Howdy, Stranger!

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

What Boris Johnson pulling out really means – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 15 in General
What Boris Johnson pulling out really means – politicalbetting.com

So continues what I call the 'Life of Brian Problem'.A sizeable chunk of Con MPs and members will keep believing Johnson is the Messiah.Another sizeable chunk will keep thinking he is not the Messiah, but a very naughty boy.And this will go on for yearshttps://t.co/d25PW4UU6e

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • pingping Posts: 3,212
    edited November 6
    Great C-SPAN lecture podcast on the history of US polling controversies/failures, going back to the famous Dewey/Truman election in ‘48;

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/lectures-in-history/id506779862

    May be of interest to some on here.
  • pingping Posts: 3,212
    edited November 6
    On topic - great thread @TheScreamingEagles

    My reading of this at the time he pulled out was #2 (He would win the members but was self aware that a significant number of Tory MPs wouldn’t accept the result making his premiership ungovernable).

    I’d guess there was an incredible amount of pressure placed on him to pull out by the grey suits. Perhaps he was offered something? We can only guess.

    Fascinated to read other PBers analysis of this.

    I did say, not that long ago, when I first tipped Johnson to replace Truss @16/1, that I dislike betting on markets like this, precisely because winning or losing can hinge on individual decisions made by political actors. I’m not politically connected and, so, assume others in the market probably have an edge, whereas I don't.

    It’s important, in this game, to recognise when you’re the dumb money. Knowing when not to bet is as important as knowing when to bet and when to up your stakes.

    However, there is still money to be made trading the political dynamics - and in anticipating the speculation, especially when markets mis-price the runners so spectacularly as they did here.

    I traded out, in the end, at ~7/4, so made a decent profit. I prefer betting on proper election outcomes - and the direction of opinion polls - though.

    That’s proper, skilled, political betting for grownups, imo.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    It's 2 and 5.
    He'd have won with the members.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,313
    I think BJ garnering (say 120 MPs) would have been a humiliation,.as he effectively would have been 2nd choice and even though he would have won the members (though that was not certain(, I reckon his majority would have vanished as 30 or so Tory MPs (anti-BJ due hards) would have left the party. He wants to be a winner, that plus the fact he didnt want to be the guy who handed power to Labour after a GE.
  • pingping Posts: 3,212
    edited November 6
    I do wonder what Charles would have done, had Boris gone ahead and won the members.

    Punters - and the media - generally seemed to assume Charles would have made him PM on Truss’s advice, and let him try to govern.

    I’m not so sure. I wonder if there was any intervention by the palace, that may have swayed Boris’s decision?

    I was backing Starmer as next PM quite heavily @ >200/1 - and I still think that was a value bet.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 609
    I see InfoSys, the company Sunak's family profits heavily from, is still trading in Russia.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,857
    Pulpstar said:

    It's 2 and 5.
    He'd have won with the members.

    But then why did he even start the attempt? It would help if we knew what he wanted from his meetings with Sunak and Mordaunt.

    I'm thinking maybe 3, perhaps with threats of further revelations if he didn't pull out.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486
    WillG said:

    I see InfoSys, the company Sunak's family profits heavily from, is still trading in Russia.

    Infosys is an Indian company that specializes in outsourcing. If the Indian government has not imposed sanctions (which it has not), then it would be in breach of contract to walk out on existing obligations.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486
    Has anyone else used Github Copilot?

    It's both brilliant and deranged.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,359
    kamski said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's 2 and 5.
    He'd have won with the members.

    But then why did he even start the attempt? It would help if we knew what he wanted from his meetings with Sunak and Mordaunt.

    I'm thinking maybe 3, perhaps with threats of further revelations if he didn't pull out.
    Because he has a huge ego, and probably didn’t fully anticipate the extent of the negative reaction.
    Spur of the moment decisions are how he does stuff. Sometimes it works for him; sometimes it doesn’t.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,857
    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    I see InfoSys, the company Sunak's family profits heavily from, is still trading in Russia.

    Infosys is an Indian company that specializes in outsourcing. If the Indian government has not imposed sanctions (which it has not), then it would be in breach of contract to walk out on existing obligations.
    Absolutely true.
    But -
    What did you think when Trump became president and (apparently unlike previous presidents) didn't put his wealth into a blind trust? Seems there was a lot of fuss about conflict of interests at the time.

    The PM is married to a foreign citizen, who is also extremely rich, and the daughter of a billionaire. Sure, India isn't a hostile power, but Sunak's father in law has supported Modi - who was banned from entering the UK for several years for his part in the massacres in Gujarat in 2002, and is currently quite supportive of Putin.

    And hasn't Sunak himself urged people to cut off their business connections to Russia? He isn't setting a great example here.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,402
    Re Boris, probably all of the list in the header, but also it was my (posted) belief that before he was deposed last summer, Boris was planning to retire early anyway, as Harold Wilson had done, so the prize was not worth much.

    And to point 4, on money, it may also be that he realised that with one $150,000 speech, he could have paid for all three (or is it four now?) of the exotic holidays that he'd taken since July.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,486
    edited November 6
    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    I see InfoSys, the company Sunak's family profits heavily from, is still trading in Russia.

    Infosys is an Indian company that specializes in outsourcing. If the Indian government has not imposed sanctions (which it has not), then it would be in breach of contract to walk out on existing obligations.
    Absolutely true.
    But -
    What did you think when Trump became president and (apparently unlike previous presidents) didn't put his wealth into a blind trust? Seems there was a lot of fuss about conflict of interests at the time.

    The PM is married to a foreign citizen, who is also extremely rich, and the daughter of a billionaire. Sure, India isn't a hostile power, but Sunak's father in law has supported Modi - who was banned from entering the UK for several years for his part in the massacres in Gujarat in 2002, and is currently quite supportive of Putin.

    And hasn't Sunak himself urged people to cut off their business connections to Russia? He isn't setting a great example here.
    Remind me, how much does Ms Sunak own of Infosys?

    Edit to add:

    Ms Sunak's entire family owns 15% of Infosys (https://www.infosys.com/investors/reports-filings/quarterly-results/documents/share-holding/clause35-september30-2022.pdf).

    She's going to be (at most) 10% of this 15% (i.e. 1.5%), and more likely much less.

    But even if this wasn't true, the Directors of Infosys have a moral obligation to act for all shareholders, not just the husband of one of them.
  • pingping Posts: 3,212
    edited November 6
    kamski said:



    And hasn't Sunak himself urged people to cut off their business connections to Russia? He isn't setting a great example here.

    I am slightly surprised how tone deaf the number 10 response was, in the Guardian article.

    “A Downing Street spokesperson said: “Neither Akshata Murty nor any members of her family have any involvement in the operational decisions of the company.”

    Don’t blame Rishi and his wife, they’re just banking the cheques!

    It’s a completely unacceptable state of affairs.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,402
    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    I see InfoSys, the company Sunak's family profits heavily from, is still trading in Russia.

    Infosys is an Indian company that specializes in outsourcing. If the Indian government has not imposed sanctions (which it has not), then it would be in breach of contract to walk out on existing obligations.
    Absolutely true.
    But -
    What did you think when Trump became president and (apparently unlike previous presidents) didn't put his wealth into a blind trust? Seems there was a lot of fuss about conflict of interests at the time.

    The PM is married to a foreign citizen, who is also extremely rich, and the daughter of a billionaire. Sure, India isn't a hostile power, but Sunak's father in law has supported Modi - who was banned from entering the UK for several years for his part in the massacres in Gujarat in 2002, and is currently quite supportive of Putin.

    And hasn't Sunak himself urged people to cut off their business connections to Russia? He isn't setting a great example here.
    Leaving aside Infosys in Russia, I'm not convinced the average British voter has any deep-seated objection to wealthy prime ministers. Such attacks did not stop David Cameron (twice).
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,885
    edited November 6
    Always assuming Graham Brady is telling the truth.

    I guess he probably is but the whole tory 1922 system does rely on a degree of honesty in the Chair largely absent from the rest of the current parliamentary party.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,885
    edited November 6

    Re Boris, probably all of the list in the header, but also it was my (posted) belief that before he was deposed last summer, Boris was planning to retire early anyway, as Harold Wilson had done, so the prize was not worth much.

