This betting opportunity from Smarkets is worth looking at, the market is about a Tory MP defecting to Labour by the end of the year, my hunch is plenty of you will fancy a seven per cent return in just over two months.
Call me old fashioned, but if an MP decides to cross the floor shouldn't it be on a matter of profound political principle? Not simply because their lot are lagging in the polls and he or she is likely to get booted out at the next general election.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
He seems to have suffered the classic “alternative thinker” -> full on Qanon conspiracy theorist nutcase path. (According to the blog posts I’ve seen quoted he claims he was originally radicalised by GamerGate, the gift that just keeps on giving.)
Has QAnon become the modern day equivalent of 30s Nazi theology? There are a lot of overlaps - the OG Nazis were very into the occult IIRC.
He and his wife (lib dem cllr) stood in East Dunbartonshire but don't live in the council area, used false addresses on their papers, and both have been arrested
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
He seems to have suffered the classic “alternative thinker” -> full on Qanon conspiracy theorist nutcase path. (According to the blog posts I’ve seen quoted he claims he was originally radicalised by GamerGate, the gift that just keeps on giving.)
Has QAnon become the modern day equivalent of 30s Nazi theology? There are a lot of overlaps - the OG Nazis were very into the occult IIRC.
Call me old fashioned, but if an MP decides to cross the floor shouldn't it be on a matter of profound political principle? Not simply because their lot are lagging in the polls and he or she is likely to get booted out at the next general election.
Personally would think a floor crosser should automatically trigger an election in that seat. Many, if not most vote for the party. This is where it’s different to changing PMs, although many would claim they are voting for a PM.
Call me old fashioned, but if an MP decides to cross the floor shouldn't it be on a matter of profound political principle? Not simply because their lot are lagging in the polls and he or she is likely to get booted out at the next general election.
Don’t the party they have transferred to need to check their credentials? As an extreme example, if JRM thought he would switch to Labour to save his NE Somerset seat, would Labour want to select him?
Tory MPs may be more likely to resign the Tory Whip than join an Opposition party. The Opinium pollster has been allowing for 'swingback' since changing its methodology last February. Had it not done so , the Labour lead of 16% would be likely to be above 20%.
Personally would think a floor crosser should automatically trigger an election in that seat. Many, if not most vote for the party. This is where it’s different to changing PMs, although many would claim they are voting for a PM.
Seems to me that it's exactly the same as changing PMs. Either you argue that the system rests on voters voting for MPs as individuals (which is how the letter of the law says it works), and then neither a new PM nor a change of party for one MP require a re-vote; or else you admit that in practice an awful lot of voters really want to vote for party and/or PM, and are just using the system as best they can to achieve their aims, in which case a fresh election can be argued for in both the 'new PM' and 'crossing the floor' cases.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
Call me old fashioned, but if an MP decides to cross the floor shouldn't it be on a matter of profound political principle? Not simply because their lot are lagging in the polls and he or she is likely to get booted out at the next general election.
Don’t the party they have transferred to need to check their credentials? As an extreme example, if JRM thought he would switch to Labour to save his NE Somerset seat, would Labour want to select him?
JRM would clearly not be acceptable in Labour ranks, and there is certainly no obligation to allow the defecting MP to fight his seat at the following GE under his/her new party colours. Will Christian Wakeford be allowed to fight Bury South next time as a Labour candidate?
turbotubbs said: "Personally would think a floor crosser should automatically trigger an election in that seat. Many, if not most vote for the party."
Texas party switcher Phil Gramm would agree with you: "Gramm's voting record was very conservative, even by Texas Democratic standards of the time. During his first four terms, he tallied an average rating of 89 from the American Conservative Union, and from 1980 to 1982 he garnered the highest rating from that body of any Democrat in the Texas delegation.[5][6][7][8] In 1981, he co-sponsored the Gramm-Latta Budget which implemented President Ronald Reagan's economic program, increased military spending, cut other spending, and mandated the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut).[citation needed]
Just days after being reelected in 1982, Gramm was thrown off the House Budget Committee. In response, Gramm resigned his House seat on January 5, 1983. He then ran as a Republican for his own vacancy in a February 12, 1983 special election, and won easily. " source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm
Personally would think a floor crosser should automatically trigger an election in that seat. Many, if not most vote for the party. This is where it’s different to changing PMs, although many would claim they are voting for a PM.
Seems to me that it's exactly the same as changing PMs. Either you argue that the system rests on voters voting for MPs as individuals (which is how the letter of the law says it works), and then neither a new PM nor a change of party for one MP require a re-vote; or else you admit that in practice an awful lot of voters really want to vote for party and/or PM, and are just using the system as best they can to achieve their aims, in which case a fresh election can be argued for in both the 'new PM' and 'crossing the floor' cases.
