Howdy, Stranger!

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

This from Today’s FT should really worry Rishi – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2023 in General
imageThis from Today’s FT should really worry Rishi – politicalbetting.com

We are so used to the Tories being the party that attracts big private donations that makes this political development stand out. It is a huge win for Starmer not just for the campaign cash that his party is getting but for the source and the reasons.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    The Labour Party's job is to appear more pro-EU than the Conservatives, without crossing the line and turning off those who voted Leave.

    Their job is complicated by the fact that Sunak has been better at mending fences than his predecessors.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    rcs1000 said:

    The Labour Party's job is to appear more pro-EU than the Conservatives, without crossing the line and turning off those who voted Leave.

    Their job is complicated by the fact that Sunak has been better at mending fences than his predecessors.

    If it aspires to government, it has a number of jobs other than that.
    Looking more sensible over the EU than the party which took us out, without saying very much at all, ought not to be difficult.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    The Wagner Group is claiming that Russian military forces are firing at their mercenaries
    https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1665463029977186312
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Fresh battles broke out in Russia near the Ukrainian border on June 4, as anti-Kremlin fighters said they had captured several Russian soldiers and turned them over to Kyiv after the Belgorod governor failed to show up for negotiations on a prisoner swap
    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1665524084082343936
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Russia-Ukraine war live: Moscow claims to have repelled ‘major’ attack in Donetsk
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jun/05/russia-ukraine-war-live-moscow-claims-to-have-repelled-major-attack-in-donetsk-belgorod-energy-facility-on-fire
    ...The Ukrainian defence ministry and military did not immediately respond to written requests for comment regarding the claimed attack.
    Ukrainian defence minister Oleksii Reznikov did however publish a cryptic message on Twitter on Sunday, quoting Depeche Mode’s track Enjoy the Silence...


    I suspect we're unlikely to hear much if substance about the counteroffensive fir several days. News from the Ukrainian side is going to be delayed until it's no longer tactically relevant.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 2,181
    The counter offensive is underway. Fingers crossed the ZSU can inflict the kind of defeat that knocks Putin out and ends the war.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,097
    Rather like the EPL, I think it would be good if there was a cap on party donations.

    Still, it's good for Labour and it's another indication. A close source inside Westminster circles tells me that everyone is cosying up to Starmer's Labour. This happened in the run up to 1997.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,097
    edited June 2023
    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Couple of other worrying issues bubbling away too. The OPEC extension to a cut in oil production may or may not feed through to the pumps here (Brent crude roughly up 1.5% overnight). The much more serious one is the state of the mortgage lending market. This is not looking good and the timing for the tories is dreadful. See e.g.:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/04/demand-35-year-mortgages-first-time-buyers-rates/

    https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/property-and-mortgages/mortgage-rates-soar-lends-hike-interest-monthly-repayments-tripling-2382162


  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,097
    edited June 2023
    Meanwhile, the London Stock Exchange, so long the epicentre of this country's economic boom, is in terminal decline - according to its former boss:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/04/city-london-regulation-reforms-xavier-rolet-lse-chief

    Boris infamously declared 'f*ck business', something unthinkable under New Labour ;)
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,097
    edited June 2023
    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,003
    Heathener said:

    Meanwhile, the London Stock Exchange, so long the epicentre of this country's economic boom, is in terminal decline - according to its former boss:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/04/city-london-regulation-reforms-xavier-rolet-lse-chief

    Boris infamously declared 'f*ck business', something unthinkable under New Labour ;)

    Good morning

    So are labour going to lower taxes and regulation in the City, as that is the criticism in this article and is vey much part of the Telegraph agenda ?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,097
    edited June 2023

    Heathener said:

    Meanwhile, the London Stock Exchange, so long the epicentre of this country's economic boom, is in terminal decline - according to its former boss:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/04/city-london-regulation-reforms-xavier-rolet-lse-chief

    Boris infamously declared 'f*ck business', something unthinkable under New Labour ;)

    Good morning

    So are labour going to lower taxes and regulation in the City, as that is the criticism in this article and is vey much part of the Telegraph agenda ?
    Good questions Big G.

    For the record, I am not particularly enthused about Labour but I think getting across the 325 threshold will be the start of a better Britain, for now. It will take a long time. There are some massive and fundamental fissures that will take years to fix. It's not just the staggeringly high budget deficit but issues like housing and changes to work patterns, with serious issues around climate change and our need for renewable energies.

    When, as I believe, Labour win a handsome majority I will be happy for perhaps a day. Then the reality will set in.