    And to point 4, on money, it may also be that he realised that with one $150,000 speech, he could have paid for all three (or is it four now?) of the exotic holidays that he'd taken since July.

    He is also bone idle.

    Apparently Carrie was very fed up before. Boris has been able to cut and run, earn money, and mainly because of the even greater shitshow which followed, bask in the glow of his own adulation.

    When the tories get thumped at the next election, he will probably be super smug.

    Will he try to come back one day?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,857
    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    I see InfoSys, the company Sunak's family profits heavily from, is still trading in Russia.

    Infosys is an Indian company that specializes in outsourcing. If the Indian government has not imposed sanctions (which it has not), then it would be in breach of contract to walk out on existing obligations.
    Absolutely true.
    But -
    What did you think when Trump became president and (apparently unlike previous presidents) didn't put his wealth into a blind trust? Seems there was a lot of fuss about conflict of interests at the time.

    The PM is married to a foreign citizen, who is also extremely rich, and the daughter of a billionaire. Sure, India isn't a hostile power, but Sunak's father in law has supported Modi - who was banned from entering the UK for several years for his part in the massacres in Gujarat in 2002, and is currently quite supportive of Putin.

    And hasn't Sunak himself urged people to cut off their business connections to Russia? He isn't setting a great example here.
    Remind me, how much does Ms Sunak own of Infosys?

    Edit to add:

    Ms Sunak's entire family owns 15% of Infosys (https://www.infosys.com/investors/reports-filings/quarterly-results/documents/share-holding/clause35-september30-2022.pdf).

    She's going to be (at most) 10% of this 15% (i.e. 1.5%), and more likely much less.

    But even if this wasn't true, the Directors of Infosys have a moral obligation to act for all shareholders, not just the husband of one of them.
    Umm, I'm not saying anything about what Infosys should or shouldn't do. I'm talking about Sunak.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,402
    Heathener said:

    Re Boris, probably all of the list in the header, but also it was my (posted) belief that before he was deposed last summer, Boris was planning to retire early anyway, as Harold Wilson had done, so the prize was not worth much.

    And to point 4, on money, it may also be that he realised that with one $150,000 speech, he could have paid for all three (or is it four now?) of the exotic holidays that he'd taken since July.

    He is also bone idle.

    Apparently Carrie was very fed up before. Boris has been able to cut and run, earn money, and mainly because of the even greater shitshow which followed, bask in the glow of his own adulation.

    When the tories get thumped at the next election, he will probably be super smug.

    Will he try to come back one day?
    It is possible. COP27 has shown Boris has a more instinctive grasp of power politics than does Rishi, who was not going to Egypt until he discovered Boris was. But it is hard to imagine the circumstances which are favourable for the Conservatives under a putative Boris at the next election while simultaneously being bad enough to force out Rishi Sunak.
  • pingping Posts: 3,212
    I wonder what other investments the Sunaks’ have in Russia?

    Has he put his own wealth in a blind trust?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,402
    edited November 6
    ping said:

    I wonder what other investments the Sunaks’ have in Russia?

    Has he put his own wealth in a blind trust?

    Has any British Prime Minister put his wealth in a blind trust? That is an American convention and, as Donald Trump showed, not a binding one. Likewise (on both counts) tax returns.

    ETA and there is no reason to believe the Sunaks have any direct investments in Russia.
  • pingping Posts: 3,212

    ping said:

    I wonder what other investments the Sunaks’ have in Russia?

    Has he put his own wealth in a blind trust?

    Has any British Prime Minister put his wealth in a blind trust? That is an American convention and, as Donald Trump showed, not a binding one. Likewise (on both counts) tax returns.

    ETA and there is no reason to believe the Sunaks have any direct investments in Russia.
    According to various media reports, he registered a blind trust, back in 2019, as he was climbing the greasy pole. It’s not clear if he ditched it when he went back to just being an MP, earlier this year.

    Wouldn’t surprise me if he did.

  • felixfelix Posts: 14,403
    edited November 6
    rcs1000 said:

    In response to @GIN1138, I have banned @TheScreamingEagles as a precaution.

    Finally!!! :smiley: Presumably pizza thing right?
  • andypetukandypetuk Posts: 67
    ping said:

    ping said:

    I wonder what other investments the Sunaks’ have in Russia?

    Has he put his own wealth in a blind trust?

    Has any British Prime Minister put his wealth in a blind trust? That is an American convention and, as Donald Trump showed, not a binding one. Likewise (on both counts) tax returns.

    ETA and there is no reason to believe the Sunaks have any direct investments in Russia.
    According to various media reports, he registered a blind trust, back in 2019, as he was climbing the greasy pole. It’s not clear if he ditched it when he went back to just being an MP, earlier this year.

    Wouldn’t surprise me if he did.

    According to the List of Minister’s Interests May 2022 (the most recent), all his investments are in a blind trust.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,403
    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    I see InfoSys, the company Sunak's family profits heavily from, is still trading in Russia.

    Infosys is an Indian company that specializes in outsourcing. If the Indian government has not imposed sanctions (which it has not), then it would be in breach of contract to walk out on existing obligations.
    Absolutely true.
    But -
    What did you think when Trump became president and (apparently unlike previous presidents) didn't put his wealth into a blind trust? Seems there was a lot of fuss about conflict of interests at the time.

    The PM is married to a foreign citizen, who is also extremely rich, and the daughter of a billionaire. Sure, India isn't a hostile power, but Sunak's father in law has supported Modi - who was banned from entering the UK for several years for his part in the massacres in Gujarat in 2002, and is currently quite supportive of Putin.

    And hasn't Sunak himself urged people to cut off their business connections to Russia? He isn't setting a great example here.
    Remind me, how much does Ms Sunak own of Infosys?

    Edit to add:

    Ms Sunak's entire family owns 15% of Infosys (https://www.infosys.com/investors/reports-filings/quarterly-results/documents/share-holding/clause35-september30-2022.pdf).

    She's going to be (at most) 10% of this 15% (i.e. 1.5%), and more likely much less.

    But even if this wasn't true, the Directors of Infosys have a moral obligation to act for all shareholders, not just the husband of one of them.
    Umm, I'm not saying anything about what Infosys should or shouldn't do. I'm talking about Sunak.
    Saying what exactly - what do you want him to do? I see the snearing and induendos are up before breakfast 🥣
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In response to @GIN1138, I have banned @TheScreamingEagles as a precaution.

    Finally!!! :smiley: Presumably pizza thing right?
    Dissing Radiohead in a header. It has happened before...

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    I see InfoSys, the company Sunak's family profits heavily from, is still trading in Russia.

    Infosys is an Indian company that specializes in outsourcing. If the Indian government has not imposed sanctions (which it has not), then it would be in breach of contract to walk out on existing obligations.
    Absolutely true.
    But -
    What did you think when Trump became president and (apparently unlike previous presidents) didn't put his wealth into a blind trust? Seems there was a lot of fuss about conflict of interests at the time.

    The PM is married to a foreign citizen, who is also extremely rich, and the daughter of a billionaire. Sure, India isn't a hostile power, but Sunak's father in law has supported Modi - who was banned from entering the UK for several years for his part in the massacres in Gujarat in 2002, and is currently quite supportive of Putin.

    And hasn't Sunak himself urged people to cut off their business connections to Russia? He isn't setting a great example here.
    Remind me, how much does Ms Sunak own of Infosys?

    Edit to add:

    Ms Sunak's entire family owns 15% of Infosys (https://www.infosys.com/investors/reports-filings/quarterly-results/documents/share-holding/clause35-september30-2022.pdf).

    She's going to be (at most) 10% of this 15% (i.e. 1.5%), and more likely much less.

    But even if this wasn't true, the Directors of Infosys have a moral obligation to act for all shareholders, not just the husband of one of them.
    Umm, I'm not saying anything about what Infosys should or shouldn't do. I'm talking about Sunak.
    Expect more interviews like this one in March:

    https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1506912997578526728?t=WqImfLeAgwO6DMZ1Ou58fQ&s=19
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    edited November 6
    As the PB’er who profitably tipped his pulling out (indeed assured you that he would) several days in advance of it happening - as well as a mix of number 1-5 there are various other levers that will have been *pulled* behind the scenes to persuade him not to stand.