That’s fair. I wonder would all those calling for a general election do so for a floor crosser to their party? Suspect not. Cynical me.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
The rumour is that a gay hookup between 80-something Mr Pelosi and his attacker went wrong after too much coke.
Lmao ! Is this the latest from the MAGA crowd ?
The thing is, it wouldn't be the first time someone prominent had staged an attack to make right wingers look bad. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussie_Smollett_hate_crime_hoax So while my initial assumption is that what appears to be the case is indeed the case, the rumours that this is staged are not beyond the bounds of credibility.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
I agree, to the extent that the NYT appeared to be downplaying the story.
But I’d also note that Musk is re-tweeting stories from a conspiracy publication (who previously, for example, reported that Clinton had died in 2016 and was replaced by a stand-in for the debates with Trump).
Given that Musk is now CEO and owner (along with the Saudis) of Twitter, that has global import.
Tory MPs may be more likely to resign the Tory Whip than join an Opposition party. The Opinium pollster has been allowing for 'swingback' since changing its methodology last February. Had it not done so , the Labour lead of 16% would be likely to be above 20%.
The problem with joining an opppsition party is that in many cases it means stopping working with constituency colleagues who like you and joining the lot from the other side who actively detest you and have someone they would much rather be their MP.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Well it's not that hard. For instance you can believe the BBC or you believe a website that claimed Hilary Clinton was replaced by a body double for a debate with Trump.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
I agree, to the extent that the NYT appeared to be downplaying the story.
But I’d also note that Musk is re-tweeting stories from a conspiracy publication (who previously, for example, reported that Clinton had died in 2016 and was replaced by a stand-in for the debates with Trump).
Given that Musk is now CEO and owner (along with the Saudis) of Twitter, that has global import.
I think I'll delete my account (not that I've used it much in recent years!).
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
It remarkably naive of you to think there isn't a significant overlap between Conservative and Labour. The extremes of both don't resemble each other much, but the Tory left and Labour right overlap and are interchangeable
The Tory left has more in common with the LDs than the Labour right and vice versa.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
I tend to agree - particularly when such a defection occurs very suddenly - out of the blue - as when Reg Prentice defected to the Tories in late 1977. It is difficult not to suspect that such acts are motivated by pure self-interest rather than principle.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
It remarkably naive of you to think there isn't a significant overlap between Conservative and Labour. The extremes of both don't resemble each other much, but the Tory left and Labour right overlap and are interchangeable
The Tory left has more in common with the LDs than the Labour right and vice versa.
Not always. Someone such as Chris Patten could quite easily be imagined on the Gaitskellite wing of the Labour party. On the other hand, some who defect appear to show great zeal as a convert. John Horam comes to mind - he defected to the SDP before becoming the rather rightwing Tory MP for Orpington!
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
Call me old fashioned, but if an MP decides to cross the floor shouldn't it be on a matter of profound political principle? Not simply because their lot are lagging in the polls and he or she is likely to get booted out at the next general election.
Don’t the party they have transferred to need to check their credentials? As an extreme example, if JRM thought he would switch to Labour to save his NE Somerset seat, would Labour want to select him?
In the case of Shawn Woodward, they moved him to a new seat.
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
It remarkably naive of you to think there isn't a significant overlap between Conservative and Labour. The extremes of both don't resemble each other much, but the Tory left and Labour right overlap and are interchangeable
The Tory left has more in common with the LDs than the Labour right and vice versa.
Not always. Someone such as Chris Patten could quite easily be imagined on the Gaitskellite wing of the Labour party. On the other hand, some who defect appear to show great zeal as a convert. John Horam comes to mind - he defected to the SDP before becoming the rather rightwing Tory MP for Orpington!
Even Chris Patten could far more easily be imagined in the LDs than the Labour party, even the rightwing of it.
It is often the case though yes that those who do go all the way feel they need to show true conversion to the cause, not least to ensure they preserve their career having made the switch
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Lula and the Workers' Party's number is 13, Bolsonaro and the Liberal Party's is 22. Numbers are big in Brazilian politics.
