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
Another complaint that has been made weekly ever since I have been here (2009). Cf the old joke "Punch isn't as funny as it used to be, but then it never has been." I can promise you I am watching developments and prices like a hawk because of an imprudently large Sunak lay position, and that makes me aware that other posters are too. And listen to yourself: it's like saying you don't mind a certain amount of horse content in the Racing Post, but it is irrelevant to the betting angle.
Course insults I wouldn't know about. Newton Abbot is a bit shit.
@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.
Didn't Corbyn famously vote against his party 500 times and live to tell the tale (and become leader)?
I see in his notice BJ says he had 102 nominations, including nominator and seconder,,,,how convenient,,,he clearly didnt have the numbers. He also basically blames Sunak and Mordaunt for not falling in line with him (ie making him PM), so Rishi coronation 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.
I noticed that. She must have been on an intensive course on how to lose the votes of RP speakers. Blair went on one too. It's ghastly because it so faux.
How do you know it’s not her real accent, mush?
It isn't.
I've met Penny a couple of times, going all the way back to 2005. What I always liked about her was she always treated you with respect, spoke to you as an equal and had no pomposity about her whatsoever.
But she didn't sound like that.
The late, not-so-great Governor of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards (not to be confused with current Gov. John Bell Edwards) aka "the Cajun Fox" was noted for, depending on the audience, switching from one accent to another:
> for home consumption, his more-or-less normal speaking voice, just broader re: Cajun accent (in English) the farther south & out of the swamps he got., and more Redneck when he traveled to north Louisiana.
> for national audience (which he occassionally got) his accent was recognizably Southern but became noticeably less Cajun or Redneck.
> also fluent in Acadian French, which is more akin to Quebec than Paris; though EE was also able to speak standard French to a point when visiting the City or Light, or hosting French high-rollers.
Most (in)famous excerpt of Edwin Edwards interview, by top TV news show "60 Minutes" regarding huge congressional bribery scandal involving Korean buyers and US sellers of rice (major Louisiana crop & export), when EE was in US House:
"Congressman, is it true that you took a bribe?"
"Yeess," replied Edwards.
"But, wasn't that illegal??"
"Well, it was illegal for him to give me the money, but it was not illegal for me to take it.
- which was accurate summation of relevant federal law at that time!
@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.
True it is much bigger but you also have more representatives and a better chance of them being interested in your issue whatever it maybe. It also avoids the lazy or unsympathetic MP issue. @TimS covered these points much better than I can earlier I won't repeat them.
On the issue of party control of MPs I agree with you completely. We had this discussion sometime ago. Not sure of the practicalities but I would like to see the Whips removed altogether. I would like to see MPs working together more with less confrontation. I would like to see real debate and not the party slanging match we get in Parliament currently. They aren't debates.
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?
Errrr.... The Conservatives are down, well into their core vote. The other parties are holding their own, with Labour nibbling at the edges. Labour, under Starmer, seem to have taken all the voters that are available.
PB brain, please help, my brain has deserted me… I am on a drop zone in statistically* the sunniest place in Europe and it’s raining so I’m bored. I am trying to find the nuclear apocalypse film that @Leon was getting his knickers in a twist about a couple of weeks ago, but I can’t remember what it’s called. Please help! Thank you, sorry for being too lazy to hunt back through threads…oh.
I think I will actually post this because it has amused me no end. Very self-indulgent, sorry. (The film is called Threads, and writing the last line of the paragraph caused me to remember that)
Comments
NEW THREAD
Course insults I wouldn't know about. Newton Abbot is a bit shit.
> for home consumption, his more-or-less normal speaking voice, just broader re: Cajun accent (in English) the farther south & out of the swamps he got., and more Redneck when he traveled to north Louisiana.
> for national audience (which he occassionally got) his accent was recognizably Southern but became noticeably less Cajun or Redneck.
> also fluent in Acadian French, which is more akin to Quebec than Paris; though EE was also able to speak standard French to a point when visiting the City or Light, or hosting French high-rollers.
Most (in)famous excerpt of Edwin Edwards interview, by top TV news show "60 Minutes" regarding huge congressional bribery scandal involving Korean buyers and US sellers of rice (major Louisiana crop & export), when EE was in US House:
"Congressman, is it true that you took a bribe?"
"Yeess," replied Edwards.
"But, wasn't that illegal??"
"Well, it was illegal for him to give me the money, but it was not illegal for me to take it.
- which was accurate summation of relevant federal law at that time!
Plus, if elected (God forbid!) it was certainly dampen down enthusiasm for impeaching POTUS!
EDIT - Admittedly, MTG has a WAY better chance of making the ticket in 2024 than Mike Pence.
But who doesn't?
On the issue of party control of MPs I agree with you completely. We had this discussion sometime ago. Not sure of the practicalities but I would like to see the Whips removed altogether. I would like to see MPs working together more with less confrontation. I would like to see real debate and not the party slanging match we get in Parliament currently. They aren't debates.
I am on a drop zone in statistically* the sunniest place in Europe and it’s raining so I’m bored. I am trying to find the nuclear apocalypse film that @Leon was getting his knickers in a twist about a couple of weeks ago, but I can’t remember what it’s called. Please help! Thank you, sorry for being too lazy to hunt back through threads…oh.
I think I will actually post this because it has amused me no end. Very self-indulgent, sorry. (The film is called Threads, and writing the last line of the paragraph caused me to remember that)
*I haven’t actually checked the stats.