    The bottom line is that his second ‘go’ would have been, and could have been made to have been, a disastrous failure. And he didn’t want that.

    There is also the minor detail that second time around would actually be hard work - as Sunak is demonstrating/finding - and not some sort of jolly jape. Indeed it would have been the first time in his life that he’d ever have had to clean up someone else’s mess - an entirely new and unwelcome experience - a factor that could easily slot into the lead as number six!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    Heathener said:

    Re Boris, probably all of the list in the header, but also it was my (posted) belief that before he was deposed last summer, Boris was planning to retire early anyway, as Harold Wilson had done, so the prize was not worth much.

    And to point 4, on money, it may also be that he realised that with one $150,000 speech, he could have paid for all three (or is it four now?) of the exotic holidays that he'd taken since July.

    He is also bone idle.

    Apparently Carrie was very fed up before. Boris has been able to cut and run, earn money, and mainly because of the even greater shitshow which followed, bask in the glow of his own adulation.

    When the tories get thumped at the next election, he will probably be super smug.

    Will he try to come back one day?
    It is possible. COP27 has shown Boris has a more instinctive grasp of power politics than does Rishi, who was not going to Egypt until he discovered Boris was. But it is hard to imagine the circumstances which are favourable for the Conservatives under a putative Boris at the next election while simultaneously being bad enough to force out Rishi Sunak.
    The way that Sunak was outmanouvered over COP27 by Johnson and by KC3 shows how politically naiive he can be. Not to mention stinking out his cabinet with Braverman, Sir Gavin Williamson etc.

    Lay down with dogs etc.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    IanB2 said:

    As well as a mix of number 1-5 there are various other levers that will have been *pulled* behind the scenes to persuade him not to stand.

    The bottom line is that his second ‘go’ would have been, and could have been made to have been, a disastrous failure. And he didn’t want that.

    There is also the minor detail that second time around would actually be hard work - as Sunak is demonstrating/finding - and not some sort of jolly jape. Indeed it would have been the first time in his life that he’d ever have had to clean up someone else’s mess - an entirely new and unwelcome experience - a factor that could easily slot into the lead as number six!

    Yes, I think he wanted to dodge the shitstorm of the next 18 months without the backing of either financial markets or the parliamentary party. A self-serving and lazy motivation is always more plausible with Johnson.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    edited November 6
    kamski said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's 2 and 5.
    He'd have won with the members.

    But then why did he even start the attempt? It would help if we knew what he wanted from his meetings with Sunak and Mordaunt.

    I'm thinking maybe 3, perhaps with threats of further revelations if he didn't pull out.
    He attempted because, being a lazy f****r and being on the beach thousands of miles away, he was out of the loop and only in touch with a handful of those urging him to stand. And probably phoned by journalists every ten minutes asking the question, which he would have taken as evidence of public interest rather than merely chasing a good story.

    Had he been doing his job as an MP in Parliament he’d have been *persuaded* to stay away from the outset.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    If even Villiers is on a brief trip back from Planet Loopy, there must be something wrong!:

    One of the Tory party’s leading Brexit supporters has raised concerns about plans to scrap 2,400 EU laws by the end of next year – as fears grow that the policy will overwhelm the civil service and bring government to a virtual standstill.

    Former environment secretary Theresa Villiers, who backed Brexit in 2016, told the Observer that the proposals would take up vast amounts of civil service time and would involve undoing legislation that, in many cases, was broadly popular and good for the country.

    Other senior Tories are growing concerned that the EU retained law bill, championed by Jacob Rees-Mogg before Rishi Sunak sacked him on becoming prime minister, is in danger of becoming an ideological millstone.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    The vast majority of the public believe that Britain has not regained control of its borders since Brexit, according to a new Observer poll that suggests that most do not think leaving the EU has improved the UK’s ability to manage immigration.

    According to the latest Opinium poll, 73% think the UK has not been in control of its borders since Brexit. Only 12% think Britain has been in control. Meanwhile, only 9% of the public believe Brexit has made Britain’s ability to manage its borders better, while 45% think it has made it worse.

    Those who backed Brexit are also taking a dim view. Only 7% of leave voters think the UK is in control of its borders since Brexit, while 85% think it is not.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,403
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Re Boris, probably all of the list in the header, but also it was my (posted) belief that before he was deposed last summer, Boris was planning to retire early anyway, as Harold Wilson had done, so the prize was not worth much.

    And to point 4, on money, it may also be that he realised that with one $150,000 speech, he could have paid for all three (or is it four now?) of the exotic holidays that he'd taken since July.

    He is also bone idle.

    Apparently Carrie was very fed up before. Boris has been able to cut and run, earn money, and mainly because of the even greater shitshow which followed, bask in the glow of his own adulation.

    When the tories get thumped at the next election, he will probably be super smug.

    Will he try to come back one day?
    It is possible. COP27 has shown Boris has a more instinctive grasp of power politics than does Rishi, who was not going to Egypt until he discovered Boris was. But it is hard to imagine the circumstances which are favourable for the Conservatives under a putative Boris at the next election while simultaneously being bad enough to force out Rishi Sunak.
    The way that Sunak was outmanouvered over COP27 by Johnson and by KC3 shows how politically naiive he can be. Not to mention stinking out his cabinet with Braverman, Sir Gavin Williamson etc.

    Lay down with dogs etc.
    Indeed - one wonders when Starmer will finish clearing out all of the members of the shadow cabinet who lay down with Corbyn for so very long.... oh!
  • Foxy said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In response to @GIN1138, I have banned @TheScreamingEagles as a precaution.

    Finally!!! :smiley: Presumably pizza thing right?
    Dissing Radiohead in a header. It has happened before...

    Indeed: he's a serial offender.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824

    Heathener said:

    Re Boris, probably all of the list in the header, but also it was my (posted) belief that before he was deposed last summer, Boris was planning to retire early anyway, as Harold Wilson had done, so the prize was not worth much.

    And to point 4, on money, it may also be that he realised that with one $150,000 speech, he could have paid for all three (or is it four now?) of the exotic holidays that he'd taken since July.

    He is also bone idle.

    Apparently Carrie was very fed up before. Boris has been able to cut and run, earn money, and mainly because of the even greater shitshow which followed, bask in the glow of his own adulation.

    When the tories get thumped at the next election, he will probably be super smug.

    Will he try to come back one day?
    It is possible. COP27 has shown Boris has a more instinctive grasp of power politics than does Rishi, who was not going to Egypt until he discovered Boris was. But it is hard to imagine the circumstances which are favourable for the Conservatives under a putative Boris at the next election while simultaneously being bad enough to force out Rishi Sunak.
    He has a better grasp of getting himself in the media and using journalism as part of political manoeuvring, for sure. He has the necessary experience.

    Extrapolating to suggest he has an instinctive grasp of power politics is a stretch. Much of his premiership, including most of the final year, was a case study in not having much grasp as to how real life politics plays out.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Re Boris, probably all of the list in the header, but also it was my (posted) belief that before he was deposed last summer, Boris was planning to retire early anyway, as Harold Wilson had done, so the prize was not worth much.

    And to point 4, on money, it may also be that he realised that with one $150,000 speech, he could have paid for all three (or is it four now?) of the exotic holidays that he'd taken since July.

    He is also bone idle.

    Apparently Carrie was very fed up before. Boris has been able to cut and run, earn money, and mainly because of the even greater shitshow which followed, bask in the glow of his own adulation.

    When the tories get thumped at the next election, he will probably be super smug.

    Will he try to come back one day?
    It is possible. COP27 has shown Boris has a more instinctive grasp of power politics than does Rishi, who was not going to Egypt until he discovered Boris was. But it is hard to imagine the circumstances which are favourable for the Conservatives under a putative Boris at the next election while simultaneously being bad enough to force out Rishi Sunak.
    The way that Sunak was outmanouvered over COP27 by Johnson and by KC3 shows how politically naiive he can be. Not to mention stinking out his cabinet with Braverman, Sir Gavin Williamson etc.