Bolsonaro is telling evangelical Christians that Lula plans to close churches because he's on the side of evil. Evangelical Christians are ~30% of the population and span many classes. Even some gang organisations are evangelical. (But I doubt they try to talk to you about Jesus after they rob you.) I'm told the Bolsonaro campaign has been using the "Vote for me against the Satanic church-closer" line a lot on "social" media in the past week, pitched mostly at the less well educated and poorer among the ECs, possibly mainly those in the favelas. The favelas are mostly pro-Lula for obvious reasons, but they aren't wholly so, and this is a direct election so every vote counts equally. Lula would have been better off with number 12 or 14. He will take by far the largest portion of the voteshare from the candidates who finished 3rd and 4th in the first round. If that's correct then Bolsonaro needs to win votes among those who voted Lula earlier this month, which is a tall order, but if he has kept banging away with a Satan-hates-churches-13-13-13-evil message then he may have bagged a few. If all that happens is the 3rd and 4th shares go to Lula then Lula will score 55.6%, which is higher than he's been polling. My analysis says the result will be a Lula win at around 53-47 and I've increased my stake on Lula.
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
The Opinium pollster has been allowing for 'swingback' since changing its methodology last February. Had it not done so , the Labour lead of 16% would be likely to be above 20%.
Are they still subtracting the number each respondent first thought of? The scientific approach is best.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
I agree, to the extent that the NYT appeared to be downplaying the story.
But I’d also note that Musk is re-tweeting stories from a conspiracy publication (who previously, for example, reported that Clinton had died in 2016 and was replaced by a stand-in for the debates with Trump).
Given that Musk is now CEO and owner (along with the Saudis) of Twitter, that has global import.
Bit of a logical cleft stick here, because the attacker is allegedly a bigtime conspiracy theorist. Unless that's just what they want us to think...
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
I look forward to Lee's return journey in that case.
Lula and the Workers' Party's number is 13, Bolsonaro and the Liberal Party's is 22. Numbers are big in Brazilian politics.
Bolsonaro is telling evangelical Christians that Lula plans to close churches because he's on the side of evil. Evangelical Christians are ~30% of the population and span many classes. Even some gang organisations are evangelical. (But I doubt they try to talk to you about Jesus after they rob you.) I'm told the Bolsonaro campaign has been using the "Vote for me against the Satanic church-closer" line a lot on "social" media in the past week, pitched mostly at the less well educated and poorer among the ECs, possibly mainly those in the favelas. The favelas are mostly pro-Lula for obvious reasons, but they aren't wholly so, and this is a direct election so every vote counts equally. Lula would have been better off with number 12 or 14. He will take by far the largest portion of the voteshare from the candidates who finished 3rd and 4th in the first round. If that's correct then Bolsonaro needs to win votes among those who voted Lula earlier this month, which is a tall order, but if he has kept banging away with a Satan-hates-churches-13-13-13-evil message then he may have bagged a few. If all that happens is the 3rd and 4th shares go to Lula then Lula will score 55.6%, which is higher than he's been polling. My analysis says the result will be a Lula win at around 53-47 and I've increased my stake on Lula.
Lula may have lost Protestant evangelicals to Bolsonaro but he has gained endorsements from Catholic Franciscans
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
I agree, to the extent that the NYT appeared to be downplaying the story.
But I’d also note that Musk is re-tweeting stories from a conspiracy publication (who previously, for example, reported that Clinton had died in 2016 and was replaced by a stand-in for the debates with Trump).
Given that Musk is now CEO and owner (along with the Saudis) of Twitter, that has global import.
I think I'll delete my Twitter account (not that I've used it much in recent years!).
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Classic Tory Wets probably overlapped better with Lib Dems, but the whole point of Red Wall Theory was to grab lifelong Labour voters by bit statism in one country.
If the Conservatives have given up on that, there's only one place for the rejected to go, and it isn't the Lib Dems.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
I just deleted my Twitter, precisely because Musk has taken over.
For any who missed it earlier. A useful corrective to the drivel the Guardian published yesterday:
Fantastic piece. You don’t know what people think, and you shouldn’t say what they ought to think, based on their ancestry. (Or sexuality, I might add - the narrative of treachery directed at gay/lesbian people with non-approved opinions is much the same.)
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Lula and the Workers' Party's number is 13, Bolsonaro and the Liberal Party's is 22. Numbers are big in Brazilian politics.
Bolsonaro is telling evangelical Christians that Lula plans to close churches because he's on the side of evil. Evangelical Christians are ~30% of the population and span many classes. Even some gang organisations are evangelical. (But I doubt they try to talk to you about Jesus after they rob you.) I'm told the Bolsonaro campaign has been using the "Vote for me against the Satanic church-closer" line a lot on "social" media in the past week, pitched mostly at the less well educated and poorer among the ECs, possibly mainly those in the favelas. The favelas are mostly pro-Lula for obvious reasons, but they aren't wholly so, and this is a direct election so every vote counts equally. Lula would have been better off with number 12 or 14. He will take by far the largest portion of the voteshare from the candidates who finished 3rd and 4th in the first round. If that's correct then Bolsonaro needs to win votes among those who voted Lula earlier this month, which is a tall order, but if he has kept banging away with a Satan-hates-churches-13-13-13-evil message then he may have bagged a few. If all that happens is the 3rd and 4th shares go to Lula then Lula will score 55.6%, which is higher than he's been polling. My analysis says the result will be a Lula win at around 53-47 and I've increased my stake on Lula.
