In lead-up to Guy Fawkes Day 2022, another Guido, 417 year later, is yet again toiling beneath the bowels of Westminster, on a mission to blow Parliament sky high.
Coincidence? Kismet? Karma? Conservative?
Boris is a Catholic. Just sayin’.
The obvious choice for the good folk of Lewes this year….
In lead-up to Guy Fawkes Day 2022, another Guido, 417 year later, is yet again toiling beneath the bowels of Westminster, on a mission to blow Parliament sky high.
Coincidence? Kismet? Karma? Conservative?
Boris is a Catholic. Just sayin’.
The obvious choice for the good folk of Lewes this year….
I don't think anyone feels he's quite the guy any more.
Those figures are astonishingly discouraging for Labour given the recent opinion polls.
They are recognising that the UK is about to have what could be a good --> very good Conservative PM compared to those the voters have got used to. They are also recognising that Labour still has a helluva mountain to climb.
Yes, the polls have moved massively against the Tories, but if Rishi is deemed to have done a good job getting the markets soothed and people don't blame HIM for their finances being shot, it's still game on.
Plus, Labour still have to show they have an offer that is worth moving on from Rishi. Not nailed on by any means
You may well be correct and the Conservatives will walk the next election against what you consider to be a very weak and hapless opposition.
All I would suggest is, incumbency does not shine on relatively high mortgage rates, inflation, mortgage and car loan defaults, tax rises, service cuts and specifically a creaking NHS, oh and a year or two of industrial strife.
Now most of this is down to circumstances rather than incompetence, although Sunak has personally presided over a fair few errors, specifically during COVID. Personally I thought the furlough scheme was poorly targeted, resulting in eye- watering abuse, and "eat out to help out" was a trainwreck.
Nonetheless Sunak is streets ahead of Johnson.
I think this is very accurate commentary - though of course that may be because I agree with it anyway
I don't think we can forget the lesson of 97. The economy had recovered and things were looking much more stable and well run after the events of 93/4. And yet The Tories got slaughtered. People have long memories and, it seems, are generally unforgiving of having lost money unnecessarily due to Government incompetence. I know Starmer is no Blair in terms of charisma and presentation (something that personally I am grateful for) but nor can I see Sunak and his Chancellor being a patch of Ken Clarke.
I still maintain that, even if it might be unfairly come 2024, the Tories are screwed.
Accordng to the Guardian live feed "dozens of MPs now want Johnson back in power despite supporting his decision to step down as Tory leader in the summer."
I hope someone is constructing a list of said hypocrites.
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
In lead-up to Guy Fawkes Day 2022, another Guido, 417 year later, is yet again toiling beneath the bowels of Westminster, on a mission to blow Parliament sky high.
Coincidence? Kismet? Karma? Conservative?
Boris is a Catholic. Just sayin’.
The obvious choice for the good folk of Lewes this year….
I don't think anyone feels he's quite the guy any more.
Be more embarrassing *not* to be a guy.
Dont tell Rosie Duffield
Lol! Oh, I didn't mean that - but in any case @tlg86 has solved the matter.
The rules on the government website state the nomination can be done either by email or physically . It implies it’s the MP who does this .
Not sure about this checking process because how would that work if people vote very close to the deadline . How would you do that with little notice if you’re supposed to book a slot .
The big issue George Osborne raises on C4 Andrew Neil Show tonight — if MPs are very pro Sunak but party members till vote for Johnson, MPs should say, fine, Johnson leader of party in country. But Sunak is the PM.
It wouldn't work though. Johnson has enough nutters behind him to make it untenable. Sunak has to win fair and square.
And then, I would say after this performance, withdraw the whip. He has ample precedent in Johnson's own actions in 2019 and a perfect excuse in the early comments of the SPC.
How does the nomination paper process actually work? Does a candidate need to get each of their backers to print and sign their name?
Then presumably the 1922 have to check that each is valid and that each backer only appears on one candidate's list.
What happens to any backers who are not in Westminster tomorrow or cannot be tracked down before 14:00 tomorrow?
The BBC has just posted a little piece saying more or less the opposite of what has been said previously - that the candidates collect the details and submit them on a form, and that they "will have already booked a slot" for the checking process: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63327087
That sounds sort of consistent with the claim about Boris's form having been completed and checked. Hmm.
Tomorrow is going to be fascinating. If Bozza makes the ballot he wins. Its that simple. But it does increasingly read like he claims he definitely makes the ballot is So Much Bullshit.
We know there is growing desperation to stop Rishi. But do they have the numbers? If not, consider this simple reality: 80 or so mouth-foamers have tied themselves into knots to stop Rishi. They will not sit there quietly on the back benches as Rishi and his cabinet of wets tears apart all of their dreams...
Rishi is hardly a wet though, I expect his cabinet to be pretty fiscally dry and deregulating. Spending cuts will be pushed through.
This is what is so incredible. La La Land. Sunak is a thatcherite dry who was a Brexiteer whilst Truss was still Remain and Johnson was undecided.
Yet somehow he has been painted as Francis Pym redux.
The use of language is changing such that ‘Brexiter’ no longer seems to mean someone who voted leave nor ‘Remainer’ someone who voted to stay in the EU. ‘Remainer’ now means someone who pays attention to facts and experts and likes the BBC, with ‘Leaver’ being someone prepared to believe three impossible things before breakfast whilst tuning in to LBC or GBNews.
SKS Fans please explain how can a Party with a 30% lead be only this far ahead in baest PM
SKS a massive drag on Lab
Are you still doing this?
That answer doesnt explain why does it?
I assumed it was a functIon of the psychological trauma after your hero left Labour in deeper shit than a gong farmer in a cholera epidemic.
But if there's another reason why you're doing it, then do feel free to enlighten us.
Weren't gongfermers mediaeval? pre-1700 anyway? And cholera, in the modern sense in which you are presumably employing it, cholera morbus, was a strictly C19 import (1830s). But if you meant English cholera, then fine.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I agree with you on the lists - but it is remarkable how few people make that comment about our current system in which, for the party of your preference, your choice of candidate is precisely zero.
The point being that we need to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. And any system that introduces proportionality based on party percentages is, by definition, increasing party control over the MPs.
As I said I can live with STV on that basis as it does not provide proportionality for parties. But my preference would be for any system that actively reduces the influence parties have over our electoral system. Hence my long time support for limiting the power of the whips - though I accept that is a separate debate.
I do like Robert's idea of trying STV at a local level. But again it would need to remove any possibility of the parties being able to claim they had some sort of control over the councillors as a result of the electoral system.
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
I have posting for 5 years and was lurking for 5 before that. As far as I can remember PB has always been politics first, then betting and other stuff a distant second/third.
The great thing of course is the focus on politics but without an overriding left or right bias, so plenty of chance to debate with those of a very different persuasion.
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
I have posting for 5 years and was lurking for 5 before that. As far as I can remember PB has always been politics first, then betting and other stuff a distant second/third.
The great thing of course is the focus on politics but without an overriding left or right bias, so plenty of chance to debate with those of a very different persuasion.
The site has a centre right bias, reflecting the demographic perhaps.
Those figures are astonishingly discouraging for Labour given the recent opinion polls.
They are recognising that the UK is about to have what could be a good --> very good Conservative PM compared to those the voters have got used to. They are also recognising that Labour still has a helluva mountain to climb.
Yes, the polls have moved massively against the Tories, but if Rishi is deemed to have done a good job getting the markets soothed and people don't blame HIM for their finances being shot, it's still game on.
Plus, Labour still have to show they have an offer that is worth moving on from Rishi. Not nailed on by any means
You may well be correct and the Conservatives will walk the next election against what you consider to be a very weak and hapless opposition.
All I would suggest is, incumbency does not shine on relatively high mortgage rates, inflation, mortgage and car loan defaults, tax rises, service cuts and specifically a creaking NHS, oh and a year or two of industrial strife.
Now most of this is down to circumstances rather than incompetence, although Sunak has personally presided over a fair few errors, specifically during COVID. Personally I thought the furlough scheme was poorly targeted, resulting in eye- watering abuse, and "eat out to help out" was a trainwreck.