    Lay down with dogs etc.
    Indeed - one wonders when Starmer will finish clearing out all of the members of the shadow cabinet who lay down with Corbyn for so very long.... oh!
    I suspect that they will last longer than Braverman or Williamson in Cabinet.

    I think Starmer is wooden and dull, verbose and lacking in campaigning skill, timid to the point of cowardice and opaque about his intentions.

    He is however a more cunning politician than I have given him credit for. I won't be voting for him, as I do not support his policies (such as they are) but he does have the potential to lead a far more effective government than we have seen since 2015.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,904
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    The vast majority of the public believe that Britain has not regained control of its borders since Brexit, according to a new Observer poll that suggests that most do not think leaving the EU has improved the UK’s ability to manage immigration.

    According to the latest Opinium poll, 73% think the UK has not been in control of its borders since Brexit. Only 12% think Britain has been in control. Meanwhile, only 9% of the public believe Brexit has made Britain’s ability to manage its borders better, while 45% think it has made it worse.

    Those who backed Brexit are also taking a dim view. Only 7% of leave voters think the UK is in control of its borders since Brexit, while 85% think it is not.

    Those are extraordinarily bad figures from Leavers for this government.

    It is almost as if Brexit is an ideological dead end and wasted couple of decades. The wrong solution to the wrong problem.
    Hello Foxy. You feeling sheepish this morning?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    edited November 6
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    The vast majority of the public believe that Britain has not regained control of its borders since Brexit, according to a new Observer poll that suggests that most do not think leaving the EU has improved the UK’s ability to manage immigration.

    According to the latest Opinium poll, 73% think the UK has not been in control of its borders since Brexit. Only 12% think Britain has been in control. Meanwhile, only 9% of the public believe Brexit has made Britain’s ability to manage its borders better, while 45% think it has made it worse.

    Those who backed Brexit are also taking a dim view. Only 7% of leave voters think the UK is in control of its borders since Brexit, while 85% think it is not.

    Those are extraordinarily bad figures from Leavers for this government.

    It is almost as if Brexit is an ideological dead end and wasted couple of decades. The wrong solution to the wrong problem.
    Hello Foxy. You feeling sheepish this morning?
    What makes ewe think that?

    Trust a Welsh man to notice!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    The collapse of Truss probably came even sooner than Boris imagined - which left the Committee of Privileges report hanging over him.

    Now, Boris must have some idea how that will play out. He must be assuming it will have nothing mortal to his continued career. But far too many Tory MPs assumed that was wrong - that there was a material risk he would be toast. And having another PM resigning at a Downing Street podium would be intolerable )in his case, twice in a year - and would oblige a General Election. That it would be the second time they had put Boris in only for him to resign twice would rob them of any case to make to the voters as to why they should be given another chance.

    Simply put, Boris risked the Party' extinction. Rishi did not. So even if Boris had 110 MPs, that was all he was going to get. He was going to lose - and lose badly - to Rishi.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,904
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    The vast majority of the public believe that Britain has not regained control of its borders since Brexit, according to a new Observer poll that suggests that most do not think leaving the EU has improved the UK’s ability to manage immigration.

    According to the latest Opinium poll, 73% think the UK has not been in control of its borders since Brexit. Only 12% think Britain has been in control. Meanwhile, only 9% of the public believe Brexit has made Britain’s ability to manage its borders better, while 45% think it has made it worse.

    Those who backed Brexit are also taking a dim view. Only 7% of leave voters think the UK is in control of its borders since Brexit, while 85% think it is not.

    Those are extraordinarily bad figures from Leavers for this government.

    It is almost as if Brexit is an ideological dead end and wasted couple of decades. The wrong solution to the wrong problem.
    Hello Foxy. You feeling sheepish this morning?
    What makes ewe think that?

    Trust a Welsh man to notice!
    Just thought I'd ram it home.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    The vast majority of the public believe that Britain has not regained control of its borders since Brexit, according to a new Observer poll that suggests that most do not think leaving the EU has improved the UK’s ability to manage immigration.

    According to the latest Opinium poll, 73% think the UK has not been in control of its borders since Brexit. Only 12% think Britain has been in control. Meanwhile, only 9% of the public believe Brexit has made Britain’s ability to manage its borders better, while 45% think it has made it worse.

    Those who backed Brexit are also taking a dim view. Only 7% of leave voters think the UK is in control of its borders since Brexit, while 85% think it is not.

    Those are extraordinarily bad figures from Leavers for this government.

    It is almost as if Brexit is an ideological dead end and wasted couple of decades. The wrong solution to the wrong problem.
    Hello Foxy. You feeling sheepish this morning?
    What makes ewe think that?

    Trust a Welsh man to notice!
    Just thought I'd ram it home.
    Wether you would was never in doubt.....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,904
    edited November 6

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    The vast majority of the public believe that Britain has not regained control of its borders since Brexit, according to a new Observer poll that suggests that most do not think leaving the EU has improved the UK’s ability to manage immigration.

    According to the latest Opinium poll, 73% think the UK has not been in control of its borders since Brexit. Only 12% think Britain has been in control. Meanwhile, only 9% of the public believe Brexit has made Britain’s ability to manage its borders better, while 45% think it has made it worse.

    Those who backed Brexit are also taking a dim view. Only 7% of leave voters think the UK is in control of its borders since Brexit, while 85% think it is not.

    Those are extraordinarily bad figures from Leavers for this government.

    It is almost as if Brexit is an ideological dead end and wasted couple of decades. The wrong solution to the wrong problem.
    Hello Foxy. You feeling sheepish this morning?
    What makes ewe think that?

    Trust a Welsh man to notice!
    Just thought I'd ram it home.
    Wether you would was never in doubt.....
    That's not bad. It's good to see an opportunity to pun has not got pasture eye.

    Edit - it is a nice photo. Long walk yesterday?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,904
    By the way, the people who should really be feeling sheepish this morning are South Africa's cricketers.

    For the Springboks to lose to Ireland in the rugby may be considered a misfortune. For their cricketers to lose to the Netherlands is a bit silly.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    edited November 6

    The collapse of Truss probably came even sooner than Boris imagined - which left the Committee of Privileges report hanging over him.

    Now, Boris must have some idea how that will play out. He must be assuming it will have nothing mortal to his continued career. But far too many Tory MPs assumed that was wrong - that there was a material risk he would be toast. And having another PM resigning at a Downing Street podium would be intolerable )in his case, twice in a year - and would oblige a General Election. That it would be the second time they had put Boris in only for him to resign twice would rob them of any case to make to the voters as to why they should be given another chance.

    Simply put, Boris risked the Party' extinction. Rishi did not. So even if Boris had 110 MPs, that was all he was going to get. He was going to lose - and lose badly - to Rishi.

    Johnson’s default assumption is that he can get out of anything. And Johnson himself knew all that in advance and will have been mulling on it while lying on the beach, before jumping on the plane home.

    But your line of logic will certainly have persuaded others, including the party hierarchy that this time he had to be stopped. I listened carefully to Brady’s initial presentation of the timescale and process, and all my instincts were that he knew from the beginning that the members’ stage wasn’t going to happen. From there it is simply a question of choosing what pressure they will have brought to bear on the clown.

    That potentially troublesome local activists were directed to fill up their weekend frantically signing up their aged members with emails, continues to amuse.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    edited November 6
    Lolz, reports coming in Twitter is trying to rehire staff thy just fired.

    I bet this was a strategic "hire and rehire" strategy from Musk to avoid paying bonus rather than a panic move.

    (H1Bs will be particularly vulnerable targets for the strategy)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    edited November 6
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    The vast majority of the public believe that Britain has not regained control of its borders since Brexit, according to a new Observer poll that suggests that most do not think leaving the EU has improved the UK’s ability to manage immigration.

    According to the latest Opinium poll, 73% think the UK has not been in control of its borders since Brexit. Only 12% think Britain has been in control. Meanwhile, only 9% of the public believe Brexit has made Britain’s ability to manage its borders better, while 45% think it has made it worse.