I've dabbled £100 or so on Lula.
Don't really know what I'm doing - so i'm also prepared to lose it - but it adds a bit of spice to the weekend.
Lula and the Workers' Party's number is 13, Bolsonaro and the Liberal Party's is 22. Numbers are big in Brazilian politics.
Bolsonaro is telling evangelical Christians that Lula plans to close churches because he's on the side of evil. Evangelical Christians are ~30% of the population and span many classes. Even some gang organisations are evangelical. (But I doubt they try to talk to you about Jesus after they rob you.) I'm told the Bolsonaro campaign has been using the "Vote for me against the Satanic church-closer" line a lot on "social" media in the past week, pitched mostly at the less well educated and poorer among the ECs, possibly mainly those in the favelas. The favelas are mostly pro-Lula for obvious reasons, but they aren't wholly so, and this is a direct election so every vote counts equally. Lula would have been better off with number 12 or 14. He will take by far the largest portion of the voteshare from the candidates who finished 3rd and 4th in the first round. If that's correct then Bolsonaro needs to win votes among those who voted Lula earlier this month, which is a tall order, but if he has kept banging away with a Satan-hates-churches-13-13-13-evil message then he may have bagged a few. If all that happens is the 3rd and 4th shares go to Lula then Lula will score 55.6%, which is higher than he's been polling. My analysis says the result will be a Lula win at around 53-47 and I've increased my stake on Lula.
On the other hand, the BBC reports that Bolsonaro was invited to eat a deceased indigenous person and said he would have had no problem with that, but that he abstained because his colleagues didn't fancy it. And the electoral commission banned the video of the interview in which he said that, because it had been taken out of context. And the the tribe alleged to have invited him to do it, said Bolsonaro was lying, because they didn't practise cannibalism.
It only goes to show - no matter how bad you think things are, they could always be worse.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
That's absolute balls and you know it. It's the second/third time you've raised what Zuckerberg said on Rogan in the last few days. That and "he's a discredited scientist" are your only comebacks.
A man who tried to row back from being caught with Nazi memorabilia on his laptop by alleging it was a "wind up" (sure, we believe you, thousands wouldn't) are somehow the sensible middle ground arbiter in all of this?
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
I just deleted my Twitter, precisely because Musk has taken over.
It will be fascinating to see what effect Musk’s takeover has on Twitter. Some people seem to loathe Musk to a quite irrational extent. He can be a thin skinned dickhead (eg the Thai pedo thing) but I have trouble seeing him as this Satanic figure that others perceive. He also does good things: Starlink to Ukraine
Will he repel more users than he attracts? We shall see
Call me old fashioned, but if an MP decides to cross the floor shouldn't it be on a matter of profound political principle? Not simply because their lot are lagging in the polls and he or she is likely to get booted out at the next general election.
It's remarkable how often principle and low poll ratings coincide.
Lula and the Workers' Party's number is 13, Bolsonaro and the Liberal Party's is 22. Numbers are big in Brazilian politics.
Bolsonaro is telling evangelical Christians that Lula plans to close churches because he's on the side of evil. Evangelical Christians are ~30% of the population and span many classes. Even some gang organisations are evangelical. (But I doubt they try to talk to you about Jesus after they rob you.) I'm told the Bolsonaro campaign has been using the "Vote for me against the Satanic church-closer" line a lot on "social" media in the past week, pitched mostly at the less well educated and poorer among the ECs, possibly mainly those in the favelas. The favelas are mostly pro-Lula for obvious reasons, but they aren't wholly so, and this is a direct election so every vote counts equally. Lula would have been better off with number 12 or 14. He will take by far the largest portion of the voteshare from the candidates who finished 3rd and 4th in the first round. If that's correct then Bolsonaro needs to win votes among those who voted Lula earlier this month, which is a tall order, but if he has kept banging away with a Satan-hates-churches-13-13-13-evil message then he may have bagged a few. If all that happens is the 3rd and 4th shares go to Lula then Lula will score 55.6%, which is higher than he's been polling. My analysis says the result will be a Lula win at around 53-47 and I've increased my stake on Lula.
