Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Defection watch – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 3 in General
imageDefection watch – politicalbetting.com

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.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Just to clarify my 'prediction' of a new PM by next May is based solely on OGH's next scheduled holiday.
  • My word, did I bagsy a rare first?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    Tory defection chances are severely limited by the quality of Tories on offer.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    I see the the new CEO of Twitter has repeated the Pelosi rumour on Twitter.

    Regulate that shit.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,679
    FPT:
    F1: Bottas at 3.5 to be winner without the big 6 looks good. Ladbrokes.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,259
    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.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,132

    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.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247
    EXCLUSIVE Former Scottish Tory council leader Andrew Polson and his wife have been charged with electoral fraud

    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
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,259
    edited October 30

    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.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    Phil said:

    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.
    Difficult times for libtards like me.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683

    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.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,184

    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?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    edited October 30

    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.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    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.
    Such a rule would partially close an important safety valve in our politics.

    We should be encouraging more individuality in parliament, not less.
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 206
    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%.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 516

    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.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,553

    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 ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913

    FPT:
    F1: Bottas at 3.5 to be winner without the big 6 looks good. Ladbrokes.

    That’s a good bet.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,923

    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
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 206

    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?
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 895
    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
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    pm215 said:

    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.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,467
    Nigelb said:
    Jon Clark's salad days
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857
    nico679 said:

    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.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,693
    Leon said:

    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.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,857

    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,826
    Given the current timetable of Labour candidate selection many Tory MPs may have left it too late to defect.

    Certainly by the end of November a lot more candidates will have been decided.
  • TresTres Posts: 1,362
    Leon said:

    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,649

    Leon said:

    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!).
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Leon said:

    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?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    edited October 30
    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
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    edited October 30
    HYUFD said:

    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
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,923
    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    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

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 206
    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • barrykennabarrykenna Posts: 206
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    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!
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,374
    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,483

    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.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,938
    @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?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    "Hunt’s cuts could lead to the cutting of the Tory majority ..."

    The scope for spoonerisms is huge here.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,923
    edited October 30
    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    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)

    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

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    edited October 30
    HYUFD said:

    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).
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 532
    edited October 30
    Betfair: Lula 1.42, Bolsonaro 3.3.

    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.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    I agree with George:

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,923
    kjh said:

    @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?

    Glad you enjoy the pix!

    Have PM’d you

  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890


    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.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Leon said:

    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...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    DJ41 said:

    Betfair: Lula 1.42, Bolsonaro 3.3.

    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

    https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2022/10/religion-plays-central-role-in-brazilian-presidential-runoff
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,649

    Leon said:

    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!).
    Done!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    Thought this was funny, so often you get such a perfect example of "fuck off its allowed when we do it".



    https://twitter.com/Falcon_Malteser/status/1586455828898500613
  • HYUFD said:

    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,649
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    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)

    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

    I just deleted my Twitter, precisely because Musk has taken over.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    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.)

    https://twitter.com/PhilipHensher/status/1586660122000072706
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,465
    kjh said:

    @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've got enough, why not medlar gin:
    https://www.buildthebottle.com/2019/08/23/medlar-gin-liqueur-recipe/
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,278

    Thought this was funny, so often you get such a perfect example of "fuck off its allowed when we do it".



    https://twitter.com/Falcon_Malteser/status/1586455828898500613

    Owen Jones is an embarrassment to everyone that gives him publicity.
  • StarryStarry Posts: 97
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    DJ41 said:

    Betfair: Lula 1.42, Bolsonaro 3.3.

    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.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    DJ41 said:

    Betfair: Lula 1.42, Bolsonaro 3.3.

    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,374
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    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)

    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

    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?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    Sir @Keir_Starmer struggling to explain why the malicious slanderer
    @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
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,278

    kjh said:

    @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've got enough, why not medlar gin:
    https://www.buildthebottle.com/2019/08/23/medlar-gin-liqueur-recipe/
    That's great - same principle as slow gin.

    This set-custard medlar tart looks good. https://www.dovesfarm.co.uk/recipes/medlar-tart
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,923

    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    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)

    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



    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
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,483

    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.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Betfair: Lula 1.42, Bolsonaro 3.3.

    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

    https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2022/10/religion-plays-central-role-in-brazilian-presidential-runoff
    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    Just read his wiki.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    Starry said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,622

    I agree with George:

    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.

    A fairly disgusting way to do an important Ministerial appointment then. Politics as a parlour game.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Someone's firebombed a migrant centre in Dover, and then killed themselves? No details.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63446683
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,278
    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    ...
    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482

    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.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    rcs1000 said:

    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.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,278
    Taz said:

    Sir @Keir_Starmer struggling to explain why the malicious slanderer
    @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

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    DougSeal said:



    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,483
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    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)

    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

    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.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,923
    edited October 30
    Apologies for the N word. I was trying to type *bigger* while laughing
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,374
    kle4 said:

    DougSeal said:



    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,923
    Ahahahaha

    “I also think that your travel photos are taken of other people's IG accounts”.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,144
    Taz said:

    Sir @Keir_Starmer struggling to explain why the malicious slanderer
    @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

    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
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,374
    Leon said:

    Apologies for the N word. I was trying to type bigger while laughing

    Great way of showing you're not racist. Much.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,254
    edited October 30

    ...

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Leon said:

    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    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)

    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

    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?

    Oh the humanity.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482

    I agree with George:

    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.

    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.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,259
    Taz said:

    Sir @Keir_Starmer struggling to explain why the malicious slanderer
    @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

    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.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    HYUFD said:

    ...

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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).
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    mwadams said:

    kjh said:

    @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've got enough, why not medlar gin:
    https://www.buildthebottle.com/2019/08/23/medlar-gin-liqueur-recipe/
    That's great - same principle as slow gin.

    This set-custard medlar tart looks good. https://www.dovesfarm.co.uk/recipes/medlar-tart
    Fast gin and sloe women is my preference.

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,482
    Taz said:

    Sir @Keir_Starmer struggling to explain why the malicious slanderer
    @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

    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.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,374
    Leon's banned. Oh well. Stunningly ironic way to go.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,497
    Leon said:

    Ahahahaha

    “I also think that your travel photos are taken of other people's IG accounts”.

    Banned again? So 24 hours without holiday snaps from exotic shores, oh joy!
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,374

    HYUFD said:

    ...

    HYUFD said:

    Starry said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683

    Leon said:

    Ahahahaha

    “I also think that your travel photos are taken of other people's IG accounts”.

    Banned again? So 24 hours without holiday snaps from exotic shores, oh joy!
    If you are missing them, there’s a great account on twitter you can follow…

    https://twitter.com/thomasknox
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,374

    Leon said:

    Ahahahaha

    “I also think that your travel photos are taken of other people's IG accounts”.

    Banned again? So 24 hours without holiday snaps from exotic shores, oh joy!
    Other people's holiday snaps I'm 95% sure.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    DougSeal said:

    Leon's banned. Oh well. Stunningly ironic way to go.

    If he did write a rhyme for trigger by mistake I think the system auto bans you.
This discussion has been closed.