row – seen as success??Avoids Privileges Cttee, Covid Inquiry, 1922 confidence vote#WaughOnPolitics in yr inboxhttps://t.co/9TpRQPAPQ3
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I have bets over 100/1 on three Labour females for next PM (Nandy, Reeves, and Cooper). Why? Because Labour will choose a female as their next leader.
Wes Streeting's tweets are vile and they rule him out.
We're going for a woman. Bet accordingly.
p.s. incidentally, it's not impossible that this scenario still works if Boris clings on beyond this autumn, into next year or even 2024. I'm presuming that may be why one of the betting companies is offering me a cash out. They must be jittery.
If you're going down this line then back Rachel Reeves too. And I think my Yvette Cooper punt was worth it in a number of short-term scenarios.
I haven't bothered to bet on Streeting. He won't be elected leader of the Labour Party.
He'll try and ride all the way to the back end of 2024 in the hope that Ukraine, Covid-19 aftershocks, inflation etc all abate so he can give "dividends" prior to dissolution.
I think stirring the election idea is just another of his malicious tactics to try and get the flakey tory MPs into line. It's a desperate threat from an increasingly desperate man.
The two Labour favourites to succeed Starmer are Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting but those odds were before yesterday's hideous Streeting tweets came to light.
Going into an election with that sort of vile, nasty, background would be suicidal for Labour. Streeting's goose is cooked.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1627281/Boris-Johnson-Kyiv-President-Zelensky-Labour-leader-candidate-West-Streeting-gaffe-update
And if he does ever reach Number 10, Streeting would be the first Prime Minister who has discussed violence towards journalists since [are we still allowed to say *checks notes* or is that another banned pb cliché?] Boris Johnson.
Both are indefensible. I'd argue Streetings are worse, as (AIUI) they were made whilst he was an MP.
But like Rayner's scum comments, Labourites on here will be jumping to his defence.
F1: just putting together the pre-race tosh. If anyone actually read the pre-qualifying thingummyjig and followed the not-a-tip on Alonso then congrats. No idea what the odds were.
I'd actually say you were a firm Labourite. Perhaps that's the inverse of "We're all PB Tories now, comrade" ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-61855301
Leaving aside the fact it is Apple (boo, hiss), I do wonder why some large and immensely rich American companies are so against unions and unionisation. Whether Apple, Tesla, Amazon, Google etc are all rather anti-union.
MS's recent position change is rather weak but interesting. They've made a neutrality agreement with the CWA union:
https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2022/06/02/employee-organizing-engagement-labor-economy/
May 2024 will be the penciled-in date, with perhaps late September ‘24 as the contingency, preceded by a tax-cutting budget.
You don't come back from those sorts of tweets.
Betting PostF1: backed Sainz each way for the win at 6.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/06/canada-pre-race-2022.html
He should finish 2nd. Assuming his car doesn't explode.
It's impossible to come up with a reason isn't it?
However, I'm not really a typical Labourite. I've yet to attend a single meeting and not sure I ever will! I vote LibDem tactically and would always support the latter if I thought they had a better chance. I've voted Green sometimes too. And I will continue to be critical of Labour politicians and policies if I think they deserve it. I also think there are some decent Conservatives around, many of whom are as appalled by Johnson as me, as witnessed on politicalbetting.com
But if you want to compare Streeting to Rayner, do Rayner's scum comments matter? Not in any high-minded moral sense but in terms of making a palpable difference. What might end, or at least set back, Angela Rayner's career, and stop her achieving the leadership, is Starmer's gamble on the Durham constabulary, rather than any ill-considered anti-Tory invective.
That is the point. I am not defending Streeting or Rayner. Until a couple of years back, I would have agreed with you. Losing money opposing Boris has changed my mind. Things that should matter, often don't. So far, after only a day so things might yet escalate, this is one of those.
A strong parliamentary Conservative Party could counter this, but this is the most spineless group of Tory MPs in living memory.
Everyone knows the £1000 fine for the census isn't credible, particularly given just how many low-income households haven't done it.
I don't know why that is the case. Robertson blamed people being too busy. And the Ukraine crisis. And cost of living.
Nevertheless, Angela Rayner did demonstrate with that comment that she's not really the right material for PM either.