Lula may have lost Protestant evangelicals to Bolsonaro but he has gained endorsements from Catholic Franciscans
And - quite seriously - various syncretistic polytheistic religions that are very far from orthodox Christianity of any kind are very popular in Brazil, so nothing is as simple as it seems.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
I look forward to Lee's return journey in that case.
Lee Anderson won't be returning, he's gone full on right-wing with the zeal of a convert.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
I'm not sure that's true.
Although you personally have a definition of "Conservative values" (and I respect that that deeply underpins and informs your views), I think that a range of other views have been supported "inside the Tory tent" at different times in the past.
It is quite possible to have a personally consistent world view and for that to pass into the orbit of multiple parties over time, without being a careerist.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
Call me old fashioned, but if an MP decides to cross the floor shouldn't it be on a matter of profound political principle? Not simply because their lot are lagging in the polls and he or she is likely to get booted out at the next general election.
How do you tell the difference? As far as I know no one has gone from Labour to Conservative, but there have been a few Conservative to Labour, and political survival probably played some role for some of those (in fairness, some have been in safeish seats, so not about that).
It's funnier at local level, as a few people switch about a lot, far more dramatically than with MPs, and go back and forth.
Call me old fashioned, but if an MP decides to cross the floor shouldn't it be on a matter of profound political principle? Not simply because their lot are lagging in the polls and he or she is likely to get booted out at the next general election.
It's remarkable how often principle and low poll ratings coincide.
Red wallers could just about credibly do it on a "not what I signed up" for basis after the autumn statement, and what have they got to lose? Anbd if they are any good and bring a real first time incumbency bonus with them, SKS should look at them. Praps with a view to running on an "heir to Boris" ticket in the RW.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
I can't say I'm happy with that. Because I'm not. He can't defend it because it is indefensible...and he clearly knows it.
It's not an elaborate joke Leon. As the n-bomb you dropped in your above post shows.
I find it hard to believe that even neo nazis openly have Nazi stuff on their desktop backgrounds while out in public. It's the same reason most even most racists know not to say they are racists.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
There are, I think, two stories where that is somewhat true:
One is the Hunter Biden story.
Two is (to a lesser extent) the lab leak theory.
But I'm struggling with any others.
And in the former case, it was a case of junkie doing stupid thing. In the latter case, the 'conspiracy' consisted of people being sceptical of something.
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
It's not an elaborate joke Leon. As the n-bomb you dropped in your above post shows.
I find it hard to believe that even neo nazis openly have Nazi stuff on their desktop backgrounds while out in public. It's the same reason most even most racists know not to say they are racists.
In Leon's Inception level blurring of reality and fantasy he implicitly invites us to determine what is and is not real for ourselves. I have accepted that invitation. If he doesn't like the outcome, tough.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
It is disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful, partic IIRC Watson has never properly apologised
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the 1990s Tories and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
So, Facebook did not stop people posting and sharing the story and after a week allowed it to surface in the algorithm like any other story after they had fact checked it?
I suspect she’s got “security breach on a hair trigger” warning and the first slip and she’s sacked before she can resign.
I don't agree with George. Not because it is a disgusting way of appointing important ministries as luckyguy suggests, though that is also true, but because it is a very stupid calculation to have made, and I think it more likely that they want her to advance, and simply feel they can hold out from the current pressure.
For one, even if she is going to blow up sooner or later she might do much damage to the public and the government whilst she is in post. There's also a chance, low though it might seem, that she doesn't blow up, and then they are stuck with her.
For two, there was a very quick fix which would have avoided the current mess to some degree, in that she could have been given another ministry, but not the Home Office, thus rewarding her political support but maintaining at least some line that you simply cannot be reappointed to the same position you literally just resigned from.
For three, giving her a 'second chance' when she's not even had time to enter the political doghouse means if she does blow up again the government would share in the criticism even more than usual, since they declared by their actions that she need not show any responsibility or contrition for her actions. At least if there was a delay to reappointing her they could potentially credibly argue that she had learned a lesson, and thus if she caused an issue again it would be more understandable that they thought she was deserving.
No, the simplest explanation to me would be that they agree with her positions and want her to succeed, and genuinely believed, for some reason, they could not advance those policies as well without her.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
Seeing Starmer repeat the vacuous boilerplate 'Tom has contributed hugely to politics blah blah blah' was painful to watch. You'd be forgiven for thinking that Starmer was completely in the dark about the Carl Beech debacle and had only become aware of it during that interview. He seemed completely blindsided.
I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.
Regulate that shit.
Out of interest, what is the Pelosi rumour? That the attack on her husband was staged I take it.
American politics - and media - are in such a state it is possible to believe any of the many versions of this story. From left or right. And it is impossible to know which is correct
That’s a grave place to be
Maybe a moment of reflection from you before posting arch "more to this than meets the eye" comments?