    Those who backed Brexit are also taking a dim view. Only 7% of leave voters think the UK is in control of its borders since Brexit, while 85% think it is not.

    Those are extraordinarily bad figures from Leavers for this government.

    It is almost as if Brexit is an ideological dead end and wasted couple of decades. The wrong solution to the wrong problem.
    Hello Foxy. You feeling sheepish this morning?
    What makes ewe think that?

    Trust a Welsh man to notice!
    Just thought I'd ram it home.
    Wether you would was never in doubt.....
    That's not bad. It's good to see an opportunity to pun has not got pasture eye.

    Edit - it is a nice photo. Long walk yesterday?
    No, from spring this year in my field, hence the young lambs. The sheep are back for the winter, I let it to a local farmer.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    edited November 6
    GIN1138 said:
    You have to accept the site admin team won’t ban him indefinitely. Same with Leon in his many forms. At least Leon offers some interesting posts.

    Just do what I, and many others as Ping says, do and ignore him. If he replies to one of my posts I just like it but won’t engage. He’s a nasty little shit who seems to be in a semi permanent drunken rage. Don’t let him get to you. My experience here is no worse, it’s far better, for ignoring him.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    ydoethur said:

    By the way, the people who should really be feeling sheepish this morning are South Africa's cricketers.

    For the Springboks to lose to Ireland in the rugby may be considered a misfortune. For their cricketers to lose to the Netherlands is a bit silly.

    They will have a lot of grateful fans in Pakistan though. Barring any further shocks will it be NZ-v-Pak and India-v-England?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,904
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    By the way, the people who should really be feeling sheepish this morning are South Africa's cricketers.

    For the Springboks to lose to Ireland in the rugby may be considered a misfortune. For their cricketers to lose to the Netherlands is a bit silly.

    They will have a lot of grateful fans in Pakistan though. Barring any further shocks will it be NZ-v-Pak and India-v-England?
    Looks like it.

    India will be a tough assignment for England, particularly if they have another worn pitch.

    Goodness only knows which Pakistan will turn up. They might blow New Zealand away or be all out for 25 on current form.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    On topic, I think 2 is the answer. I am sure that he worked out that the limited talent that the Tories had at their disposal simply would not work for him making a stable government beyond his reach. It was, after all, a cabinet revolt that brought him down in the first place.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434
    I thought he had the numbers. He has an inexplicably large fan base in the Tory party.
    The Graun is reporting that his earning power in the entertainment industry could have halved if he had stood and lost, so perhaps that explains his decision.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247
    Taz said:

    GIN1138 said:
    You have to accept the site admin team won’t ban him indefinitely. Same with Leon in his many forms. At least Leon offers some interesting posts.

    Just do what I, and many others as Ping says, do and ignore him. If he replies to one of my posts I just like it but won’t engage. He’s a nasty little shit who seems to be in a semi permanent drunken rage. Don’t let him get to you. My experience here is no worse, it’s far better, for ignoring him.
    There are only a handful of posters I routinely ignore. Neither gin nor ish are among them. Ish is actually one of a limited group of PBers who has a distinctive ‘voice’: those who could change identity but be instantly recognisable. I think his main problem is that he is far, far too intelligent for this board, and most of you bore him to tears. When children are bored they sometimes use naughtiness to relieve the tedium. Welcome to PB.

    Is PB more boring in its second decade than its first? Undoubtedly. A lot of absolute superstars have given up and the place is jam-packed with mindless dross. Still enough good posters around to make it worthwhile, but for how much longer? The site owners ought to dedicate some time to pondering how to encourage discussion on politics and betting and on how to gently discourage posting of holiday snaps, railway trivia and debates on whether London is located in the bottom right hand corner of England or not.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434
    IanB2 said:

    If even Villiers is on a brief trip back from Planet Loopy, there must be something wrong!:

    One of the Tory party’s leading Brexit supporters has raised concerns about plans to scrap 2,400 EU laws by the end of next year – as fears grow that the policy will overwhelm the civil service and bring government to a virtual standstill.

    Former environment secretary Theresa Villiers, who backed Brexit in 2016, told the Observer that the proposals would take up vast amounts of civil service time and would involve undoing legislation that, in many cases, was broadly popular and good for the country.

    Other senior Tories are growing concerned that the EU retained law bill, championed by Jacob Rees-Mogg before Rishi Sunak sacked him on becoming prime minister, is in danger of becoming an ideological millstone.

    Villiers always seemed unusually intelligent for a Leaver. Like Gove.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247
    Even Stevens.

    NOM 2.36
    Lab Maj 2.36
    Con Maj 5.8
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683

    I thought he had the numbers. He has an inexplicably large fan base in the Tory party.
    The Graun is reporting that his earning power in the entertainment industry could have halved if he had stood and lost, so perhaps that explains his decision.

    He appeals to a certain type of person. He appears as ‘one of us’, even though he doesn’t care about anyone but himself. He also delivered the biggest Tory win since 1987. He got Brexit done.*
    Now most on here think he is an absolute shit, liar, fornicator etc. But just like in many other ways, PB doesn’t always mirror the views of the nation.

    * In the view of Johnson fans - others may disagree.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    ping said:

    GIN1138 said:
    I take the expedient view that I’ll overlook all but the most nasty/abusive behaviour by another poster - even if directed at me - so long as they’re a sharp punter and post value bets on here.

    @IshmaelZ does at least try to post bets on here, which is more than most posters manage. However, I think you’d probably lose more than you win, on average, backing his tips.

    He’s also a nasty fker who has been unnecessarily dickish towards me and other posters, in the past and doesn’t appear to change his behaviour over time. He can be reasonable, at times, then before you know it, he’s back to being a dick.

    I basically ignore him. I’ve noticed most other pbers worth paying attention to adopt the same strategy.

    On balance, If it were my site I’d ban him.
    I do the same.

    My view is that @IshmaelZ secretly hates himself, which is why he's so nasty to others and drinks so heavily, and the best thing you can do is to just ignore him and recognise his behaviour carries its own punishment.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,631
    edited November 6
    ping said:

    GIN1138 said:
    I take the expedient view that I’ll overlook all but the most nasty/abusive behaviour by another poster - even if directed at me - so long as they’re a sharp punter and post value bets on here.

    @IshmaelZ does at least try to post bets on here, which is more than most posters manage. However, I think you’d probably lose more than you win, on average, backing his tips.

    He’s also a nasty fker who has been unnecessarily dickish towards me and other posters, in the past and doesn’t appear to change his behaviour over time. He can be reasonable, at times, then before you know it, he’s back to being a dick.

    I basically ignore him. I’ve noticed most other pbers worth paying attention to adopt the same strategy.

    On balance, If it were my site I’d ban him.
    He often produces excellent posts. Yet can be an arse too. It's alcohol surely.

    I've frequently complained about people being banned from posting - but abusive, drunken posts are IMO more deserving of a short ban then the current policy which seems to have permanently banned @isam and @MISTY .

    This site should make it clear that if you are drunk you don't post.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683

    Even Stevens.

    NOM 2.36
    Lab Maj 2.36
    Con Maj 5.8

    I think Con maj too generous. I am split between thinking a labour majority is naileon and that the mountain is too big to climb without Scotland, so both being 2.36 feels like my position too.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Pulpstar said:

    It's 2 and 5.
    He'd have won with the members.

    I'm not sure he would have done actually. I'd have expected 54-46 or similar to Rishi because with the online only ballot in 48-72 hours, the experience of Truss, such an overwhelming vote for Rishi from the MPs and far too many ambigous op-eds from his natural supporters (Frost, Moore etc) it'd have given pause for thought.

    One salutary lesson: I thought Boris was nowhere near the noms, same with Penny, and it was all piss and wind so I laid them heavily.

    I got lucky. Clearly, the support wasn't fantasy and many MPs wanted to hedge their bets and not go public with him. Had he fought on Monday he'd have rapidly crashed to near evens and I'd have been seriously underwater.

    My choices would have been to cut my losses at several hundred quid down, or let it ride for the Rishi profit but at a real risk of losing well over a grand.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,365

    I thought he had the numbers. He has an inexplicably large fan base in the Tory party.
    The Graun is reporting that his earning power in the entertainment industry could have halved if he had stood and lost, so perhaps that explains his decision.