    To be specific, the one absolutely obvious route to greater prosperity, for lower taxes eventually, is for Labour to take Britain back into an economic union with our near-neighbours on the European continent.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,003
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Meanwhile, the London Stock Exchange, so long the epicentre of this country's economic boom, is in terminal decline - according to its former boss:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/04/city-london-regulation-reforms-xavier-rolet-lse-chief

    Boris infamously declared 'f*ck business', something unthinkable under New Labour ;)

    Good morning

    So are labour going to lower taxes and regulation in the City, as that is the criticism in this article and is vey much part of the Telegraph agenda ?
    Good questions Big G.

    For the record, I am not particularly enthused about Labour but I think getting across the 325 threshold will be the start of a better Britain, for now. It will take a long time. There are some massive and fundamental fissures that will take years to fix. It's not just the staggeringly high budget deficit but issues like housing and changes to work patterns, with serious issues around climate change and our need for renewable energies.

    When, as I believe, Labour win a handsome majority I will be happy for perhaps a day. Then the reality will set in.

    To be specific, the one absolutely obvious route to greater prosperity, for lower taxes eventually, is for Labour to take Britain back into an economic union with our near-neighbours on the European continent.
    Thank you for this response and you might be surprised that I agree with you though Macron's EPC is a sensible compromise to full membership
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Exactly.

    It will be the same with Murdoch. He backs winners. He will come out for SKS.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Exactly.

    It will be the same with Murdoch. He backs winners. He will come out for SKS.
    Yes - the famous switch of the Sun to New Labour was *after* it became clear that Labour was certain to win.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,097
    edited June 2023
    Just catching up on responses to my polemic from a few days ago suggesting that we should be taking 08 June 2017 as the benchmark, rather than 12 December 2019. I won't repeat my arguments for this but thank you for the many kind comments suggesting there may be something in it.*

    @Miklosvar posted that: 'I am seeing on the same page both GE 2017 type result and "bloodbath". Which is it?'

    This missed the point that in calculating the starting position for the 2024 election, we should mentally be using June 2017 not December 2019. The swing to Labour needed, for example, comes from the hung parliament, not from Boris' Get Brexit Done election. I am proposing that for punters, we need to consider the December 2019 as a one-off and not use it as the starting position for what will happen next time.

    @Casino_Royale dismissed my reasoning because it was 'ruled by emotion' and that I attack the person, which is rather ironic ... ;) Dismissing a female for being 'emotional' or 'hysterical' is of course classic misogyny, and the most angry person I've ever seen on this forum was Casino R himself. But, either way, I always bet with my head not my heart and in this case I was being fairly reasoned about why I think we should be using June 2017 as our starting point. So it was an unfair example of attacking the person, not the argument.

    More importantly, CR bases his counter on the notion of a 'Centre-right bloc vote'. I find this a curiously old-fashioned view of political intention in this country, and lacking any obvious basis in fact. There is no such 'bloc' vote. But what I think we can observe is when a caucus moves on mass as a reaction to something. So, for example, if home owners feel threatened by one party's policies. Jeremy Corbyn 'did' succeed in scaring off middle Britain (CR's centre-right bloc vote) and in the past we have seen similar REACTIVE movements. There is simply no evidence that Keir Starmer has generated that kind of reaction on the centre-right, despite the best intentions of the Mail and Express to scare people otherwise.

    The centre-right are not scared by Labour, so there is no bloc. It is diffuse and ready to vote against the current Conservative Party. Indeed, if there is any reactive bloc it is precisely that: a hostility against the current governing party that I have not detected since the mid 1990's.


    *Very briefly: Dec 19 was a one-off. Essentially it had one raison d'etre: to 'Get Brexit Done,' coming on the back of a deadlocked parliament that irritated everyone, myself included. Boris galvanised that vote against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-Semite. The last proper General Election was 08 June 2017, which resulted in a hung parliament.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    Heathener said:

    Meanwhile, the London Stock Exchange, so long the epicentre of this country's economic boom, is in terminal decline - according to its former boss:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/04/city-london-regulation-reforms-xavier-rolet-lse-chief

    Boris infamously declared 'f*ck business', something unthinkable under New Labour ;)

    So what are labour proposing to do, aside from expropriate money from peoples pensions to put into U.K. investments.

    Dambisa Moyo made a great speech in the HoL about it. We have an overegulated and soon to,be overtaxed regime.

    You cannot blame businesses taking their listings elsewhere.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Sell the stock of any company that prioritizes AR over AI.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Heathener said:

    Just catching up on responses to my polemic from a few days ago suggesting that we should be taking 08 June 2017 as the benchmark, rather than 12 December 2019. I won't repeat my arguments for this but thank you for the many kind comments suggesting there may be something in it.*

    @Miklosvar posted that: 'I am seeing on the same page both GE 2017 type result and "bloodbath". Which is it?'