Nonetheless Sunak is streets ahead of Johnson.
I think this is very accurate commentary - though of course that may be because I agree with it anyway
I don't think we can forget the lesson of 97. The economy had recovered and things were looking much more stable and well run after the events of 93/4. And yet The Tories got slaughtered. People have long memories and, it seems, are generally unforgiving of having lost money unnecessarily due to Government incompetence. I know Starmer is no Blair in terms of charisma and presentation (something that personally I am grateful for) but nor can I see Sunak and his Chancellor being a patch of Ken Clarke.
I still maintain that, even if it might be unfairly come 2024, the Tories are screwed.
What I’ve very belatedly come to realise in the last 2 weeks is how 1997 could have been so much worse for the Tories.
Blair was clearly a bigger potential vote winner than Starmer but he was up against a leadership that was reasonably respected after turning things around a bit since black Wednesday.
Look at the cabinet immediately before the election. Major, Heseltine, Clarke, Rifkind, Gummer, Bottomley, Portillo etc etc. Compare with the circus act we’re now faced with.
Under FPTP a truly crap Tory party faced with a charismatic opposition leader could be completely wiped out. But ironically of course under PR the Tory front bench would be significantly less crap because most of the clowns would have left to become MPs for a Farage or Johnson vehicle, just as the Burgon-Pidcock tendency would have flounced off to some Putin-excusing far left vanity party.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I’d certainly prefer STV to FPTP even if it made no difference to proportionality (which it would of course).
My constituency of Lewisham Deptford has a Labour majority of 33,000 (probably higher in the next election). I have one person representing me, who may or may not be sympathetic to the issues I’m concerned with. Particularly a problem if your MP is a minister or just someone like Bozo who spends the parliamentary term on holidays in the Caribbean.
(As it happens Vicky Foxcroft seems OK and I don’t actually have any issues I need to raise with her but bear with me).
Under STV I’d have say 3 or 4 representatives covering my area of SE London and each would have their own areas of interest. I’d have a much better chance of getting at least one of them engaged in an issue, even if (as might be the case in Lewisham) most were from the same party.
That's a nice point - a bit like a team ministry in the church.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I agree with you on the lists - but it is remarkable how few people make that comment about our current system in which, for the party of your preference, your choice of candidate is precisely zero.
The point being that we need to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. And any system that introduces proportionality based on party percentages is, by definition, increasing party control over the MPs.
As I said I can live with STV on that basis as it does not provide proportionality for parties. But my preference would be for any system that actively reduces the influence parties have over our electoral system. Hence my long time support for limiting the power of the whips - though I accept that is a separate debate.
I do like Robert's idea of trying STV at a local level. But again it would need to remove any possibility of the parties being able to claim they had some sort of control over the councillors as a result of the electoral system.
Your first para isn’t strictly correct. Both because we start from a very high level of party control, and because there are a variety of types of list or additional member systems where voters have some or even considerable choice over candidates.
SKS Fans please explain how can a Party with a 30% lead be only this far ahead in baest PM
SKS a massive drag on Lab
Are you still doing this?
That answer doesnt explain why does it?
I assumed it was a functIon of the psychological trauma after your hero left Labour in deeper shit than a gong farmer in a cholera epidemic.
But if there's another reason why you're doing it, then do feel free to enlighten us.
Weren't gongfermers mediaeval? pre-1700 anyway? And cholera, in the modern sense in which you are presumably employing it, cholera morbus, was a strictly C19 import (1830s). But if you meant English cholera, then fine.
They continued well into the nineteenth century, although by then they were called 'night men' or 'night scavengers' more often than 'gong farmers' which is a Tudor term (not medieval). They were finally eliminated following the changes to the sewer system mandated by the 1875 Public Health Act.
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
I have posting for 5 years and was lurking for 5 before that. As far as I can remember PB has always been politics first, then betting and other stuff a distant second/third.
The great thing of course is the focus on politics but without an overriding left or right bias, so plenty of chance to debate with those of a very different persuasion.
The site has a centre right bias, reflecting the demographic perhaps.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I think, in terms of constituency links, there is a danger - particularly in the larger constituency sizes that some are suggesting here - that MPs have the ability to palm off voters with concerns or issues and claim it is someone elses problem. It also suffers from the basic fact that in a constituency 6 times the size of those we have now - which would be the case with the sorts of multi-representative constituencies being proposed - the MP is far more remote from the electorate. When an MP represents 450,000 people rather than 70,000 they are, by necessity, more remote.
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
I have posting for 5 years and was lurking for 5 before that. As far as I can remember PB has always been politics first, then betting and other stuff a distant second/third.
The great thing of course is the focus on politics but without an overriding left or right bias, so plenty of chance to debate with those of a very different persuasion.
That's true but it seems like the motivating factor for threads and headers is how much we hate Johnson rather than what's the actual betting probabilities.
It's the same when it comes to the US. How many threads have we said talking about how the Democrats are value to keep the House etc etc and how many about the chances of the GOP? A lot on the former, none on the latter. Why? Because the thread writers push their personal biases onto the posts. Yet you look at all the indicators in the US polling, it's pretty clear the Democrats are losing steam and the GOP is picking up momentum.
This is not a political bias rant. There are plenty of people on here who are lurkers and taking a view on how to bet from those who post often here. We could be losing people a fair bit of money.
It has been a pretty tough week in Tallinn, where Estonia is still dealing with the massive refugee crisis, both welcome Ukrainians and substantially less welcome Russians, most of which seem to be in transit to Tallinn airport. The border is mostly shut to Russians, but those with Schedule D Schengen visas, as opposed to tourist visas, seem to be still able to cross the border. A noticeable increase in Belarusians here too, which reflects how bad things are getting over there.
There is little news from the front, but the push back at Bakhmut is welcome news, and may pressage further problems for the Russians in the east. We only hear rumours about Kherson, but it is feared that the death toll on both sides has been pretty high.
The growing sense of trouble in Russia is not going away, and the tone of things there does indeed seem to be changing from triumphalism to grim resolution and possibly muted criticism of the regime. Estonians think that the situation in Russia will take a pretty sharp turn for the worse as the transport system finally gives way under sanctions. The critical railway infrastructure now seems to be in free fall, and the medium term impact could be very disruptive indeed. The catastrophic "Morgue-ilisation" seems to have pushed the economy over the edge, and the Russian economy seems to be facing very bad times ahead, ironically as much from the incompetence of the Kremlin as sanctions and the boycott.
It is getting cold here, but gas prices are persuading us to wear warmer clothes indoors, we all feel that the frost in Russia may soon be a lot harder. The vicious war crimes against Ukrainian civilians have just reminded Estonians about their own savage occupation and increased determination to see this through to the end. Russia is slowly and inevitably losing its grip on the occupied territories, but whether this comes this year or the next, there is no alternative but to face the criminals in the Kremlin down. This is a given in Tallinn and Helsinki, but we see that even Berlin and Paris are beginning to accept that there are no choices.
No snow forecast yet, but the autumn is now well on. The air is cold again and the the long winter twilight is beginning. In the dark, the Northern Lights over Tallinn last night were stunning.
'“Last night I did a lot of planning,” he says, “trying to find this morning’s best London train action. And passing through Willesden now are your standard passenger trains, and aggregate and intermodal freight services, but also…” he cuts himself off, hearing something in the distance. “There it is,” he says, as a train appears on the horizon right on cue. “It’s the British Pullman [...]”'
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I’d certainly prefer STV to FPTP even if it made no difference to proportionality (which it would of course).
My constituency of Lewisham Deptford has a Labour majority of 33,000 (probably higher in the next election). I have one person representing me, who may or may not be sympathetic to the issues I’m concerned with. Particularly a problem if your MP is a minister or just someone like Bozo who spends the parliamentary term on holidays in the Caribbean.
(As it happens Vicky Foxcroft seems OK and I don’t actually have any issues I need to raise with her but bear with me).
Under STV I’d have say 3 or 4 representatives covering my area of SE London and each would have their own areas of interest. I’d have a much better chance of getting at least one of them engaged in an issue, even if (as might be the case in Lewisham) most were from the same party.