Come on it's Leon, he's going to repost any old far right transparently false tweets so long as they fit with his ugly prejudices.
The reflex naivety on here is absurd
A surprising level of self-awareness expressed in that post.
The position of the PB left seems to be: the American left never lies, the FBI never lies, social media never lies (except now it does because Elon has bought Twitter)
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
The american left come in for criticism on here all the time. Not as much as the right, but it has been a source of criticism and frustration for its own failings.
The issue is the sides do not appear anywhere equal in the loathsome stakes, as it applies to fundamental issues of adherence to democratic norms for example.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the Major premiership and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Not really. He could have hung on in Leominster as a Conservative until he fell off the perch, were he that cynical. Wasn't he replaced by the drear-fest that is Bill Wiggin?
I suspect you are right about Corbyn as leader, although he had a stronger constitution than me and stayed whereas I left on the advent of Magic Grandpa.
Temple-Morris also sounded superb. Like Patrick McNee (John Steed of the Avengers).
@Leon - Fascinating looking at your pictures. Brings back my Iceland trip to me. Did everything you have done so far.
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
Medlars are fantastic ornamentals for blossom fruit and autumn colour, as a food: if you play your cards *exactly* right you end up with something like a rotten pear, but not so nice. Discard.
Much too much sugar in that recipe by the look of it, this is how people spoil sloe gin. And sloes are tart.
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
There will be worse people who have been elevated to the Lords. But it does feel like a misstep from Starmer, as there are bound to be other faithful servants of parliament and the Labour party who did not abuse parliamentary privilege in that way who could have been elevated instead.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the Major premiership and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Not really. He could have hung on in Leominster as a Conservative until he fell off the perch, were he that cynical. Wasn't he replaced by the drear-fest that is Bill Wiggin?
I suspect you are right about Corbyn as leader, although he had a stronger constitution than me and stayed whereas I left on the advent of Magic Grandpa.
Temple-Morris also sounded superb. Like Patrick McNee (John Steed of the Avengers).
I remember being very impressed by Temple-Morris when he came to the OU Irish Society to talk about the peace process in 1995.
If you defect from the Conservatives to Labour questions have to be asked why you ever joined the Tories in the first place, let alone became a candidate. You could just about understand a Conservative MP defecting to the LDs or RefUK but going to Labour just means they are careerists with no ideology beyond what furthers their career.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Not necessarily. What about Rosie Duffield who has a major issue with Labour's gender politics, or Graham Stringer who is as close to the definition of a RedWall Tory as one could get?
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Rose Duffield is a social democrat even if she does not always agree with Labour gender politics.
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
Personally, I can't see how someone can support parties all the way through, even though they range from the Europhile One Nations in one government to the Hard Brexiteers the next, the Clause 28-ers then become the ones to allow gay marriage etc etc. Same with Labour. Voting with a party, even though that party and it's core policies are radically different, seems crazy to me. As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Yes but you are a floating voter. If you are an ideological Conservative then you cannot consistently then join the Labour Party, same as if you are an ideological Socialist/Social Democrat you cannot then consistently join the Conservative Party
Let's take my old MP, Peter Temple-Morris, Conservative MP for Leominster for decades and the son of a Conservative MP. He crossed the floor, first to Independent then to Labour. Blair made him a Life Peer and he finished his days writing papers for Labour under Corbyn's Leadership.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
In some ways also a careerist, he defected right at the nadir of the Major premiership and the heights of Blairism.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Not really. He could have hung on in Leominster as a Conservative until he fell off the perch, were he that cynical. Wasn't he replaced by the drear-fest that is Bill Wiggin?
I suspect you are right about Corbyn as leader, although he had a stronger constitution than me and stayed whereas I left on the advent of Magic Grandpa.
Temple-Morris also sounded superb. Like Patrick McNee (John Steed of the Avengers).
The differences between centrist Labour supporters and centrist One Nation Conservatives such as myself have never been that great. There is certainly a much bigger difference between Ken Clarke and Rees-Mogg than there is between the former and, say, Yvette Cooper
(Cue HYUFD claiming that his idol, the disgraced former PM and pathological liar, Boris Johnson was/is a One Nation Conservative - he isn't and never was.)
That really is pitiful from Starmer. What the hell has Watson contributed to public life that is positive ? The whole Carl Beech scandal was used for political ends and people went to their graves with a cloud hanging over them solely down to Watson amplifying this nonsense.
There will be worse people who have been elevated to the Lords. But it does feel like a misstep from Starmer, as there are bound to be other faithful servants of parliament and the Labour party who did not abuse parliamentary privilege in that way who could have been elevated instead.