    This missed the point that in calculating the starting position for the 2024 election, we should mentally be using June 2017 not December 2019. The swing to Labour needed, for example, comes from the hung parliament, not from Boris' Get Brexit Done election. I am proposing that for punters, we need to consider the December 2019 as a one-off and not use it as the starting position for what will happen next time.

    @Casino_Royale dismissed my reasoning because it was 'ruled by emotion' and that I attack the person, which is rather ironic ... ;) Dismissing a female for being 'emotional' or 'hysterical' is of course classic misogyny, and the most angry person I've ever seen on this forum was Casino R himself. But, either way, I always bet with my head not my heart and in this case I was being fairly reasoned about why I think we should be using June 2017 as our starting point. So it was an unfair example of attacking the person, not the argument.

    More importantly, CR bases his counter on the notion of a 'Centre-right bloc vote'. I find this a curiously old-fashioned view of political intention in this country, and lacking any obvious basis in fact. There is no such 'bloc' vote. But what I think we can observe is when a caucus moves on mass as a reaction to something. So, for example, if home owners feel threatened by one party's policies. Jeremy Corbyn 'did' succeed in scaring off middle Britain (CR's centre-right bloc vote) and in the past we have seen similar REACTIVE movements. There is simply no evidence that Keir Starmer has generated that kind of reaction on the centre-right, despite the best intentions of the Mail and Express to scare people otherwise.

    The centre-right are not scared by Labour, so there is no bloc. It is diffuse and ready to vote against the current Conservative Party. Indeed, if there is any reactive bloc it is precisely that: a hostility against the current governing party that I have not detected since the mid 1990's.


    *Very briefly: Dec 19 was a one-off. Essentially it had one raison d'etre: to 'Get Brexit Done,' coming on the back of a deadlocked parliament that irritated everyone, myself included. Boris galvanised that vote against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-Semite. The last proper General Election was 08 June 2017, which resulted in a hung parliament.

    While I'm a little more pessimistic on Labour's chances than you are, I think your analysis of 2019 is spot on.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225
    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    The thread header is very Daiky Mailesque
    Everything is worry to Sunak. A few quid to pay off Labour's debts doesn't sound too alarming in the scale if things.
    I. Any case who is the money from and what do they want for it?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    You'd think that someone with a handle like @Cicero would know these things.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,097
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Meanwhile, the London Stock Exchange, so long the epicentre of this country's economic boom, is in terminal decline - according to its former boss:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/04/city-london-regulation-reforms-xavier-rolet-lse-chief

    Boris infamously declared 'f*ck business', something unthinkable under New Labour ;)

    So what are labour proposing to do, aside from expropriate money from peoples pensions to put into U.K. investments.

    Dambisa Moyo made a great speech in the HoL about it. We have an overegulated and soon to,be overtaxed regime.

    You cannot blame businesses taking their listings elsewhere.
    Hi @Taz, well I suggested in my previous reply one step they could make which is the obvious one.

    Other than that, I don't know.

    When, if, Labour come into Government you will find me being critical of them when I feel it's required. I'm not a Labour stooge and remain rather unenthused about them. But I think this country badly needs to be rid of the current Conservative Gov't who are tired, and worse.

    And for the record to CR, all of my most successful punts have come when placing bets on causes I would not personally support. Head, not heart, when betting! That's why I'm arguing that the starting point for 2024 is really the hung parliament of 2017, the more so because the 2019 Brexit election has proved to be such a disappointing cause.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    Surely decimation involves the Tories removing 10% of their MPs themselves, as a form of punishment (such as Andrew Bridgen) rather than as a result of opposition action?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    On topic, if Labour have found themselves a new donor, will they be returning recent donations from Dale Vince, who is also funding the people disrupting streets and sporting events, and says he intends to double down his donations to the disruptive protestors?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65764041
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    Cambridge dictionary online definition of decimate:

    'to kill a large number of something, or to reduce something severely'

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decimate

    and pedant:

    'a person who is too interested in formal rules and small details that are not important'

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pedant

    hmmm. 'pedant' doesn't seem quite right here, but maybe it will have to do.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    Surely decimation involves the Tories removing 10% of their MPs themselves, as a form of punishment (such as Andrew Bridgen) rather than as a result of opposition action?
    At the current rate that MPs are being sanctioned for various shitty behaviours, it’s not inconceivable that this Parliament could end up decimated.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    Surely decimation involves the Tories removing 10% of their MPs themselves, as a form of punishment (such as Andrew Bridgen) rather than as a result of opposition action?
    If you want to be silly about it, it would involve 10% of Conservative MPs being stoned to death by the others.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,168
    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    What I see from Labour at the moment is:

    A self harming commitment to preventing new development in the North Sea.
    A commitment to ever more extravagant "windfall taxes" making our tax regime both arbitrary and unpredictable, discouraging new investment.
    A commitment to abolishing Non Dom status on the basis that it may (or may not) produce more tax.