The important thing with STV is to: 1. Ensure, as far a possible, that constituencies, or wards, are related to areas that voters can identify with. 2. Allow enough candidates that voters have a realistic choice, including a choice of candidates within a party, if feasible. 3. After the above have been satisfied, elect the number of candidates that suit each constituency or ward.
In North Ayrshire Council, we elect between 1 and 5 councillors. A self contained island (Arran) elects 1 councillor. Other areas select between 3 and 5, as appropriate. Our ward had a choice of 12 candidates, from 8 different parties, plus 2 independents. It seems to work well.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I agree with you on the lists - but it is remarkable how few people make that comment about our current system in which, for the party of your preference, your choice of candidate is precisely zero.
The point being that we need to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. And any system that introduces proportionality based on party percentages is, by definition, increasing party control over the MPs.
As I said I can live with STV on that basis as it does not provide proportionality for parties. But my preference would be for any system that actively reduces the influence parties have over our electoral system. Hence my long time support for limiting the power of the whips - though I accept that is a separate debate.
I do like Robert's idea of trying STV at a local level. But again it would need to remove any possibility of the parties being able to claim they had some sort of control over the councillors as a result of the electoral system.
Your first para isn’t strictly correct. Both because we start from a very high level of party control, and because there are a variety of types of list or additional member systems where voters have some or even considerable choice over candidates.
It is not just the choice over the candidates, it is the ability of the parties to claim that the MPs were elected because they were of a particular party. That is the logical conclusion of 'proportionality' between parties.
I hold no flame for FPTP in its current form but I don't want whatever replaces it to increase the power of the parties over their MPs. That is partly the reason we are in the mess we are in now.
Those figures are astonishingly discouraging for Labour given the recent opinion polls.
They are recognising that the UK is about to have what could be a good --> very good Conservative PM compared to those the voters have got used to. They are also recognising that Labour still has a helluva mountain to climb.
Yes, the polls have moved massively against the Tories, but if Rishi is deemed to have done a good job getting the markets soothed and people don't blame HIM for their finances being shot, it's still game on.
Plus, Labour still have to show they have an offer that is worth moving on from Rishi. Not nailed on by any means
You may well be correct and the Conservatives will walk the next election against what you consider to be a very weak and hapless opposition.
All I would suggest is, incumbency does not shine on relatively high mortgage rates, inflation, mortgage and car loan defaults, tax rises, service cuts and specifically a creaking NHS, oh and a year or two of industrial strife.
Now most of this is down to circumstances rather than incompetence, although Sunak has personally presided over a fair few errors, specifically during COVID. Personally I thought the furlough scheme was poorly targeted, resulting in eye- watering abuse, and "eat out to help out" was a trainwreck.
Nonetheless Sunak is streets ahead of Johnson.
I think this is very accurate commentary - though of course that may be because I agree with it anyway
I don't think we can forget the lesson of 97. The economy had recovered and things were looking much more stable and well run after the events of 93/4. And yet The Tories got slaughtered. People have long memories and, it seems, are generally unforgiving of having lost money unnecessarily due to Government incompetence. I know Starmer is no Blair in terms of charisma and presentation (something that personally I am grateful for) but nor can I see Sunak and his Chancellor being a patch of Ken Clarke.
I still maintain that, even if it might be unfairly come 2024, the Tories are screwed.
Indeed, circumstances are very much against the incumbent party
In addition, who seriously thinks Sunak is going to be able to restore unity to the Tories and govern with authority? Johnson may only have 60 odd named backers but those are more than enough to cause serious harm to a Sunak administration necessarily raising taxes, building (metaphorical) bridges with Europe and letting the culture war projects wither on the vine.
If Johnson wins it's absolute chaos; if Sunak wins it's just chaos.
Accordng to the Guardian live feed "dozens of MPs now want Johnson back in power despite supporting his decision to step down as Tory leader in the summer."
I hope someone is constructing a list of said hypocrites.
'Dozens of MPs who supported his decision to step down.'
So where are they then? I assumed the 57 named were the die hards.
It has been a pretty tough week in Tallinn, where Estonia is still dealing with the massive refugee crisis, both welcome Ukrainians and substantially less welcome Russians, most of which seem to be in transit to Tallinn airport. The border is mostly shut to Russians, but those with Schedule D Schengen visas, as opposed to tourist visas, seem to be still able to cross the border. A noticeable increase in Belarusians here too, which reflects how bad things are getting over there.
There is little news from the front, but the push back at Bakhmut is welcome news, and may pressage further problems for the Russians in the east. We only hear rumours about Kherson, but it is feared that the death toll on both sides has been pretty high.
The growing sense of trouble in Russia is not going away, and the tone of things there does indeed seem to be changing from triumphalism to grim resolution and possibly muted criticism of the regime. Estonians think that the situation in Russia will take a pretty sharp turn for the worse as the transport system finally gives way under sanctions. The critical railway infrastructure now seems to be in free fall, and the medium term impact could be very disruptive indeed. The catastrophic "Morgue-ilisation" seems to have pushed the economy over the edge, and the Russian economy seems to be facing very bad times ahead, ironically as much from the incompetence of the Kremlin as sanctions and the boycott.
It is getting cold here, but gas prices are persuading us to wear warmer clothes indoors, we all feel that the frost in Russia may soon be a lot harder. The vicious war crimes against Ukrainian civilians have just reminded Estonians about their own savage occupation and increased determination to see this through to the end. Russia is slowly and inevitably losing its grip on the occupied territories, but whether this comes this year or the next, there is no alternative but to face the criminals in the Kremlin down. This is a given in Tallinn and Helsinki, but we see that even Berlin and Paris are beginning to accept that there are no choices.
No snow forecast yet, but the autumn is now well on. The air is cold again and the the long winter twilight is beginning. In the dark, the Northern Lights over Tallinn last night were stunning.
It's fortunately been a very mild autumn in this country. So far I haven't used the gas central heating at all and today is only the second time I've lit my stove, just for a couple of hours in the evening. I haven't even had to bring the geraniums in.
Normally my central heating would have been on for the last fortnight.
In itself that isn't a great sign, as it shows how global warming is speeding up. But it comes in handy at the moment. Not only will it be depressing gas demand but it means the lower prices should hopefully be curtailing Dobby's war bonanza.
Something people might be forgetting is that there's no reason for a Tory MP to publicly declare who they're going to nominate. The only thing that matters is whether they make a nomination to the 1922 Committee by the allotted time. Some MPs might not agree with the latest trend for making everything public.
It has been a pretty tough week in Tallinn, where Estonia is still dealing with the massive refugee crisis, both welcome Ukrainians and substantially less welcome Russians, most of which seem to be in transit to Tallinn airport. The border is mostly shut to Russians, but those with Schedule D Schengen visas, as opposed to tourist visas, seem to be still able to cross the border. A noticeable increase in Belarusians here too, which reflects how bad things are getting over there.
There is little news from the front, but the push back at Bakhmut is welcome news, and may pressage further problems for the Russians in the east. We only hear rumours about Kherson, but it is feared that the death toll on both sides has been pretty high.
The growing sense of trouble in Russia is not going away, and the tone of things there does indeed seem to be changing from triumphalism to grim resolution and possibly muted criticism of the regime. Estonians think that the situation in Russia will take a pretty sharp turn for the worse as the transport system finally gives way under sanctions. The critical railway infrastructure now seems to be in free fall, and the medium term impact could be very disruptive indeed. The catastrophic "Morgue-ilisation" seems to have pushed the economy over the edge, and the Russian economy seems to be facing very bad times ahead, ironically as much from the incompetence of the Kremlin as sanctions and the boycott.
It is getting cold here, but gas prices are persuading us to wear warmer clothes indoors, we all feel that the frost in Russia may soon be a lot harder. The vicious war crimes against Ukrainian civilians have just reminded Estonians about their own savage occupation and increased determination to see this through to the end. Russia is slowly and inevitably losing its grip on the occupied territories, but whether this comes this year or the next, there is no alternative but to face the criminals in the Kremlin down. This is a given in Tallinn and Helsinki, but we see that even Berlin and Paris are beginning to accept that there are no choices.