I'm obvs slightly biased about the female leadership issue but I do think Labour will choose a female. It has surfaced as an 'issue' for the party a few too many times in recent years and it's a definite Achilles heel that lays them wide open to criticism from every other party, with some justification.
Nandy, Reeves, Cooper seem to be the obvious choices and I have bets on all three.
To me the measure of an apology is whether there is true repentance in the form of changed behaviour. Hence I see Rayner has moderated her language over the last 18 months as evidence that the apology was genuine.
I haven't looked into the detail of Streetings tweets, but as a general rule don't clutch my pearls over things said years ago on social media. If we are too persecutory over that then we will have a pisspoor set of anodyne politicians to choose amongst. We have to adapt to the modern world.
I am not want to call for people to resign or be sacked either. I would rather they be voted out.
I'm a libertarian.
My goodness, it is good. Treated with respect and attention by staff and a lovely lounge with a panoramic view of the airport together with free breakfast and unlimited free champagne - dozens of bottles on ice open and you literally pour for yourself whenever you want it. No oiks.
Flying as it used to be, and should be.
I agree though that the next Labour leader is very likely to be a woman. I think Reeves would get the Starmer endorsement.
I wonder if Starmers leaked thoughts suggest that he is planning to step down, even if no FPN. His work is done and I think he recognises that he is a drag on the party.
You'll get that famous middle seat space on board too for putting your champagne.
Enjoy!
Happy Father's Day to all fellow paternal parents!
Anyone tweeting at the time should be cut a little bit of slack.
The problem with Rayner's comments are not just that she made them, but that she doubled down on them. Such comments were the street language of her working-class roots, and that sort of thing.
Her apology was late and forced. I see zero indication she has actually changed her views, even if she is not expressing them. For instance, being seen to work with scum Conservative MPs on non-political matters of mutual interest might be a great start. And she might actually learn that Conservatives are people too...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum
I haven't been fined and I don't know anyone who has. I wish more people would tell them and the BBC poll taxman to fuck off.
I don't bang on about similar gaffes by Conservative or Brexity people either, if you haven't noticed. I try to focus on current behaviour and remarks. It isn't party political to move on from the past, just part of my philosophy of life.
There have always been plenty of lightweights and timeservers in politics, it is only in retrospect that we see them as heavyweights.
"My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it. destruction of manufacturing just yesterday."
Which was not only factually wrong, but hardly focussing on current behaviour or forgiveness...
Normally, it's 2-3 times the price of economy (maybe £1,050 as per £300 economy?) so not worth it.
As with my betting I try and do a value calculation!
Think of the Johnson government as the crew in a heist movie. We've now reached the stage where they are about to do a runner for the airport, fake passports in hand, while the police chase them.
Crazy in many ways, and harsh justice for the mugs in the Conservative Party who fell for him. But hey ho. And Johnson does have form for running away when things go sour.
Under the new rules, are there any checks on a PM who goes mad and decides "I want a General Election and I want it now?"
Always, always take them if offered. It’s not just the slightly bigger seat, it’s the whole experience of the trip.
I still mention to my dear Mum that she once turned down a £100 business class upgrade on Emirates, at the check-in desk, for a seven-hour flight out to the sandpit. It’s the best £100 she’d ever have spent.
I’m not a fan of the licence fee. It’s time is long gone in the era of streaming. I find people’s objections to the census disappointing. One if it’s uses is planning of services. How many gps does an area need? Schools? Etc. Why object to that?
But whatever my thoughts on political history, that is different to pillorying a current politician or public figure for something said or done in the past. The key being current figure.
- winding up Boris about not showing up to meet northern MPs when he was actually in Kyiv. Whatever.
- Coming out in support of the RMT strikes. I think he’s wrong, and Starmer slapped him down for tactical reasons. But it’s a valid political position
- Saying he wanted to throw a journalist under a train. Foolish & disturbing imagery but no one really thinks he meant it literally. He should be more careful in future about his choice of words but the worst you can say is it suggests a lack of maturity/judgement
And, for the record, I am not a Labourite
This means the BBC's funding model is becoming increasingly out of place in a changed world.
Sadly, no government has decided to really address this, and it will eventually lead to the BBC's demise.