    A series of spending commitments supposedly funded by the above including some interesting ideas on training.

    It is not an economic policy that is likely to lead to success. Even the windfall taxes are one offs which seem to be funding ongoing programs. I worry about the competence of the incoming government. It looks no improvement on this one, possibly even a step back.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    Surely decimation involves the Tories removing 10% of their MPs themselves, as a form of punishment (such as Andrew Bridgen) rather than as a result of opposition action?
    If you want to be silly about it, it would involve 10% of Conservative MPs being stoned to death by the others.
    As long as we get to choose the 10% I could go with that.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    Heathener said:

    Just catching up on responses to my polemic from a few days ago suggesting that we should be taking 08 June 2017 as the benchmark, rather than 12 December 2019. I won't repeat my arguments for this but thank you for the many kind comments suggesting there may be something in it.*

    @Miklosvar posted that: 'I am seeing on the same page both GE 2017 type result and "bloodbath". Which is it?'

    This missed the point that in calculating the starting position for the 2024 election, we should mentally be using June 2017 not December 2019. The swing to Labour needed, for example, comes from the hung parliament, not from Boris' Get Brexit Done election. I am proposing that for punters, we need to consider the December 2019 as a one-off and not use it as the starting position for what will happen next time.

    @Casino_Royale dismissed my reasoning because it was 'ruled by emotion' and that I attack the person, which is rather ironic ... ;) Dismissing a female for being 'emotional' or 'hysterical' is of course classic misogyny, and the most angry person I've ever seen on this forum was Casino R himself. But, either way, I always bet with my head not my heart and in this case I was being fairly reasoned about why I think we should be using June 2017 as our starting point. So it was an unfair example of attacking the person, not the argument.

    More importantly, CR bases his counter on the notion of a 'Centre-right bloc vote'. I find this a curiously old-fashioned view of political intention in this country, and lacking any obvious basis in fact. There is no such 'bloc' vote. But what I think we can observe is when a caucus moves on mass as a reaction to something. So, for example, if home owners feel threatened by one party's policies. Jeremy Corbyn 'did' succeed in scaring off middle Britain (CR's centre-right bloc vote) and in the past we have seen similar REACTIVE movements. There is simply no evidence that Keir Starmer has generated that kind of reaction on the centre-right, despite the best intentions of the Mail and Express to scare people otherwise.

    The centre-right are not scared by Labour, so there is no bloc. It is diffuse and ready to vote against the current Conservative Party. Indeed, if there is any reactive bloc it is precisely that: a hostility against the current governing party that I have not detected since the mid 1990's.


    *Very briefly: Dec 19 was a one-off. Essentially it had one raison d'etre: to 'Get Brexit Done,' coming on the back of a deadlocked parliament that irritated everyone, myself included. Boris galvanised that vote against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-Semite. The last proper General Election was 08 June 2017, which resulted in a hung parliament.

    Point of order - the Trotskyite, like many of his ilk, had a tendency to go Tankie and try to support the USSR. Despite it not being there anymore.

    Perhaps instead of blocs and Middle England, we should consider core vote. Which is an onion, of course. The ultimate core vote for the Conservative Party is around 25%, with a softer layer taking it to 30%.

    The real issue about leads etc for Labour is that the other parties have their core votes as well. Getting 45% is difficult. More is beyond that.

    So it will come down to vote strikes/turnout/tactical voting
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    Surely decimation involves the Tories removing 10% of their MPs themselves, as a form of punishment (such as Andrew Bridgen) rather than as a result of opposition action?
    If you want to be silly about it, it would involve 10% of Conservative MPs being stoned to death by the others.
    Sounds like the Russian army.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,168
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    It has its uses. One of which is in medical training, e.g. for surgery https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(21)00987-4/fulltext It can also be used in the planning of difficult surgeries: https://europepmc.org/article/med/36503703

    It can also be fun! Holopoint and Beat Saber are both great games.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    edited June 2023
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    You'd think that someone with a handle like @Cicero would know these things.
    Conservatives crucified more likely?
    Quite willing to look at that literally in certain cases.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,089
    DavidL said:

    What I see from Labour at the moment is:

    A self harming commitment to preventing new development in the North Sea.
    A commitment to ever more extravagant "windfall taxes" making our tax regime both arbitrary and unpredictable, discouraging new investment.
    A commitment to abolishing Non Dom status on the basis that it may (or may not) produce more tax.