No snow forecast yet, but the autumn is now well on. The air is cold again and the the long winter twilight is beginning. In the dark, the Northern Lights over Tallinn last night were stunning.
The Kherson situation is frustrating. I had hoped the Russian forces would have reached a tipping point in morale and supplies by now to crumble, but I underestimated them.
Some nice very mild weather for the Baltics later this week which should help keep the central heating turned down.
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
exactly - this has evolved over the years to become an almost pure politics website - I dont mind politics being discussed and it always was but the betting angle is being squeezed - I would not mind so much but its not political debate its more slagging off and course insults (imported from other social media influences no doubt) that has made this site worsen in its once high quality content
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I agree with you on the lists - but it is remarkable how few people make that comment about our current system in which, for the party of your preference, your choice of candidate is precisely zero.
The point being that we need to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. And any system that introduces proportionality based on party percentages is, by definition, increasing party control over the MPs.
As I said I can live with STV on that basis as it does not provide proportionality for parties. But my preference would be for any system that actively reduces the influence parties have over our electoral system. Hence my long time support for limiting the power of the whips - though I accept that is a separate debate.
I do like Robert's idea of trying STV at a local level. But again it would need to remove any possibility of the parties being able to claim they had some sort of control over the councillors as a result of the electoral system.
Your first para isn’t strictly correct. Both because we start from a very high level of party control, and because there are a variety of types of list or additional member systems where voters have some or even considerable choice over candidates.
It is not just the choice over the candidates, it is the ability of the parties to claim that the MPs were elected because they were of a particular party. That is the logical conclusion of 'proportionality' between parties.
I hold no flame for FPTP in its current form but I don't want whatever replaces it to increase the power of the parties over their MPs. That is partly the reason we are in the mess we are in now.
There is a curious anomaly in the Scottish Parliament. Normally if a list MSP dies or resigns the next one on the party slate for that region gets it. Which I'm not too keen on, for the reasons you specify, as well as the wider concept of party lists, though I suppose if you are an independent you might as well stick to one constituency, like Mr Canavan. But if the list MSP loses or resigns the whip he or she is not deposed evewn though being non-party.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I agree with you on the lists - but it is remarkable how few people make that comment about our current system in which, for the party of your preference, your choice of candidate is precisely zero.
The point being that we need to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. And any system that introduces proportionality based on party percentages is, by definition, increasing party control over the MPs.
As I said I can live with STV on that basis as it does not provide proportionality for parties. But my preference would be for any system that actively reduces the influence parties have over our electoral system. Hence my long time support for limiting the power of the whips - though I accept that is a separate debate.
I do like Robert's idea of trying STV at a local level. But again it would need to remove any possibility of the parties being able to claim they had some sort of control over the councillors as a result of the electoral system.
As party affiliation is voluntary, I don't see how you can reduce the power of the whips. The relationship is transactional, you help me and I help you.
STV means that voters can choose their candidates in a way that reduces the power of whips, but I don't see that you can reduce the power of whips in a FPTP system.
It has been a pretty tough week in Tallinn, where Estonia is still dealing with the massive refugee crisis, both welcome Ukrainians and substantially less welcome Russians, most of which seem to be in transit to Tallinn airport. The border is mostly shut to Russians, but those with Schedule D Schengen visas, as opposed to tourist visas, seem to be still able to cross the border. A noticeable increase in Belarusians here too, which reflects how bad things are getting over there.
There is little news from the front, but the push back at Bakhmut is welcome news, and may pressage further problems for the Russians in the east. We only hear rumours about Kherson, but it is feared that the death toll on both sides has been pretty high.
The growing sense of trouble in Russia is not going away, and the tone of things there does indeed seem to be changing from triumphalism to grim resolution and possibly muted criticism of the regime. Estonians think that the situation in Russia will take a pretty sharp turn for the worse as the transport system finally gives way under sanctions. The critical railway infrastructure now seems to be in free fall, and the medium term impact could be very disruptive indeed. The catastrophic "Morgue-ilisation" seems to have pushed the economy over the edge, and the Russian economy seems to be facing very bad times ahead, ironically as much from the incompetence of the Kremlin as sanctions and the boycott.
It is getting cold here, but gas prices are persuading us to wear warmer clothes indoors, we all feel that the frost in Russia may soon be a lot harder. The vicious war crimes against Ukrainian civilians have just reminded Estonians about their own savage occupation and increased determination to see this through to the end. Russia is slowly and inevitably losing its grip on the occupied territories, but whether this comes this year or the next, there is no alternative but to face the criminals in the Kremlin down. This is a given in Tallinn and Helsinki, but we see that even Berlin and Paris are beginning to accept that there are no choices.
No snow forecast yet, but the autumn is now well on. The air is cold again and the the long winter twilight is beginning. In the dark, the Northern Lights over Tallinn last night were stunning.
It's fortunately been a very mild autumn in this country. So far I haven't used the gas central heating at all and today is only the second time I've lit my stove, just for a couple of hours in the evening. I haven't even had to bring the geraniums in.
Normally my central heating would have been on for the last fortnight.
In itself that isn't a great sign, as it shows how global warming is speeding up. But it comes in handy at the moment. Not only will it be depressing gas demand but it means the lower prices should hopefully be curtailing Dobby's war bonanza.
I arrived at our place in Southern Burgundy this evening at 7.30pm. A breezy evening, and 23C outside.
23C, at 7.30. Still 22C now at 9.30. In late October. A week of temperatures in the low to mid 20s to come here, and up to 30C in South West France.
It’s incredible, worrying, but also very reassuring during this Putin winter.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I agree with you on the lists - but it is remarkable how few people make that comment about our current system in which, for the party of your preference, your choice of candidate is precisely zero.
The point being that we need to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. And any system that introduces proportionality based on party percentages is, by definition, increasing party control over the MPs.
As I said I can live with STV on that basis as it does not provide proportionality for parties. But my preference would be for any system that actively reduces the influence parties have over our electoral system. Hence my long time support for limiting the power of the whips - though I accept that is a separate debate.
I do like Robert's idea of trying STV at a local level. But again it would need to remove any possibility of the parties being able to claim they had some sort of control over the councillors as a result of the electoral system.
Your first para isn’t strictly correct. Both because we start from a very high level of party control, and because there are a variety of types of list or additional member systems where voters have some or even considerable choice over candidates.
It is not just the choice over the candidates, it is the ability of the parties to claim that the MPs were elected because they were of a particular party. That is the logical conclusion of 'proportionality' between parties.
I hold no flame for FPTP in its current form but I don't want whatever replaces it to increase the power of the parties over their MPs. That is partly the reason we are in the mess we are in now.
There is a curious anomaly in the Scottish Parliament. Normally if a list MSP dies or resigns the next one on the party slate for that region gets it. Which I'm not too keen on, for the reasons you specify, as well as the wider concept of party lists, though I suppose if you are an independent you might as well stick to one constituency, like Mr Canavan. But if the list MSP loses or resigns the whip he or she is not deposed evewn though being non-party.
Proof if proof were needed that whatever the merits and demerits of STV, FPTP and That Which We Must Not Name Lest We Trigger TSE, the quasi-D'Hondt system used in Cardiff and Edinburgh is the worst of all possible choices.
SKS Fans please explain how can a Party with a 30% lead be only this far ahead in baest PM
SKS a massive drag on Lab
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 9h Keir Starmer leads Boris Johnson by only 3%.
At this moment, which of the following do voters think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK?
Starmer v Johnson:
Starmer 42% Johnson 39%
Starmer v Sunak:
Starmer 44% Sunak 33%
It's been a while, but can you remember the figures for Corbyn vs Johnson, for comparison.
I am sure he was also a drag doesnt really answer my point though does it?
Why is SKS such a massive drag?
After the last disaster of Corbyn, Starmer is playing it very safe and boring. By muting Labour of its Far Left and not making mistakes by moderating his speeches, Keir's made his centre-left party a government in waiting. A firebrand spouting controversial views would lose the turning Lib Dems, Tory wets and floating voters. Socialism is fine for protest parties, but professionalism and unity sways the electorate.