I think the case for Channel 4's privatisation has not been made. But give the fury being shown over that, can you imagine what a major change to the BBC's funding model would produce? Which is why no government will do anything other than tinker around the edges.
Her initial doubling down and insincere apology didn’t help and her gushing words of affection for the two Tory MPs who died just showed her hypocrisy or her initial comments about Tory scum were not heartfelt.
Streetings tweets are pretty poor as well.
Both will survive them. They are part of the labour establishment. Labour won’t want to lose either.
No sane party *wants* to be in opposition.
There is no such thing as “a good election to lose”.
Yes, defeats must be accepted and processed, but they should never be wilfully encouraged.
That sort of pricing doesn't leave much room for customer service, whether comfort and convenience on the day, or sorting out problems like the recent airport chaos.
Ultimately you get what you pay for, and people only want to pay for the basics.
Why should channel 4 be state owned. Privatise it.
As for the BBC funding the license fee is going. It is what replaces it that is the issue. There is affection for the BBC, but this has been in decline over time, but the license fee is unpopular. It needs to go and not be replaced by any form of taxation.
Case in point, I know there was a move among transgender people to boycott the census or at least the question about being transgender because it was considered to be worded in the wrong way (something like has your gender changed - many felt their gender had not changed, just the gender they'd always felt didn't match birth sex). Lord knows why that wasn't piloted and picked up. Transgender people are likely to be underreported in the census as a result and funding for services will reflect the official population.
Worse flying experience was the one where I'm fairly certain the shoulders of my skeleton wouldn't have fitted in the wretchedly small chair.
I'd also argue it's easier to forgive the 'sins' and mistakes of someone long departed, than it is of people who still have power and influence.
Why are comments made by 'current figures' more worthy of forgiveness? Surely forgiveness too freely given can have much more effect on figures who are still around?
You appear to want to 'move on from the past' when people you quite like are criticised. But are perfectly willing to bring up events of forty years ago in a very unforgiving manner when they involve people you do not like.
Odd that.
Just taking a look now at the 5 highlighted stories , one is of Prince William releasing a new photograph of himself and his kids for fathers day (WOW) and another is Dame Kelly Holmes " coming out" (SO WHAT). It does raise the question why there is a need for a compulsory fee from the population for this type of stuff
I think he would be daft to do it, but then he is well known to be daft!
"Why should channel 4 be state owned. Privatise it." Why should it not be state owned?
However, from a small-c conservative angle: what is the case for Channel 4 being privatised? How will a privatised Channel 4 be better for the country than the current system? What is the reason for the change? If it's just privatised=better, then that is not only arguable, it's a cr@p reason.
The government may have a solid case for Channel 4's privatisation. If so, I haven't really seen it amongst the fury.
The same goes for any change, including nationalisation of industries. The case needs to be made on good grounds, not ones of ideology.
An article about cookery and disabled people is a plug for a BBC 3 show, Lenny Henry’s comments about white people,and Glastonbury a plug for his upcoming two part documentary it is relentless. The BBC likes to make out its funding model makes it different. It doesn’t.
The BBC may not be commercial but it acts like a commercial institution. It is time it has to seek its funds in the same way other commercial media outlets do.
- English born?
- English educated?
- Holding an ENglish passport?
- supporting England at cricket?
- British?
When the real issue is one or more of those two:
- not in Scottish constituencies, Mr Jack and a few Scottish MPs and the MSPs apart?
- part of the Conservative administration which lacks other than minority support in Scotland?
The case needs to be regularly made for government involvement in anything. The question needs to be “should the government be doing this?”
When C4 was set up there were a limited number of channels and there wasn’t the range of minority choices available / the commercial funding to support it. Now there is.
So the government has £ x billion of capital invested in c4. Could that capital be better invested somewhere else?
Fundamentally the government should be using it resources to do stuff that the private sector can’t/won’t do rather than replicating it.
A BBC half the size, might represent value for money - but as we have seen already, those in charge would rather make the cuts to the high-brow programming instead.
Indeed.
I just asked him to disaggregate whether that was Boris Johnson as an individual (which is possible) or whether a proportion of SNP voters down mark anyone they perceive as “English”. Let’s try non-SNP Westminster as an initial definition.
It really was originally an attempt to understand data. But the fact that all of the SNP folks on here definitively avoided answering made me curious…