    A series of spending commitments supposedly funded by the above including some interesting ideas on training.

    It is not an economic policy that is likely to lead to success. Even the windfall taxes are one offs which seem to be funding ongoing programs. I worry about the competence of the incoming government. It looks no improvement on this one, possibly even a step back.

    On the other hand, two big points of difference with the current government have been signalled. One is getting more stuff built, the other is being more pragmatic about how much European trade and cooperation we want and how much EU alignment we are prepared to tolerate to get them.

    Get those right, and the economic sums come out a lot easier.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,089

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    You'd think that someone with a handle like @Cicero would know these things.
    Conservatives crucified more likely?
    Quite willing to look at that literally in certain cases.
    Nah.

    If anything, the problem for the Conservatives will be a lack of crosses.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Sell the stock of any company that prioritizes AR over AI.
    Apple are a consumer products company, and they will do it right. So AR rather than VR.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,192
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Exactly.

    It will be the same with Murdoch. He backs winners. He will come out for SKS.
    I’d rather he didn’t. I don’t want any Labour Government to feel beholden to Murdoch to the tune of a single cent.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    Did anyone want a smartphone when they first launched theirs ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    edited June 2023

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    You'd think that someone with a handle like @Cicero would know these things.
    Conservatives crucified more likely?
    Quite willing to look at that literally in certain cases.
    Nah.

    If anything, the problem for the Conservatives will be a lack of crosses.
    It looks nailed on.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,089

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Exactly.

    It will be the same with Murdoch. He backs winners. He will come out for SKS.
    I’d rather he didn’t. I don’t want any Labour Government to feel beholden to Murdoch to the tune of a single cent.
    Murdoch is in a bit of a hole.

    It's pretty clear that he doesn't like Starmer, and would have to pull of a heck of a U turn to back him. And the Sun/Talk Radio are much more explicitly right wing than they used to be. As are what is left of their audience.

    But Rupe does hate backing losers.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    Surely decimation involves the Tories removing 10% of their MPs themselves, as a form of punishment (such as Andrew Bridgen) rather than as a result of opposition action?
    Decimation sounds too metric a punishment. What is it in proper, English, imperial measures?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Sell the stock of any company that prioritizes AR over AI.
    Apple are a consumer products company, and they will do it right. So AR rather than VR.
    Back in 1994, I went to Virtuality 94 at the Novotel in Hammersmith: a conference highlighting the latest in VR, which was a really hot topic back then. Companies had massive Silicon Graphics workstations worth, they claimed, half a million pounds to render the VR.

    29 years later, and our phones may well have the same sort of graphics power. Yet VR still hasn't taken off as much as they promised.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    Did anyone want a smartphone when they first launched theirs ?
    Yes. That was obvious from earlier smartphones, digital cameras and ipods etc.

    VR may have some uses (architecture and interior design, for example) but I really doubt that people really want to be wearing headset and earphones for very long.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    Did anyone want a smartphone when they first launched theirs ?
    BlackBerries were already quite successful before the iphone was launched, so maybe yes?

    Alternatively, did anyone want 3D televisions?
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,192
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Meanwhile, the London Stock Exchange, so long the epicentre of this country's economic boom, is in terminal decline - according to its former boss:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/04/city-london-regulation-reforms-xavier-rolet-lse-chief

    Boris infamously declared 'f*ck business', something unthinkable under New Labour ;)

    So what are labour proposing to do, aside from expropriate money from peoples pensions to put into U.K. investments.

    Dambisa Moyo made a great speech in the HoL about it. We have an overegulated and soon to,be overtaxed regime.

    You cannot blame businesses taking their listings elsewhere.
    Hi @Taz, well I suggested in my previous reply one step they could make which is the obvious one.

    Other than that, I don't know.

    When, if, Labour come into Government you will find me being critical of them when I feel it's required. I'm not a Labour stooge and remain rather unenthused about them. But I think this country badly needs to be rid of the current Conservative Gov't who are tired, and worse.

    And for the record to CR, all of my most successful punts have come when placing bets on causes I would not personally support. Head, not heart, when betting! That's why I'm arguing that the starting point for 2024 is really the hung parliament of 2017, the more so because the 2019 Brexit election has proved to be such a disappointing cause.
    I’m not so sure about 2017. The Labour uptick in that election was about a coalescing of the ‘socialist’ vote and the ‘get Brexit out of the hands of the Tories’ vote. Neither of those blocs will get behind Starmer in 2024 in quite the same way. On the other hand, Starmer will attract back some of the swing voters who swung behind the Tories from 2010 onwards. And judging from conversations I’ve had with family some Tories feel like sitting on their hands.