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
I have posting for 5 years and was lurking for 5 before that. As far as I can remember PB has always been politics first, then betting and other stuff a distant second/third.
The great thing of course is the focus on politics but without an overriding left or right bias, so plenty of chance to debate with those of a very different persuasion.
Betting has always come up occasionally, more often in headers. Been posting 12 years.
If Johnson wins exactly how many Tory MPs will cause a drama is hard to say .
I expect we’ll hear the mantra , we need to unite , we can’t afford more instability , the public won’t forgive us if we continue to fight amongst ourselves ........
We’ve seen protestations from Tory MPs before which don’t amount to much.
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
exactly - this has evolved over the years to become an almost pure politics website - I dont mind politics being discussed and it always was but the betting angle is being squeezed - I would not mind so much but its not political debate its more slagging off and course insults (imported from other social media influences no doubt) that has made this site worsen in its once high quality content
Maybe golden betting moments don't happen often. I would like to suggest that backing Rishi now is free money, but I'm not sure enough. PB has golden moments however - like the free money available, and strongly tipped on PB, by backing the LDs to win Chesham and Amersham at longish odds.
I’m wondering whether Johnson’s delay in declaring is not so much the fear of not gaining 100 nominations, but the fear of losing the membership vote. Could he be waiting for feedback from the constituencies? Would his ego cope with losing the members’ vote?
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
exactly - this has evolved over the years to become an almost pure politics website - I dont mind politics being discussed and it always was but the betting angle is being squeezed - I would not mind so much but its not political debate its more slagging off and course insults (imported from other social media influences no doubt) that has made this site worsen in its once high quality content
Even worse, it's potentially losing people money.
If I'm a lurker and take the view people who comment and write headers are 'experts' and know what they are talking about, Id be tempted to follow their lead when it comes to betting.
Yet - and this is particularly true when it comes to the US side - the writers who stated we should back X have not been back to say the facts have changed. They have left their original opinion hanging up there for people to gauge a view.
That's not good. If you write a header, and it's turning out to be wrong, you should have the courage and decency to say why it's wrong. Don't be a lawyer and try and mention about T&Cs. Do the right thing and say circumstances have changed.
Accordng to the Guardian live feed "dozens of MPs now want Johnson back in power despite supporting his decision to step down as Tory leader in the summer."
I hope someone is constructing a list of said hypocrites.
'Dozens of MPs who supported his decision to step down.'
So where are they then? I assumed the 57 named were the die hards.
Well Zahawi is one for sure. I suspect there are some others but maybe not 'dozens'.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I agree with you on the lists - but it is remarkable how few people make that comment about our current system in which, for the party of your preference, your choice of candidate is precisely zero.
The point being that we need to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. And any system that introduces proportionality based on party percentages is, by definition, increasing party control over the MPs.
As I said I can live with STV on that basis as it does not provide proportionality for parties. But my preference would be for any system that actively reduces the influence parties have over our electoral system. Hence my long time support for limiting the power of the whips - though I accept that is a separate debate.
I do like Robert's idea of trying STV at a local level. But again it would need to remove any possibility of the parties being able to claim they had some sort of control over the councillors as a result of the electoral system.
As party affiliation is voluntary, I don't see how you can reduce the power of the whips. The relationship is transactional, you help me and I help you.
STV means that voters can choose their candidates in a way that reduces the power of whips, but I don't see that you can reduce the power of whips in a FPTP system.
Not at all. Your first statement is utterly false. Under the current system it is overwhelmingly the case that the permanent removal of the whip means the end of an MPs political career at the next election. That is a straight forward system of threats and bribes that, if it were being pursued against MPs by anyone outside the party system would be a criminal offence.
By enshrining in law the principle that all votes except VoCs are free votes the party leaderships would have to fall back on the strength of their arguments over an issue to gain support. Obviously most MPs would still vote along party lines but it would no longer be possible to punish an MP if they did not. What we have now is a perversion of the democratic system whereby MPs are forced to put their own careers ahead of the good of their constituents on issues where they disagree with the party leadership.
I would also resurrect the principle that any MP being given a ministerial post outside of the aftermath of an election must stand for a by-election in their constituency. That was the way until the early part of the 20th century.
SKS Fans please explain how can a Party with a 30% lead be only this far ahead in baest PM
SKS a massive drag on Lab
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 9h Keir Starmer leads Boris Johnson by only 3%.
At this moment, which of the following do voters think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK?
Starmer v Johnson:
Starmer 42% Johnson 39%
Starmer v Sunak:
Starmer 44% Sunak 33%
It's been a while, but can you remember the figures for Corbyn vs Johnson, for comparison.
I am sure he was also a drag doesnt really answer my point though does it?
Why is SKS such a massive drag?
After the last disaster of Corbyn, Starmer is playing it very safe and boring. By muting Labour of its Far Left and not making mistakes by moderating his speeches, Keir's made his centre-left party a government in waiting. A firebrand spouting controversial views would lose the turning Lib Dems, Tory wets and floating voters. Socialism is fine for protest parties, but professionalism and unity sways the electorate.
Yes, “Labour” as a brand is only currently electable because the leadership (not just Starmer but the credible people around him such as Reeves, Lammy, Cooper and Streeting) are believable as a future government.
Corbyn’s leadership and his shadow cabinet had their highlights (I love Emily Thornberry, Starmer was a good shadow Brexit secretary and McDonnell while scary had real charisma) but they touched depths akin to those of the Boris cabinet too.
If Johnson wins exactly how many Tory MPs will cause a drama is hard to say .
I expect we’ll hear the mantra , we need to unite , we can’t afford more instability , the public won’t forgive us if we continue to fight amongst ourselves ........
We’ve seen protestations from Tory MPs before which don’t amount to much.
So I think it’s best to reserve judgement .
I think a few more then usual wont do the normal give him a chance stuff. He had his chance.
But as you suggest it'll be less than threatened. Most will just moan.
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I agree with you on the lists - but it is remarkable how few people make that comment about our current system in which, for the party of your preference, your choice of candidate is precisely zero.
The point being that we need to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. And any system that introduces proportionality based on party percentages is, by definition, increasing party control over the MPs.
As I said I can live with STV on that basis as it does not provide proportionality for parties. But my preference would be for any system that actively reduces the influence parties have over our electoral system. Hence my long time support for limiting the power of the whips - though I accept that is a separate debate.
I do like Robert's idea of trying STV at a local level. But again it would need to remove any possibility of the parties being able to claim they had some sort of control over the councillors as a result of the electoral system.
Your first para isn’t strictly correct. Both because we start from a very high level of party control, and because there are a variety of types of list or additional member systems where voters have some or even considerable choice over candidates.
It is not just the choice over the candidates, it is the ability of the parties to claim that the MPs were elected because they were of a particular party. That is the logical conclusion of 'proportionality' between parties.
I hold no flame for FPTP in its current form but I don't want whatever replaces it to increase the power of the parties over their MPs. That is partly the reason we are in the mess we are in now.
There is a curious anomaly in the Scottish Parliament. Normally if a list MSP dies or resigns the next one on the party slate for that region gets it. Which I'm not too keen on, for the reasons you specify, as well as the wider concept of party lists, though I suppose if you are an independent you might as well stick to one constituency, like Mr Canavan. But if the list MSP loses or resigns the whip he or she is not deposed evewn though being non-party.
Proof if proof were needed that whatever the merits and demerits of STV, FPTP and That Which We Must Not Name Lest We Trigger TSE, the quasi-D'Hondt system used in Cardiff and Edinburgh is the worst of all possible choices.
I don’t know about Cardiff, but the system used in Edinburgh was contrived to ensure a permanent Lab/LD coalition, which worked until it didn’t.
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
I have posting for 5 years and was lurking for 5 before that. As far as I can remember PB has always been politics first, then betting and other stuff a distant second/third.
The great thing of course is the focus on politics but without an overriding left or right bias, so plenty of chance to debate with those of a very different persuasion.