Comments
Regulate that shit.
F1: Bottas at 3.5 to be winner without the big 6 looks good. Ladbrokes.
Has QAnon become the modern day equivalent of 30s Nazi theology? There are a lot of overlaps - the OG Nazis were very into the occult IIRC.
https://twitter.com/sundaytimessco/status/1586662647956705282?s=46&t=cRTge5ZqVPsxaWgzKvYw2w
He and his wife (lib dem cllr) stood in East Dunbartonshire but don't live in the council area, used false addresses on their papers, and both have been arrested
This is where it’s different to changing PMs, although many would claim they are voting for a PM.
The Opinium pollster has been allowing for 'swingback' since changing its methodology last February. Had it not done so , the Labour lead of 16% would be likely to be above 20%.
That’s a grave place to be
Texas party switcher Phil Gramm would agree with you: "Gramm's voting record was very conservative, even by Texas Democratic standards of the time. During his first four terms, he tallied an average rating of 89 from the American Conservative Union, and from 1980 to 1982 he garnered the highest rating from that body of any Democrat in the Texas delegation.[5][6][7][8] In 1981, he co-sponsored the Gramm-Latta Budget which implemented President Ronald Reagan's economic program, increased military spending, cut other spending, and mandated the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut).[citation needed]
Just days after being reelected in 1982, Gramm was thrown off the House Budget Committee. In response, Gramm resigned his House seat on January 5, 1983. He then ran as a Republican for his own vacancy in a February 12, 1983 special election, and won easily. "
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussie_Smollett_hate_crime_hoax
So while my initial assumption is that what appears to be the case is indeed the case, the rumours that this is staged are not beyond the bounds of credibility.
But I’d also note that Musk is re-tweeting stories from a conspiracy publication (who previously, for example, reported that Clinton had died in 2016 and was replaced by a stand-in for the debates with Trump).
Given that Musk is now CEO and owner (along with the Saudis) of Twitter, that has global import.
Certainly by the end of November a lot more candidates will have been decided.
Same would apply to a Labour candidate defecting to the Conservatives
Are you going to answer my question asked on the previous couple of threads re the economics of travel journalism? Would be grateful for the feedback. I used the @Leon reference so you should find it easily.
And to anyone else can you give advice please: I have some medlars which have bletted and I have removed the flesh. I don't want to make jam. Any suggestions as to what to do with it?
The scope for spoonerisms is huge here.
It is often the case though yes that those who do go all the way feel they need to show true conversion to the cause, not least to ensure they preserve their career having made the switch
This despite now-accepted stories like this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532
The more sophisticated analysis is that truth in American politics is increasingly hard to secure on all sides. And you can accept this even as you acknowledge that Trump really is a madman, january 6 really was an attempted coup, etc
Let's talk about Lee Anderson. A lifelong Labour activist supporting Gloria Del Piero until his defection to the Tories in 2018 and victory in 2019, and now one of Boris Johnson's most loyal lapdogs (yourself not withstanding).
Lula and the Workers' Party's number is 13, Bolsonaro and the Liberal Party's is 22. Numbers are big in Brazilian politics.
Bolsonaro is telling evangelical Christians that Lula plans to close churches because he's on the side of evil. Evangelical Christians are ~30% of the population and span many classes. Even some gang organisations are evangelical. (But I doubt they try to talk to you about Jesus after they rob you.) I'm told the Bolsonaro campaign has been using the "Vote for me against the Satanic church-closer" line a lot on "social" media in the past week, pitched mostly at the less well educated and poorer among the ECs, possibly mainly those in the favelas. The favelas are mostly pro-Lula for obvious reasons, but they aren't wholly so, and this is a direct election so every vote counts equally. Lula would have been better off with number 12 or 14. He will take by far the largest portion of the voteshare from the candidates who finished 3rd and 4th in the first round. If that's correct then Bolsonaro needs to win votes among those who voted Lula earlier this month, which is a tall order, but if he has kept banging away with a Satan-hates-churches-13-13-13-evil message then he may have bagged a few. If all that happens is the 3rd and 4th shares go to Lula then Lula will score 55.6%, which is higher than he's been polling. My analysis says the result will be a Lula win at around 53-47 and I've increased my stake on Lula.
They’ve probably made a calculation that she is going to blow up and that’s fine by them because she’s no fan of them and they’re no fan of hers’
@George_Osborne gives his verdict on the controversial reappointment of Suella Braverman
#AndrewNeilShow 6.15pm
@AFNeil
https://twitter.com/Channel4/status/1586706762182561792
I suspect she’s got “security breach on a hair trigger” warning and the first slip and she’s sacked before she can resign.