    I think there will be a Lab majority, barring any black swans, and not least because I anticipate a better result in Scotland, but it’s very hard to say where it falls between 1 and 100.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    Did anyone want a smartphone when they first launched theirs ?
    Yes. That was obvious from earlier smartphones, digital cameras and ipods etc.

    VR may have some uses (architecture and interior design, for example) but I really doubt that people really want to be wearing headset and earphones for very long.
    Plenty of people wear earbuds for half the day.
    I wear glasses the entire day.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    It has its uses. One of which is in medical training, e.g. for surgery https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(21)00987-4/fulltext It can also be used in the planning of difficult surgeries: https://europepmc.org/article/med/36503703

    It can also be fun! Holopoint and Beat Saber are both great games.
    That’s it - it’s niche tech that is very useful in limited ways.

    I first remember trying out a VR headset in the nineties; there was a place in Nottingham that offered a twenty minute go on a (fairly shonky) sword’n’sorcery type game. The immersion was extraordinary, but I definitely had more fun playing Street Fighter 2 on the arcade machine in the queue.

    Twenty years later I was invited to a thing at Facebook’s swanky (then new) London HQ for a showcase of their oculus headset and it’s various applications.

    This time the free booze and canapés trumped the tech, but the feeling was the same. Maybe less of a gimmick, but for something so immersive, it still felt limited.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    Did anyone want a smartphone when they first launched theirs ?
    Yes. That was obvious from earlier smartphones, digital cameras and ipods etc.

    VR may have some uses (architecture and interior design, for example) but I really doubt that people really want to be wearing headset and earphones for very long.
    Plenty of people wear earbuds for half the day.
    I wear glasses the entire day.
    Yes, but those glasses clarify "Actual Reality".
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    edited June 2023

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    You'd think that someone with a handle like @Cicero would know these things.
    Conservatives crucified more likely?
    Quite willing to look at that literally in certain cases.
    Nah.

    If anything, the problem for the Conservatives will be a lack of crosses.
    Can't even manage that properly, enough crosses down the Via Appia. DfT under Tory infrastructure policy/management yet again.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    It’s not that people don’t like you posting it. PB is a broad church at its best. It’s that you don’t post anything else. Get up early, post the same posts about random bus passengers pledging undying support for labour, then disappear.

    I for one think you are probably right on the result, but most people don’t experience the visceral anger in their daily lives because we just go about our daily lives and talk about everything other than politics.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    There's a bit of a clue in the name, one might think.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    Did anyone want a smartphone when they first launched theirs ?
    Yes. That was obvious from earlier smartphones, digital cameras and ipods etc.

    VR may have some uses (architecture and interior design, for example) but I really doubt that people really want to be wearing headset and earphones for very long.
    Plenty of people wear earbuds for half the day.
    I wear glasses the entire day.
    Yes, but those glasses clarify "Actual Reality".
    That is likely to be their aim.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    edited June 2023
    Heathener said:

    Just catching up on responses to my polemic from a few days ago suggesting that we should be taking 08 June 2017 as the benchmark, rather than 12 December 2019. I won't repeat my arguments for this but thank you for the many kind comments suggesting there may be something in it.*

    @Miklosvar posted that: 'I am seeing on the same page both GE 2017 type result and "bloodbath". Which is it?'

    This missed the point that in calculating the starting position for the 2024 election, we should mentally be using June 2017 not December 2019. The swing to Labour needed, for example, comes from the hung parliament, not from Boris' Get Brexit Done election. I am proposing that for punters, we need to consider the December 2019 as a one-off and not use it as the starting position for what will happen next time.

    @Casino_Royale dismissed my reasoning because it was 'ruled by emotion' and that I attack the person, which is rather ironic ... ;) Dismissing a female for being 'emotional' or 'hysterical' is of course classic misogyny, and the most angry person I've ever seen on this forum was Casino R himself. But, either way, I always bet with my head not my heart and in this case I was being fairly reasoned about why I think we should be using June 2017 as our starting point. So it was an unfair example of attacking the person, not the argument.

    More importantly, CR bases his counter on the notion of a 'Centre-right bloc vote'. I find this a curiously old-fashioned view of political intention in this country, and lacking any obvious basis in fact. There is no such 'bloc' vote. But what I think we can observe is when a caucus moves on mass as a reaction to something. So, for example, if home owners feel threatened by one party's policies. Jeremy Corbyn 'did' succeed in scaring off middle Britain (CR's centre-right bloc vote) and in the past we have seen similar REACTIVE movements. There is simply no evidence that Keir Starmer has generated that kind of reaction on the centre-right, despite the best intentions of the Mail and Express to scare people otherwise.