That's true but it seems like the motivating factor for threads and headers is how much we hate Johnson rather than what's the actual betting probabilities.
It's the same when it comes to the US. How many threads have we said talking about how the Democrats are value to keep the House etc etc and how many about the chances of the GOP? A lot on the former, none on the latter. Why? Because the thread writers push their personal biases onto the posts. Yet you look at all the indicators in the US polling, it's pretty clear the Democrats are losing steam and the GOP is picking up momentum.
This is not a political bias rant. There are plenty of people on here who are lurkers and taking a view on how to bet from those who post often here. We could be losing people a fair bit of money.
Some things happening in Virginia!
I see we are back yo cool clear headed bettors seeing value in Trump winning Colorado territory again.
You mean to keep it out of Wales? It is already extremely widespread across England and the whole country has been under quarantine restrictions for a week- more for most of Eastern England and the NW.
This is the worst year I have seen for Avian flu. Buy your turkeys now because I suspect there may be a severe shortage by the time we get to Christmas if it carries on at this rate.
This very effective speech by Yvette Cooper focusing on all the disagreements between Braverman and Truss didn’t get much attention given everything else in the news, but is worth a watch and is surely the backdrop to her resignation shortly after:
@Richard_Tyndall Thanks for responding Richard. I know we have the FPTP/PR debate regularly so I don't want to start that one again, but keen to discuss the specifics we were discussing. Re STV why do you think it weakens the constituency link? I would have thought it would have made it stronger. Also rather than focusing on a common denominator of the electorate in a candidate to maximise a vote, it is beneficial to put up candidates with a range of characteristics. Re AV you maybe surprised that I am in agreement with you. Although not proportional it usually is better than FPTP. There are occasions when it is less representative, but usually only when there would have been a huge landslide anyway. Not my first choice but more acceptable than FPTP. I am very unkeen on PR systems where the voter doesn't really get a choice, but it is effectively decided by the parties eg lists
I agree with you on the lists - but it is remarkable how few people make that comment about our current system in which, for the party of your preference, your choice of candidate is precisely zero.
The point being that we need to reduce the power of the parties not increase it. And any system that introduces proportionality based on party percentages is, by definition, increasing party control over the MPs.
As I said I can live with STV on that basis as it does not provide proportionality for parties. But my preference would be for any system that actively reduces the influence parties have over our electoral system. Hence my long time support for limiting the power of the whips - though I accept that is a separate debate.
I do like Robert's idea of trying STV at a local level. But again it would need to remove any possibility of the parties being able to claim they had some sort of control over the councillors as a result of the electoral system.
As party affiliation is voluntary, I don't see how you can reduce the power of the whips. The relationship is transactional, you help me and I help you.
STV means that voters can choose their candidates in a way that reduces the power of whips, but I don't see that you can reduce the power of whips in a FPTP system.
Not at all. Your first statement is utterly false. Under the current system it is overwhelmingly the case that the permanent removal of the whip means the end of an MPs political career at the next election. That is a straight forward system of threats and bribes that, if it were being pursued against MPs by anyone outside the party system would be a criminal offence.
By enshrining in law the principle that all votes except VoCs are free votes the party leaderships would have to fall back on the strength of their arguments over an issue to gain support. Obviously most MPs would still vote along party lines but it would no longer be possible to punish an MP if they did not. What we have now is a perversion of the democratic system whereby MPs are forced to put their own careers ahead of the good of their constituents on issues where they disagree with the party leadership.
I would also resurrect the principle that any MP being given a ministerial post outside of the aftermath of an election must stand for a by-election in their constituency. That was the way until the early part of the 20th century.
No, taking the whip is voluntary.
How would you ban whips from withdrawing party support at an election? No one has the right to stand for a party.
I don't think Boris has the numbers. We will soon see!
If he doesn't then Penny is clearly hoping she gets the "stop Rishi" transfers. Probably quite close on a members vote between Penny and Rishi. Question would be does she let it get that far or does she then back out for party unity?
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
exactly - this has evolved over the years to become an almost pure politics website - I dont mind politics being discussed and it always was but the betting angle is being squeezed - I would not mind so much but its not political debate its more slagging off and course insults (imported from other social media influences no doubt) that has made this site worsen in its once high quality content
Even worse, it's potentially losing people money.
If I'm a lurker and take the view people who comment and write headers are 'experts' and know what they are talking about, Id be tempted to follow their lead when it comes to betting.
Yet - and this is particularly true when it comes to the US side - the writers who stated we should back X have not been back to say the facts have changed. They have left their original opinion hanging up there for people to gauge a view.
That's not good. If you write a header, and it's turning out to be wrong, you should have the courage and decency to say why it's wrong. Don't be a lawyer and try and mention about T&Cs. Do the right thing and say circumstances have changed.
This may be asking a lot. Everyone knows that an opinion on betting is an opinion on probabilities as they are seen to be at the time the opinion is given, and at no other time past or future.
The betting on next Tory leader has veered all over the place in the space of 48 hours. Probably 48 minutes.
You mean to keep it out of Wales? It is already extremely widespread across England and the whole country has been under quarantine restrictions for a week- more for most of Eastern England and the NW.
This is the worst year I have seen for Avian flu. Buy your turkeys now because I suspect there may be a severe shortage by the time we get to Christmas if it carries on at this rate.
There's so much going on at the moment I had no idea about this news until you mentioned it.
The problem with this website is that it has switched from being primarily a site that talks about betting outcomes to one where people know politicians and others with influence take a look and so try to bend the political discourse to get the outcome they want / align with their views.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
exactly - this has evolved over the years to become an almost pure politics website - I dont mind politics being discussed and it always was but the betting angle is being squeezed - I would not mind so much but its not political debate its more slagging off and course insults (imported from other social media influences no doubt) that has made this site worsen in its once high quality content
You obviously skip over the bits where a handful of PB’ers all watching the same cricket match live, post commentary to each other simply describing what they’ve already seen and nobody else wants to know?
I don't think Boris has the numbers. We will soon see!
If he doesn't then Penny is clearly hoping she gets the "stop Rishi" transfers. Probably quite close on a members vote between Penny and Rishi. Question would be does she let it get that far or does she then back out for party unity?
The markets think not. She is a 2.4% chance at the moment.
You mean to keep it out of Wales? It is already extremely widespread across England and the whole country has been under quarantine restrictions for a week- more for most of Eastern England and the NW.
This is the worst year I have seen for Avian flu. Buy your turkeys now because I suspect there may be a severe shortage by the time we get to Christmas if it carries on at this rate.
Indeed the news lately seems to have been exclusively dominated by turkeys.
You mean to keep it out of Wales? It is already extremely widespread across England and the whole country has been under quarantine restrictions for a week- more for most of Eastern England and the NW.
This is the worst year I have seen for Avian flu. Buy your turkeys now because I suspect there may be a severe shortage by the time we get to Christmas if it carries on at this rate.
Indeed the news lately seems to have been exclusively dominated by turkeys.
Those figures are astonishingly discouraging for Labour given the recent opinion polls.
They are recognising that the UK is about to have what could be a good --> very good Conservative PM compared to those the voters have got used to. They are also recognising that Labour still has a helluva mountain to climb.
Yes, the polls have moved massively against the Tories, but if Rishi is deemed to have done a good job getting the markets soothed and people don't blame HIM for their finances being shot, it's still game on.
Plus, Labour still have to show they have an offer that is worth moving on from Rishi. Not nailed on by any means
You may well be correct and the Conservatives will walk the next election against what you consider to be a very weak and hapless opposition.
All I would suggest is, incumbency does not shine on relatively high mortgage rates, inflation, mortgage and car loan defaults, tax rises, service cuts and specifically a creaking NHS, oh and a year or two of industrial strife.
Now most of this is down to circumstances rather than incompetence, although Sunak has personally presided over a fair few errors, specifically during COVID. Personally I thought the furlough scheme was poorly targeted, resulting in eye- watering abuse, and "eat out to help out" was a trainwreck.
Nonetheless Sunak is streets ahead of Johnson.