Have PM’d you
Lee Anderson was always ideologically a Conservative, he joined Labour because it was the best way to get ahead in Ashfield. Once the Tories looked like they could win it under Boris he swiftly defected
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2022/10/religion-plays-central-role-in-brazilian-presidential-runoff
https://twitter.com/Falcon_Malteser/status/1586455828898500613
If the Conservatives have given up on that, there's only one place for the rejected to go, and it isn't the Lib Dems.
Fantastic piece. You don’t know what people think, and you shouldn’t say what they ought to think, based on their ancestry. (Or sexuality, I might add - the narrative of treachery directed at gay/lesbian people with non-approved opinions is much the same.)
https://twitter.com/PhilipHensher/status/1586660122000072706
https://www.buildthebottle.com/2019/08/23/medlar-gin-liqueur-recipe/
As a floating voter, I vote for whoever seems best (at a tactical voting level). Quite obviously that's not the Tories now. It's a government, not a football team.
Don't really know what I'm doing - so i'm also prepared to lose it - but it adds a bit of spice to the weekend.
It only goes to show - no matter how bad you think things are, they could always be worse.
A man who tried to row back from being caught with Nazi memorabilia on his laptop by alleging it was a "wind up" (sure, we believe you, thousands wouldn't) are somehow the sensible middle ground arbiter in all of this?
@tom_watson, having abused Parliamentary privilege to smear many innocent public servants as paedophiles, should be made a Lord of the Realm.
https://twitter.com/JamesHeartfield/status/1586620938367471618
This set-custard medlar tart looks good. https://www.dovesfarm.co.uk/recipes/medlar-tart
Will he repel more users than he attracts? We shall see
Just read his wiki.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63446683
Although you personally have a definition of "Conservative values" (and I respect that that deeply underpins and informs your views), I think that a range of other views have been supported "inside the Tory tent" at different times in the past.
It is quite possible to have a personally consistent world view and for that to pass into the orbit of multiple parties over time, without being a careerist.
By the way he was a thoroughly decent man in every way. My late father knew him quite well.
It's funnier at local level, as a few people switch about a lot, far more dramatically than with MPs, and go back and forth.
One is the Hunter Biden story.
Two is (to a lesser extent) the lab leak theory.
But I'm struggling with any others.
And in the former case, it was a case of junkie doing stupid thing. In the latter case, the 'conspiracy' consisted of people being sceptical of something.
It's rather a leap from that to the Pelosis hiring an actor to pretend for months to be MAGA supporting, QAnon believer, and then for him to break into the Pelosi household and attack Mr Pelosi with a hammer.
Said actor then being willing to go to jail for a couple of years is also pretty impressive.
“I also think that your travel photos are taken of other people's IG accounts”.
Let us say had Corbyn been leader 20 years earlier not Blair he would almost certainly not have defected
Oh the humanity.
For one, even if she is going to blow up sooner or later she might do much damage to the public and the government whilst she is in post. There's also a chance, low though it might seem, that she doesn't blow up, and then they are stuck with her.
For two, there was a very quick fix which would have avoided the current mess to some degree, in that she could have been given another ministry, but not the Home Office, thus rewarding her political support but maintaining at least some line that you simply cannot be reappointed to the same position you literally just resigned from.
For three, giving her a 'second chance' when she's not even had time to enter the political doghouse means if she does blow up again the government would share in the criticism even more than usual, since they declared by their actions that she need not show any responsibility or contrition for her actions. At least if there was a delay to reappointing her they could potentially credibly argue that she had learned a lesson, and thus if she caused an issue again it would be more understandable that they thought she was deserving.
No, the simplest explanation to me would be that they agree with her positions and want her to succeed, and genuinely believed, for some reason, they could not advance those policies as well without her.
The issue is the sides do not appear anywhere equal in the loathsome stakes, as it applies to fundamental issues of adherence to democratic norms for example.
I suspect you are right about Corbyn as leader, although he had a stronger constitution than me and stayed whereas I left on the advent of Magic Grandpa.
Temple-Morris also sounded superb. Like Patrick McNee (John Steed of the Avengers).
Medlars are fantastic ornamentals for blossom fruit and autumn colour, as a food: if you play your cards *exactly* right you end up with something like a rotten pear, but not so nice. Discard.
Much too much sugar in that recipe by the look of it, this is how people spoil sloe gin. And sloes are tart.
https://twitter.com/thomasknox
(Cue HYUFD claiming that his idol, the disgraced former PM and pathological liar, Boris Johnson was/is a One Nation Conservative - he isn't and never was.)