    The centre-right are not scared by Labour, so there is no bloc. It is diffuse and ready to vote against the current Conservative Party. Indeed, if there is any reactive bloc it is precisely that: a hostility against the current governing party that I have not detected since the mid 1990's.


    *Very briefly: Dec 19 was a one-off. Essentially it had one raison d'etre: to 'Get Brexit Done,' coming on the back of a deadlocked parliament that irritated everyone, myself included. Boris galvanised that vote against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-Semite. The last proper General Election was 08 June 2017, which resulted in a hung parliament.

    Interesting post and quite a bit to think about. I neither agree nor disagree with your analysis.

    I do agree with you on the posts attacking you. The attacks were very hypocritical in their content as they are often unnecessarily rude. Squareroot2 for example is often just rude to posters. I never understand why.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Exactly.

    It will be the same with Murdoch. He backs winners. He will come out for SKS.
    I’d rather he didn’t. I don’t want any Labour Government to feel beholden to Murdoch to the tune of a single cent.
    Murdoch is in a bit of a hole.

    It's pretty clear that he doesn't like Starmer, and would have to pull of a heck of a U turn to back him. And the Sun/Talk Radio are much more explicitly right wing than they used to be. As are what is left of their audience.

    But Rupe does hate backing losers.
    But he hates Starmer more than I hate Max Verstappen.

    Starmer prosecuted and jailed Rupe’s journalists, he’ll never forgive or forget.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    Er, which Cicero? The old or the new one? A pedant asks.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Heathener said:

    Just catching up on responses to my polemic from a few days ago suggesting that we should be taking 08 June 2017 as the benchmark, rather than 12 December 2019. I won't repeat my arguments for this but thank you for the many kind comments suggesting there may be something in it.*

    @Miklosvar posted that: 'I am seeing on the same page both GE 2017 type result and "bloodbath". Which is it?'

    This missed the point that in calculating the starting position for the 2024 election, we should mentally be using June 2017 not December 2019. The swing to Labour needed, for example, comes from the hung parliament, not from Boris' Get Brexit Done election. I am proposing that for punters, we need to consider the December 2019 as a one-off and not use it as the starting position for what will happen next time.

    @Casino_Royale dismissed my reasoning because it was 'ruled by emotion' and that I attack the person, which is rather ironic ... ;) Dismissing a female for being 'emotional' or 'hysterical' is of course classic misogyny, and the most angry person I've ever seen on this forum was Casino R himself. But, either way, I always bet with my head not my heart and in this case I was being fairly reasoned about why I think we should be using June 2017 as our starting point. So it was an unfair example of attacking the person, not the argument.

    More importantly, CR bases his counter on the notion of a 'Centre-right bloc vote'. I find this a curiously old-fashioned view of political intention in this country, and lacking any obvious basis in fact. There is no such 'bloc' vote. But what I think we can observe is when a caucus moves on mass as a reaction to something. So, for example, if home owners feel threatened by one party's policies. Jeremy Corbyn 'did' succeed in scaring off middle Britain (CR's centre-right bloc vote) and in the past we have seen similar REACTIVE movements. There is simply no evidence that Keir Starmer has generated that kind of reaction on the centre-right, despite the best intentions of the Mail and Express to scare people otherwise.

    The centre-right are not scared by Labour, so there is no bloc. It is diffuse and ready to vote against the current Conservative Party. Indeed, if there is any reactive bloc it is precisely that: a hostility against the current governing party that I have not detected since the mid 1990's.


    *Very briefly: Dec 19 was a one-off. Essentially it had one raison d'etre: to 'Get Brexit Done,' coming on the back of a deadlocked parliament that irritated everyone, myself included. Boris galvanised that vote against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-Semite. The last proper General Election was 08 June 2017, which resulted in a hung parliament.

    The critique of using 2017 is that also was a Brexit vote. People voted against giving May a free hand. Last non Brexit vote? Probably 2010, as 2015 had the scourge of Farage looming over the conservatives, leading to 2016.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    It has its uses. One of which is in medical training, e.g. for surgery https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(21)00987-4/fulltext It can also be used in the planning of difficult surgeries: https://europepmc.org/article/med/36503703

    It can also be fun! Holopoint and Beat Saber are both great games.
    There’s quite a few potential uses for AR technology in industry.