I think this is very accurate commentary - though of course that may be because I agree with it anyway
I don't think we can forget the lesson of 97. The economy had recovered and things were looking much more stable and well run after the events of 93/4. And yet The Tories got slaughtered. People have long memories and, it seems, are generally unforgiving of having lost money unnecessarily due to Government incompetence. I know Starmer is no Blair in terms of charisma and presentation (something that personally I am grateful for) but nor can I see Sunak and his Chancellor being a patch of Ken Clarke.
I still maintain that, even if it might be unfairly come 2024, the Tories are screwed.
Yes. They almost have no good moves. Terrible economic situation that is vanishingly unlikely to recover enough in time (even an optimist would say we won't be having a feelgood factor by 2024, even if things've turned overall), they now have to take some of the blame for thanks to Truss. And let's face it, they basically have to choose Sunak, because while Boris may be the fizzier politician, his reinstatement would cause carnage that would make an election soon inevitable. Yet Sunak is basically poised to do a lot of unpleasant stuff for little gain - when the pain can't really be, as in 2010, shoved on those least likely to vote Tory and blamed on the previous Labour government. Add in the fact that the Tories poll like believing in the faking of the moon landings among the 45s - an increasing problem as it increasingly means they've lost touch with the country they rely on governing - and have almost no plan whatsoever to address that, and they are toast. The only question is extinction level event or 97.
Evening all. After a fifteen year hiatus, I am back in Scotland for a week. Lunch in Peebles - nice to go sonewhere completely new, and Peebles is an agreeable little spot - and now tonight in Edinburgh. I don't particularly relish the rain and the dark and the cloud hovering just abive head height, but we are undeterred, and, my but it gives the town some atmosphere. Gratifyingly, my daughters love it; some of them are now planning their adult lives here. Also fun to see it through their eyes, heavily tinted by the lens of JK Rowling. We only have 24 hours here, alas. On to Perthshire tomorrow.
Been lurking again for a few years but always visit PB each day to catch up on things. Been tempted back by the recent crazy political events and my own admittedly mostly guesswork on whats going to happen:
I think BJ does have the 100+ votes, theres too many noises now coming out from his backers to be just noise to push the non committed into signing up. With Boris its all about optics and my feeling is he wants to make tomorrow (decision day) all about him. So I think his plan is to announce he's running and have a late wave of backers appear (probably 30 or 40) to make the narrative of the day all about him.
I've no idea if the backers will start pouring out first before he makes his big stage entrance or after but I honestly think this is what he's planning, He wants the fact he has 50% or even 100% less backers than Sunak to be the small print, the news will be BJ is running and a deluge of backers line his triumphant procession. Its his nature.
After that, on to the members and despite the hope they will put logic before adulation, come Friday, the Return of the Booster King will be complete. I hope I just dreamt this scenario, sadly I fear not.
'“Last night I did a lot of planning,” he says, “trying to find this morning’s best London train action. And passing through Willesden now are your standard passenger trains, and aggregate and intermodal freight services, but also…” he cuts himself off, hearing something in the distance. “There it is,” he says, as a train appears on the horizon right on cue. “It’s the British Pullman [...]”'
Was all a bit "sliding doors" this morning. Hesitated for a couple of minutes at the bus stop on the way to Gants Hill, and by the time I decided to walk there, just missed a westbound train by seconds, then had to wait 15 minutes for the next Central line!
This in turn made me miss the 1032 from Paddington to Didcot (in order to reach Twyford), so I had to get the 1045 service to Reading, which left 7 minutes late! Managed to get the 1145 from Twyford to Henley. Um, this was in order to visit all three stations on the branch (inc. Shiplake and Wargrave). Back in March, they were added to the London Contactless travel area (along with Windsor Central), and the four Marlow branch stations were also added in May. However, the Marlow branch was closed! Engineering works till Halloween!
And as if that wasn't enough, the 1441 from Reading to Redhill, normally going out of platform 15, the most northerly, then under the GWR main line to connect with the normal Southern Railway route towards Wokingham, was re-platformed to platform 5 at around 1442(!), thus precluding me from doing that little underpass beneath the main line!
Comments
https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article13541453.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200c/0_An-effigy-of-British-politician-Boris-Johnson-is-pulled-on-a-cart-during-the-annual-Bonfire-Night-fe.jpg
I shall be there (unless it absolutely chucks it down). I want Phil and Holly to get the Lewes treatment.
But if there's another reason why you're doing it, then do feel free to enlighten us.
I don't think we can forget the lesson of 97. The economy had recovered and things were looking much more stable and well run after the events of 93/4. And yet The Tories got slaughtered. People have long memories and, it seems, are generally unforgiving of having lost money unnecessarily due to Government incompetence. I know Starmer is no Blair in terms of charisma and presentation (something that personally I am grateful for) but nor can I see Sunak and his Chancellor being a patch of Ken Clarke.
I still maintain that, even if it might be unfairly come 2024, the Tories are screwed.
I hope someone is constructing a list of said hypocrites.
I haven't seen a post all day (well, maybe one or two) that judges who might be a good bet. It's all about people trying to push Sunak to be PM because their belief is that it's best for the country (and maybe suits their book).
Not sure about this checking process because how would that work if people vote very close to the deadline . How would you do that with little notice if you’re supposed to book a slot .
The big issue George Osborne raises on C4 Andrew Neil Show tonight — if MPs are very pro Sunak but party members till vote for Johnson, MPs should say, fine, Johnson leader of party in country. But Sunak is the PM.
It wouldn't work though. Johnson has enough nutters behind him to make it untenable. Sunak has to win fair and square.
And then, I would say after this performance, withdraw the whip. He has ample precedent in Johnson's own actions in 2019 and a perfect excuse in the early comments of the SPC.
Btw - I’m not taking a view on whether Johnson makes the 100, just pointing out the value is in Starmer odds, if he does.
Guido named: 150/60/25
Change today +20/+2/+1
Guido inc Anon: 155/76/28
I think the last Labour leader to consistently outpoll the party before that was Callaghan.
As I said I can live with STV on that basis as it does not provide proportionality for parties. But my preference would be for any system that actively reduces the influence parties have over our electoral system. Hence my long time support for limiting the power of the whips - though I accept that is a separate debate.
I do like Robert's idea of trying STV at a local level. But again it would need to remove any possibility of the parties being able to claim they had some sort of control over the councillors as a result of the electoral system.
The great thing of course is the focus on politics but without an overriding left or right bias, so plenty of chance to debate with those of a very different persuasion.
Blair was clearly a bigger potential vote winner than Starmer but he was up against a leadership that was reasonably respected after turning things around a bit since black Wednesday.
Look at the cabinet immediately before the election. Major, Heseltine, Clarke, Rifkind, Gummer, Bottomley, Portillo etc etc. Compare with the circus act we’re now faced with.
Under FPTP a truly crap Tory party faced with a charismatic opposition leader could be completely wiped out. But ironically of course under PR the Tory front bench would be significantly less crap because most of the clowns would have left to become MPs for a Farage or Johnson vehicle, just as the Burgon-Pidcock tendency would have flounced off to some Putin-excusing far left vanity party.
https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1584260792114765824?s=46&t=ePFgv8xgTnro2VbHWCnVXw
It's the same when it comes to the US. How many threads have we said talking about how the Democrats are value to keep the House etc etc and how many about the chances of the GOP? A lot on the former, none on the latter. Why? Because the thread writers push their personal biases onto the posts. Yet you look at all the indicators in the US polling, it's pretty clear the Democrats are losing steam and the GOP is picking up momentum.
This is not a political bias rant. There are plenty of people on here who are lurkers and taking a view on how to bet from those who post often here. We could be losing people a fair bit of money.
There is little news from the front, but the push back at Bakhmut is welcome news, and may pressage further problems for the Russians in the east. We only hear rumours about Kherson, but it is feared that the death toll on both sides has been pretty high.