    Yep, I think that’s probably the nub. The Dolchstoß of a PM at the peak of his powers (sic) myth is much more marketable than a limp populist no longer able to get it up.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    edited November 6

    ping said:

    GIN1138 said:
    I take the expedient view that I’ll overlook all but the most nasty/abusive behaviour by another poster - even if directed at me - so long as they’re a sharp punter and post value bets on here.

    @IshmaelZ does at least try to post bets on here, which is more than most posters manage. However, I think you’d probably lose more than you win, on average, backing his tips.

    He’s also a nasty fker who has been unnecessarily dickish towards me and other posters, in the past and doesn’t appear to change his behaviour over time. He can be reasonable, at times, then before you know it, he’s back to being a dick.

    I basically ignore him. I’ve noticed most other pbers worth paying attention to adopt the same strategy.

    On balance, If it were my site I’d ban him.
    I do the same.

    My view is that @IshmaelZ secretly hates himself, which is why he's so nasty to others and drinks so heavily, and the best thing you can do is to just ignore him and recognise his behaviour carries its own punishment.
    An interesting point you make. Yes, a cross to bear. You can escape many things but not yourself. Someone to be pitied.
  • Morning all! I did say that Boris would get on the members ballot and he had the numbers to do so. I said that he would have won the members ballot and I point to the large groundswell of pro-Boris foaming out there to back that up.

    So, would have won. Chose not to run. Its always all about Boris, and the notion that being PM was too hard work doesn't wash. He would have skived as he did before.

    Theory: they offered him something he couldn't refuse. Give it a few years and he will become Earl Johnson.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,365
    Can’t get over the amount of ignoring of a certain poster going on this morning.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235

    Morning all! I did say that Boris would get on the members ballot and he had the numbers to do so. I said that he would have won the members ballot and I point to the large groundswell of pro-Boris foaming out there to back that up.

    So, would have won. Chose not to run. Its always all about Boris, and the notion that being PM was too hard work doesn't wash. He would have skived as he did before.

    Theory: they offered him something he couldn't refuse. Give it a few years and he will become Earl Johnson.

    They offered him something he couldn’t refuse sounds a bit Mafia like.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,631
    Re header, at the time of his statement he said he did have the numbers and basically said 2. Perhaps he was telling the truth?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,365
    Might join Mastodon just on the basis of this.


  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663
    edited November 6

    Even Stevens.

    NOM 2.36
    Lab Maj 2.36
    Con Maj 5.8

    I think that about right, notwithstanding the mild Sunak bounce, as we have 2 years to go. UK politics has been so volatile that anything could happen, but I really struggle to see a chance of a Conservative majority, or even minority government.

    I think Lab most seats at 1.55 pretty nailed on for those with money to tie up.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Foxy said:

    Even Stevens.

    NOM 2.36
    Lab Maj 2.36
    Con Maj 5.8

    I think that about right, notwithstanding the mild Sunak bounce, as we have 2 years to go. UK politics has been so volatile that anything could happen, but I really struggle to see a chance of a Conservative majority, or even minority government.

    I think Lab most seats at 1.55 pretty nailed on for those with money to tie up.
    I think that's right but I'm not betting on the next GE until much closer to the time.

    Sure, I might lose some value by waiting but so much could happen during 2023 and 2024.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047

    ping said:

    GIN1138 said:
    I take the expedient view that I’ll overlook all but the most nasty/abusive behaviour by another poster - even if directed at me - so long as they’re a sharp punter and post value bets on here.

    @IshmaelZ does at least try to post bets on here, which is more than most posters manage. However, I think you’d probably lose more than you win, on average, backing his tips.

    He’s also a nasty fker who has been unnecessarily dickish towards me and other posters, in the past and doesn’t appear to change his behaviour over time. He can be reasonable, at times, then before you know it, he’s back to being a dick.

    I basically ignore him. I’ve noticed most other pbers worth paying attention to adopt the same strategy.

    On balance, If it were my site I’d ban him.
    I do the same.

    My view is that @IshmaelZ secretly hates himself, which is why he's so nasty to others and drinks so heavily, and the best thing you can do is to just ignore him and recognise his behaviour carries its own punishment.
    Doesn't he live on Dartmoor? Explains much.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,313
    Taz said:

    Morning all! I did say that Boris would get on the members ballot and he had the numbers to do so. I said that he would have won the members ballot and I point to the large groundswell of pro-Boris foaming out there to back that up.

    So, would have won. Chose not to run. Its always all about Boris, and the notion that being PM was too hard work doesn't wash. He would have skived as he did before.

    Theory: they offered him something he couldn't refuse. Give it a few years and he will become Earl Johnson.

    They offered him something he couldn’t refuse sounds a bit Mafia like.
    Isnt T Blair still waiting for his peerage...?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,247

    Taz said:

    GIN1138 said:
    You have to accept the site admin team won’t ban him indefinitely. Same with Leon in his many forms. At least Leon offers some interesting posts.

    Just do what I, and many others as Ping says, do and ignore him. If he replies to one of my posts I just like it but won’t engage. He’s a nasty little shit who seems to be in a semi permanent drunken rage. Don’t let him get to you. My experience here is no worse, it’s far better, for ignoring him.
    There are only a handful of posters I routinely ignore. Neither gin nor ish are among them. Ish is actually one of a limited group of PBers who has a distinctive ‘voice’: those who could change identity but be instantly recognisable. I think his main problem is that he is far, far too intelligent for this board, and most of you bore him to tears. When children are bored they sometimes use naughtiness to relieve the tedium. Welcome to PB.

    Is PB more boring in its second decade than its first? Undoubtedly. A lot of absolute superstars have given up and the place is jam-packed with mindless dross. Still enough good posters around to make it worthwhile, but for how much longer? The site owners ought to dedicate some time to pondering how to encourage discussion on politics and betting and on how to gently discourage posting of holiday snaps, railway trivia and debates on whether London is located in the bottom right hand corner of England or not.
    Somebody “Off-topic”ed that 😄 Quite impressive, considering that my post mentioned both politics and betting, and assessed the blog itself.

    If we are going to start Off-topicing posts we’ll be here all day, cos on-topic posts are as rare as hens’ teeth.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913

    Taz said:

    Morning all! I did say that Boris would get on the members ballot and he had the numbers to do so. I said that he would have won the members ballot and I point to the large groundswell of pro-Boris foaming out there to back that up.

    So, would have won. Chose not to run. Its always all about Boris, and the notion that being PM was too hard work doesn't wash. He would have skived as he did before.

    Theory: they offered him something he couldn't refuse. Give it a few years and he will become Earl Johnson.

    They offered him something he couldn’t refuse sounds a bit Mafia like.
    Isnt T Blair still waiting for his peerage...?
    He won’t take a peerage, while it comes with the requirement to declare all his income.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Nevada Dems are now doing their best to make me reconsider my "Dems 100% for sure doomed in Nevada stance"

    https://twitter.com/JohnRSamuelsen/status/1589111493706276864

    They still need a lot more in Clark given the Rural turnout that is happening but it is now not inconceivable that they will hit 2018 numbers by election day (which in my estimation is not enough given the change in turnout profile but it would be enough to make me not confident they would lose)

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,481

    Might join Mastodon just on the basis of this.


    One irony of this is that people are fleeing twitter for fear that they won't squish bad speech enough, but the platform is designed to make it impossible to squish bad speech. All you can do is remove it from your feed/server, the Nazis can carry on using the platform on their own. The tech is much more of an ideological match for what Elon was saying than what his enemies were saying.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Morning all! I did say that Boris would get on the members ballot and he had the numbers to do so. I said that he would have won the members ballot and I point to the large groundswell of pro-Boris foaming out there to back that up.

    So, would have won. Chose not to run. Its always all about Boris, and the notion that being PM was too hard work doesn't wash. He would have skived as he did before.

    Theory: they offered him something he couldn't refuse. Give it a few years and he will become Earl Johnson.