The growing sense of trouble in Russia is not going away, and the tone of things there does indeed seem to be changing from triumphalism to grim resolution and possibly muted criticism of the regime. Estonians think that the situation in Russia will take a pretty sharp turn for the worse as the transport system finally gives way under sanctions. The critical railway infrastructure now seems to be in free fall, and the medium term impact could be very disruptive indeed. The catastrophic "Morgue-ilisation" seems to have pushed the economy over the edge, and the Russian economy seems to be facing very bad times ahead, ironically as much from the incompetence of the Kremlin as sanctions and the boycott.
It is getting cold here, but gas prices are persuading us to wear warmer clothes indoors, we all feel that the frost in Russia may soon be a lot harder. The vicious war crimes against Ukrainian civilians have just reminded Estonians about their own savage occupation and increased determination to see this through to the end. Russia is slowly and inevitably losing its grip on the occupied territories, but whether this comes this year or the next, there is no alternative but to face the criminals in the Kremlin down. This is a given in Tallinn and Helsinki, but we see that even Berlin and Paris are beginning to accept that there are no choices.
No snow forecast yet, but the autumn is now well on. The air is cold again and the the long winter twilight is beginning. In the dark, the Northern Lights over Tallinn last night were stunning.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/oct/23/track-star-meet-tiktoks-trainspotter-sensation
'“Last night I did a lot of planning,” he says, “trying to find this morning’s best London train action. And passing through Willesden now are your standard passenger trains, and aggregate and intermodal freight services, but also…” he cuts himself off, hearing something in the distance. “There it is,” he says, as a train appears on the horizon right on cue. “It’s the British Pullman [...]”'
1. Ensure, as far a possible, that constituencies, or wards, are related to areas that voters can identify with.
2. Allow enough candidates that voters have a realistic choice, including a choice of candidates within a party, if feasible.
3. After the above have been satisfied, elect the number of candidates that suit each constituency or ward.
In North Ayrshire Council, we elect between 1 and 5 councillors. A self contained island (Arran) elects 1 councillor. Other areas select between 3 and 5, as appropriate.
Our ward had a choice of 12 candidates, from 8 different parties, plus 2 independents. It seems to work well.
I hold no flame for FPTP in its current form but I don't want whatever replaces it to increase the power of the parties over their MPs. That is partly the reason we are in the mess we are in now.
In addition, who seriously thinks Sunak is going to be able to restore unity to the Tories and govern with authority? Johnson may only have 60 odd named backers but those are more than enough to cause serious harm to a Sunak administration necessarily raising taxes, building (metaphorical) bridges with Europe and letting the culture war projects wither on the vine.
If Johnson wins it's absolute chaos; if Sunak wins it's just chaos.
So where are they then? I assumed the 57 named were the die hards.
Normally my central heating would have been on for the last fortnight.
In itself that isn't a great sign, as it shows how global warming is speeding up. But it comes in handy at the moment. Not only will it be depressing gas demand but it means the lower prices should hopefully be curtailing Dobby's war bonanza.
Some nice very mild weather for the Baltics later this week which should help keep the central heating turned down.
STV means that voters can choose their candidates in a way that reduces the power of whips, but I don't see that you can reduce the power of whips in a FPTP system.
23C, at 7.30. Still 22C now at 9.30. In late October. A week of temperatures in the low to mid 20s to come here, and up to 30C in South West France.
It’s incredible, worrying, but also very reassuring during this Putin winter.
Without wishing to go all Leon on you all, this is the end of days isn't it?
I expect we’ll hear the mantra , we need to unite , we can’t afford more instability , the public won’t forgive us if we continue to fight amongst ourselves ........
We’ve seen protestations from Tory MPs before which don’t amount to much.
So I think it’s best to reserve judgement .
A second confirmed case of avian influenza has been discovered in poultry on Anglesey according to the @WelshGovernment.
A 3km Protection Zone and 10km Surveillance Zone have been declared around the infected premises, to limit the risk of disease spread.
https://twitter.com/RhysWilliamsTV/status/1584267259589316610
If I'm a lurker and take the view people who comment and write headers are 'experts' and know what they are talking about, Id be tempted to follow their lead when it comes to betting.
Yet - and this is particularly true when it comes to the US side - the writers who stated we should back X have not been back to say the facts have changed. They have left their original opinion hanging up there for people to gauge a view.
That's not good. If you write a header, and it's turning out to be wrong, you should have the courage and decency to say why it's wrong. Don't be a lawyer and try and mention about T&Cs. Do the right thing and say circumstances have changed.
RT broadcasting frankly genocidal rhetoric too. I don’t use that word carelessly.
By enshrining in law the principle that all votes except VoCs are free votes the party leaderships would have to fall back on the strength of their arguments over an issue to gain support. Obviously most MPs would still vote along party lines but it would no longer be possible to punish an MP if they did not. What we have now is a perversion of the democratic system whereby MPs are forced to put their own careers ahead of the good of their constituents on issues where they disagree with the party leadership.
I would also resurrect the principle that any MP being given a ministerial post outside of the aftermath of an election must stand for a by-election in their constituency. That was the way until the early part of the 20th century.
Streeting) are believable as a future government.
Corbyn’s leadership and his shadow cabinet had their highlights (I love Emily Thornberry, Starmer was a good shadow Brexit secretary and McDonnell while scary had real charisma) but they touched depths akin to those of the Boris cabinet too.
Trump is obnoxious but he's no idiot. MTG brings him nothing extra. His VP pick is likely to be a Tim Scott type.
But as you suggest it'll be less than threatened. Most will just moan.
I see we are back yo cool clear headed bettors seeing value in Trump winning Colorado territory again.
This is the worst year I have seen for Avian flu. Buy your turkeys now because I suspect there may be a severe shortage by the time we get to Christmas if it carries on at this rate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uevRdbeNBeQ
How would you ban whips from withdrawing party support at an election? No one has the right to stand for a party.
If he doesn't then Penny is clearly hoping she gets the "stop Rishi" transfers. Probably quite close on a members vote between Penny and Rishi. Question would be does she let it get that far or does she then back out for party unity?
The betting on next Tory leader has veered all over the place in the space of 48 hours. Probably 48 minutes.
I'll get my hat ...
After a fifteen year hiatus, I am back in Scotland for a week. Lunch in Peebles - nice to go sonewhere completely new, and Peebles is an agreeable little spot - and now tonight in Edinburgh. I don't particularly relish the rain and the dark and the cloud hovering just abive head height, but we are undeterred, and, my but it gives the town some atmosphere. Gratifyingly, my daughters love it; some of them are now planning their adult lives here. Also fun to see it through their eyes, heavily tinted by the lens of JK Rowling. We only have 24 hours here, alas. On to
Perthshire tomorrow.
I think BJ does have the 100+ votes, theres too many noises now coming out from his backers to be just noise to push the non committed into signing up. With Boris its all about optics and my feeling is he wants to make tomorrow (decision day) all about him. So I think his plan is to announce he's running and have a late wave of backers appear (probably 30 or 40) to make the narrative of the day all about him.
I've no idea if the backers will start pouring out first before he makes his big stage entrance or after but I honestly think this is what he's planning, He wants the fact he has 50% or even 100% less backers than Sunak to be the small print, the news will be BJ is running and a deluge of backers line his triumphant procession. Its his nature.
After that, on to the members and despite the hope they will put logic before adulation, come Friday, the Return of the Booster King will be complete. I hope I just dreamt this scenario, sadly I fear not.
BORIS IS NOT STANDING
PMSL
He didn't have the support
This in turn made me miss the 1032 from Paddington to Didcot (in order to reach Twyford), so I had to get the 1045 service to Reading, which left 7 minutes late! Managed to get the 1145 from Twyford to Henley. Um, this was in order to visit all three stations on the branch (inc. Shiplake and Wargrave). Back in March, they were added to the London Contactless travel area (along with Windsor Central), and the four Marlow branch stations were also added in May. However, the Marlow branch was closed! Engineering works till Halloween!
And as if that wasn't enough, the 1441 from Reading to Redhill, normally going out of platform 15, the most northerly, then under the GWR main line to connect with the normal Southern Railway route towards Wokingham, was re-platformed to platform 5 at around 1442(!), thus precluding me from doing that little underpass beneath the main line!
Oh, well!
ROFLMAO