    They offered him something he couldn’t refuse sounds a bit Mafia like.
    Isnt T Blair still waiting for his peerage...?
    He won’t take a peerage, while it comes with the requirement to declare all his income.
    Why do you say that? Does he have things to hide?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    IanB2 said:

    The vast majority of the public believe that Britain has not regained control of its borders since Brexit, according to a new Observer poll that suggests that most do not think leaving the EU has improved the UK’s ability to manage immigration.

    According to the latest Opinium poll, 73% think the UK has not been in control of its borders since Brexit. Only 12% think Britain has been in control. Meanwhile, only 9% of the public believe Brexit has made Britain’s ability to manage its borders better, while 45% think it has made it worse.

    Those who backed Brexit are also taking a dim view. Only 7% of leave voters think the UK is in control of its borders since Brexit, while 85% think it is not.

    There's no question those are appalling figures.
  • Taz said:

    Morning all! I did say that Boris would get on the members ballot and he had the numbers to do so. I said that he would have won the members ballot and I point to the large groundswell of pro-Boris foaming out there to back that up.

    So, would have won. Chose not to run. Its always all about Boris, and the notion that being PM was too hard work doesn't wash. He would have skived as he did before.

    Theory: they offered him something he couldn't refuse. Give it a few years and he will become Earl Johnson.

    They offered him something he couldn’t refuse sounds a bit Mafia like.
    Far worse than the Mafia, this is the Conservative and Unionist Party.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824
    The Sunday Rawnsley, in the wet:

    Conservative MPs are preparing for the ritual humiliation of facing aggrieved constituents demanding to know why the government is making their lives even more difficult.

    Neither tax rises nor spending cuts will be popular, but, asked to choose, most of the public say they’d prefer the former to the latter. The average Tory MP leans in the opposite direction. At best, Tory MPs will be sullen about voting to increase taxes even further. The prime minister and the chancellor will be highly fortunate if they don’t trigger one or more backbench revolts.

    For the grisly state of the public finances, ministers have two excuses. One is the vast spending related to the pandemic. The problem with this alibi is that it is also Mr Sunak’s main claim to fame.

    Ministers’ other culprit is the Kremlin. It is indisputable that both Putin’s war and the legacy of the pandemic are having a global impact, but no other advanced economy has done worse than Britain. We are the only G7 country to be poorer today than we were pre-pandemic.

    The shadow cabinet agree that it is imperative that they don’t get dragged into a “so what would you do?” trap, which will impale them on the hook while letting the Tories off it. “This is not our black hole,” says one senior Labour frontbencher. “It’s the Tories’ black hole and they must be made to own it.”

    A Labour government taking office anytime soon would be faced with a situation more like that in 1964 and 1974 when Conservative regimes bequeathed an unholy mess to Labour successors who were subsequently engulfed by economic crises themselves. So better, goes the thinking among some Labour people, to have a later election and let the Tories endure the hellscape that they created. This is more telling testimony to the depth of the shit Mr Hunt and Mr Sunak are in – and the country with them.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,251
    NEW: Dowden says Gavin Williamson *does* retain the confidence of Rishi Sunak

    Shift from last night when No10 would not comment on that Q — with sources citing complaint process

    PM backing man who, per Jake Berry, he knew faced bullying allegations

    https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1589175151375290371?s=46&t=4jFUdAx_iuB9D_gP7Hb8gQ https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1588945227511103489
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,149

    Taz said:

    GIN1138 said:
    You have to accept the site admin team won’t ban him indefinitely. Same with Leon in his many forms. At least Leon offers some interesting posts.

    Just do what I, and many others as Ping says, do and ignore him. If he replies to one of my posts I just like it but won’t engage. He’s a nasty little shit who seems to be in a semi permanent drunken rage. Don’t let him get to you. My experience here is no worse, it’s far better, for ignoring him.
    There are only a handful of posters I routinely ignore. Neither gin nor ish are among them. Ish is actually one of a limited group of PBers who has a distinctive ‘voice’: those who could change identity but be instantly recognisable. I think his main problem is that he is far, far too intelligent for this board, and most of you bore him to tears. When children are bored they sometimes use naughtiness to relieve the tedium. Welcome to PB.

    Is PB more boring in its second decade than its first? Undoubtedly. A lot of absolute superstars have given up and the place is jam-packed with mindless dross. Still enough good posters around to make it worthwhile, but for how much longer? The site owners ought to dedicate some time to pondering how to encourage discussion on politics and betting and on how to gently discourage posting of holiday snaps, railway trivia and debates on whether London is located in the bottom right hand corner of England or not.
    Somebody “Off-topic”ed that 😄 Quite impressive, considering that my post mentioned both politics and betting, and assessed the blog itself.

    If we are going to start Off-topicing posts we’ll be here all day, cos on-topic posts are as rare as hens’ teeth.
    You did insult, well, not all of us - I agree entirely with you - but at least a few folk who would not take kindly to being told they were thick compared to old Ish.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,826
    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, in the wet:

    Conservative MPs are preparing for the ritual humiliation of facing aggrieved constituents demanding to know why the government is making their lives even more difficult.

    Neither tax rises nor spending cuts will be popular, but, asked to choose, most of the public say they’d prefer the former to the latter. The average Tory MP leans in the opposite direction. At best, Tory MPs will be sullen about voting to increase taxes even further. The prime minister and the chancellor will be highly fortunate if they don’t trigger one or more backbench revolts.

    For the grisly state of the public finances, ministers have two excuses. One is the vast spending related to the pandemic. The problem with this alibi is that it is also Mr Sunak’s main claim to fame.

    Ministers’ other culprit is the Kremlin. It is indisputable that both Putin’s war and the legacy of the pandemic are having a global impact, but no other advanced economy has done worse than Britain. We are the only G7 country to be poorer today than we were pre-pandemic.

    The shadow cabinet agree that it is imperative that they don’t get dragged into a “so what would you do?” trap, which will impale them on the hook while letting the Tories off it. “This is not our black hole,” says one senior Labour frontbencher. “It’s the Tories’ black hole and they must be made to own it.”

    A Labour government taking office anytime soon would be faced with a situation more like that in 1964 and 1974 when Conservative regimes bequeathed an unholy mess to Labour successors who were subsequently engulfed by economic crises themselves. So better, goes the thinking among some Labour people, to have a later election and let the Tories endure the hellscape that they created. This is more telling testimony to the depth of the shit Mr Hunt and Mr Sunak are in – and the country with them.

    Tax rises are blamed on MPs, spending cuts and local councillors will cop the blame even though many items (schools for instance) are paid for centrally rather than locally nowadays.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Morning all! I did say that Boris would get on the members ballot and he had the numbers to do so. I said that he would have won the members ballot and I point to the large groundswell of pro-Boris foaming out there to back that up.

    So, would have won. Chose not to run. Its always all about Boris, and the notion that being PM was too hard work doesn't wash. He would have skived as he did before.

    Theory: they offered him something he couldn't refuse. Give it a few years and he will become Earl Johnson.

    They offered him something he couldn’t refuse sounds a bit Mafia like.
    Isnt T Blair still waiting for his peerage...?
    He won’t take a peerage, while it comes with the requirement to declare all his income.
    Why do you say that? Does he have things to hide?
    More that there are so many things he could have been threatened with, there was no need to promise him anything. And if there was a need to promise him anything, a jump to a seat that the Tories might actually win would be more than sufficient.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,467

    Can’t get over the amount of ignoring of a certain poster going on this morning.

    Gin is one of the longest standing and nicest posters on PB.

    Ishmael is the most acerbic. When it comes to debunking mean spirited right wing crackpots no one does it better. Just a pity his aim is sometimes so woeful and in Charles and Gin he's got it badly wrong
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,683
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Morning all! I did say that Boris would get on the members ballot and he had the numbers to do so. I said that he would have won the members ballot and I point to the large groundswell of pro-Boris foaming out there to back that up.

    So, would have won. Chose not to run. Its always all about Boris, and the notion that being PM was too hard work doesn't wash. He would have skived as he did before.

    Theory: they offered him something he couldn't refuse. Give it a few years and he will become Earl Johnson.

    They offered him something he couldn’t refuse sounds a bit Mafia like.
    Isnt T Blair still waiting for his peerage...?
    He won’t take a peerage, while it comes with the requirement to declare all his income.
    Why do you say that? Does he have things to hide?
    More that there are so many things he could have been threatened with, there was no need to promise him anything. And if there was a need to promise him anything, a jump to a seat that the Tories might actually win would be more than sufficient.
    Are we talking Blair or Johnson? I thought I was asking about Blair.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Dowden says Gavin Williamson *does* retain the confidence of Rishi Sunak

    Shift from last night when No10 would not comment on that Q — with sources citing complaint process

    PM backing man who, per Jake Berry, he knew faced bullying allegations

    https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1589175151375290371?s=46&t=4jFUdAx_iuB9D_gP7Hb8gQ https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1588945227511103489

    There are several things I am confident in respect of Gavin Williamson but few are to his credit.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ping said:

    GIN1138 said:
    I take the expedient view that I’ll overlook all but the most nasty/abusive behaviour by another poster - even if directed at me - so long as they’re a sharp punter and post value bets on here.

    @IshmaelZ does at least try to post bets on here, which is more than most posters manage. However, I think you’d probably lose more than you win, on average, backing his tips.

    He’s also a nasty fker who has been unnecessarily dickish towards me and other posters, in the past and doesn’t appear to change his behaviour over time. He can be reasonable, at times, then before you know it, he’s back to being a dick.

    I basically ignore him. I’ve noticed most other pbers worth paying attention to adopt the same strategy.

    On balance, If it were my site I’d ban him.
    I called peak Johnson the day after the Hartlepool by election. Not in itself a tip, but the key to everything that has happened since, and correct to within 24 hours. I tipped lab maj at 6 a couple of months ago, and anyone who followed will be seriously in the money. My losing bets have been on Johnson going earlier than he did.

    I try to ignore the likes of gin and mapatazi and I didn't start any of this. Taz is a social climber who fell for Charles's ludicrous shtick and conceived a deep and abiding man love for him, and completely misunderstood the misunderstanding that led to him leaving the site. Gin is an even weirder case, being entirely parasitic on taz. I myself would ban them, risking the loss of Tazs further anecdotes about eating tomatoes in restaurants, but I have better manners and more self respect than to indulge in butt hurt whining to the site owners about it.

    Off to ride a horse. Have a nice day.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Carnyx said:

    Taz said:

    GIN1138 said:
    You have to accept the site admin team won’t ban him indefinitely. Same with Leon in his many forms. At least Leon offers some interesting posts.

    Just do what I, and many others as Ping says, do and ignore him. If he replies to one of my posts I just like it but won’t engage. He’s a nasty little shit who seems to be in a semi permanent drunken rage. Don’t let him get to you. My experience here is no worse, it’s far better, for ignoring him.
    There are only a handful of posters I routinely ignore. Neither gin nor ish are among them. Ish is actually one of a limited group of PBers who has a distinctive ‘voice’: those who could change identity but be instantly recognisable. I think his main problem is that he is far, far too intelligent for this board, and most of you bore him to tears. When children are bored they sometimes use naughtiness to relieve the tedium. Welcome to PB.

    Is PB more boring in its second decade than its first? Undoubtedly. A lot of absolute superstars have given up and the place is jam-packed with mindless dross. Still enough good posters around to make it worthwhile, but for how much longer? The site owners ought to dedicate some time to pondering how to encourage discussion on politics and betting and on how to gently discourage posting of holiday snaps, railway trivia and debates on whether London is located in the bottom right hand corner of England or not.
    Somebody “Off-topic”ed that 😄 Quite impressive, considering that my post mentioned both politics and betting, and assessed the blog itself.

    If we are going to start Off-topicing posts we’ll be here all day, cos on-topic posts are as rare as hens’ teeth.
    You did insult, well, not all of us - I agree entirely with you - but at least a few folk who would not take kindly to being told they were thick compared to old Ish.
    I don't think aggressively playing devil's advocate, in response to any number of points of view, and ladling some personal abuse on top is a sign of intelligence - we could all do it if we chose to do so. Nor is it a sign of intelligence to chose to do so because one is bored and is sporting for one's own entertainment - which I think is much more because he's hoping to provoke an aggressive reaction in response.

    There are posters on here who offer far more intelligent insights @LostPassword @MarqueeMark @Gardenwalker @rcs1000 @DavidL @Sean_F @CarlottaVance @Gallowgate @Jonathan @MaxPB @NickPalmer to name but a few. @Alistair @kinabalu @Peter_the_Punter @Pulpstar are great at the betting too.

    What's funny is that @StuartDickson genuinely seems to think he is one of them.
  • We've seen some imbecilic shakes of the magic money tree since 2008 but the LibDems plan to pay for taxpayers to pay for any increase in mortgage payments is one of the worst.

    It would encourage people to overborrow and never to pay off mortgages.

    Plus lead to even higher house prices.

    Given the LibDem voter base the last would be seen as a benefit.

    The idea is more aimed at the people who are about to get reamed by the price of mortgages shooting through the roof. People *have already* overborrowed - they had no choice. House prices are far higher than many working people can afford, but as rents are often even higher overborrowing was the least worst option.

    If you are suggesting that politicians should be telling those families who will lose their homes that it is their fault, that's a brave strategy as we slide towards an election in a few years.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913

    Might join Mastodon just on the basis of this.


    One irony of this is that people are fleeing twitter for fear that they won't squish bad speech enough, but the platform is designed to make it impossible to squish bad speech. All you can do is remove it from your feed/server, the Nazis can carry on using the platform on their own. The tech is much more of an ideological match for what Elon was saying than what his enemies were saying.
    Watching groups of people on Twitter, moaning about how awful Twitter is, is rather ironic. They want to moan, but they don’t want to quit. They really don’t like the idea that verification is actually about verification, rather than about status.

    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,333
    Ishmael_Z said:

    ping said:

    GIN1138 said:
    I take the expedient view that I’ll overlook all but the most nasty/abusive behaviour by another poster - even if directed at me - so long as they’re a sharp punter and post value bets on here.

    @IshmaelZ does at least try to post bets on here, which is more than most posters manage. However, I think you’d probably lose more than you win, on average, backing his tips.

    He’s also a nasty fker who has been unnecessarily dickish towards me and other posters, in the past and doesn’t appear to change his behaviour over time. He can be reasonable, at times, then before you know it, he’s back to being a dick.

    I basically ignore him. I’ve noticed most other pbers worth paying attention to adopt the same strategy.

    On balance, If it were my site I’d ban him.
    I called peak Johnson the day after the Hartlepool by election. Not in itself a tip, but the key to everything that has happened since, and correct to within 24 hours. I tipped lab maj at 6 a couple of months ago, and anyone who followed will be seriously in the money. My losing bets have been on Johnson going earlier than he did.

    I try to ignore the likes of gin and mapatazi and I didn't start any of this. Taz is a social climber who fell for Charles's ludicrous shtick and conceived a deep and abiding man love for him, and completely misunderstood the misunderstanding that led to him leaving the site. Gin is an even weirder case, being entirely parasitic on taz. I myself would ban them, risking the loss of Tazs further anecdotes about eating tomatoes in restaurants, but I have better manners and more self respect than to indulge in butt hurt whining to the site owners about it.

    Off to ride a horse. Have a nice day.
    Pick a high one.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,251
    Sandpit said:

    the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    They are making it easier to run fake identities
  • DavidL said:

    We've seen some imbecilic shakes of the magic money tree since 2008 but the LibDems plan to pay for taxpayers to pay for any increase in mortgage payments is one of the worst.

    It would encourage people to overborrow and never to pay off mortgages.

    Plus lead to even higher house prices.

    Given the LibDem voter base the last would be seen as a benefit.

    It is now the job of HM Government to stop anything nasty happening to anyone, ever. Nothing is anybody's fault anymore, moral hazard has been abolished and the responsibility of thinking for yourself has been removed.

    The small detail of the country being made bankrupt as a result has so far been overlooked.
    But this is where populism and the will of the people and who cares about doomsters ends up. Every time and everywhere.

    And the Conservatives have a lot of the blame for the current iteration of populism in the UK.
This discussion has been closed.