    Boeing have spent time trying to integrate AR into aeroplane manufacture and servicing, an area where complicated written and diagrammatic instructions have to be followed closely. They reduced the number of ‘follow-ups’ by 90%, even with older technology.

    https://innovateenergynow.com/resources/down-to-the-wire-how-boeing-uses-ar-in-assembly

    IIRC Mercedes-Benz looked at something similar, as an aid for training their service technicians on new car models.

    That’s thousands of devices at most though, not the millions, or tens of millions, that a company such as Apple will be looking to sell.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Meanwhile, the London Stock Exchange, so long the epicentre of this country's economic boom, is in terminal decline - according to its former boss:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/04/city-london-regulation-reforms-xavier-rolet-lse-chief

    Boris infamously declared 'f*ck business', something unthinkable under New Labour ;)

    So what are labour proposing to do, aside from expropriate money from peoples pensions to put into U.K. investments.

    Dambisa Moyo made a great speech in the HoL about it. We have an overegulated and soon to,be overtaxed regime.

    You cannot blame businesses taking their listings elsewhere.
    Hi @Taz, well I suggested in my previous reply one step they could make which is the obvious one.

    Other than that, I don't know.

    When, if, Labour come into Government you will find me being critical of them when I feel it's required. I'm not a Labour stooge and remain rather unenthused about them. But I think this country badly needs to be rid of the current Conservative Gov't who are tired, and worse.

    And for the record to CR, all of my most successful punts have come when placing bets on causes I would not personally support. Head, not heart, when betting! That's why I'm arguing that the starting point for 2024 is really the hung parliament of 2017, the more so because the 2019 Brexit election has proved to be such a disappointing cause.
    Only idea is rejoining the EU? This is the same fallacy as Brexiteers had - if only we left the EU all would be well. If only we could rejoin the EU all would be well…
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    DavidL said:

    What I see from Labour at the moment is:

    A self harming commitment to preventing new development in the North Sea.
    A commitment to ever more extravagant "windfall taxes" making our tax regime both arbitrary and unpredictable, discouraging new investment.
    A commitment to abolishing Non Dom status on the basis that it may (or may not) produce more tax.

    A series of spending commitments supposedly funded by the above including some interesting ideas on training.

    It is not an economic policy that is likely to lead to success. Even the windfall taxes are one offs which seem to be funding ongoing programs. I worry about the competence of the incoming government. It looks no improvement on this one, possibly even a step back.

    Remember that incoming administrations in this country tend to sing songs they think will appeal to voters, rather than what they will actually do. That's as true with this government as it will be for Labour.

    The current lot are openly corrupt and massively incompetent. Just replacing that with rational policy done properly - even if we disagree with it - would be a step forward.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Exactly.

    It will be the same with Murdoch. He backs winners. He will come out for SKS.
    I’d rather he didn’t. I don’t want any Labour Government to feel beholden to Murdoch to the tune of a single cent.
    Murdoch is in a bit of a hole.

    It's pretty clear that he doesn't like Starmer, and would have to pull of a heck of a U turn to back him. And the Sun/Talk Radio are much more explicitly right wing than they used to be. As are what is left of their audience.

    But Rupe does hate backing losers.
    But he hates Starmer more than I hate Max Verstappen.

    Starmer prosecuted and jailed Rupe’s journalists, he’ll never forgive or forget.
    Considering Ruperts age, that may not be for long. This is not the nineteen-nineties, it is his nineties.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    edited June 2023

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Back to 97, the size of the voter strike was very approximately 2-2.5m or around 15-18% of 1992 Tory voters, with Labour switching at up to 1.5m, or around 10% of 1992 Tory voters. Both things happened and it was the combination that was killer.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,777
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Cicero said:

    It's not just Brexit. The Tories have crossed the line on a whole range of issues, from policy to basic competence to unacceptable personal conduct. Any one is dangerous, taking together they are lethal for their chances.

    Defeat looks inevitable. Decimation likely, a total rout still possible.

    Mere decimation would leave them still in power. I think that is optimistic.
    Well done, David! I am glad I am not the only pedant on PB.

    Decimation would of course lead to loss of a mere 33 seats, but I think we all know what Cicero meant.
    Er, which Cicero? The old or the new one? A pedant asks.
    Yes. Like Simpson. From Baltimore or Springfield? But I think we can forgive Cicero on this occasion. Sometimes even Homer nods.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    Sandpit said:

    On topic, if Labour have found themselves a new donor, will they be returning recent donations from Dale Vince, who is also funding the people disrupting streets and sporting events, and says he intends to double down his donations to the disruptive protestors?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65764041

    Given that the Tories are unlikely to wish to (re)open the Pandora’s box that is their donor community, I would guess they’ll be keeping the cash.

    In any case, I don’t see Labour doing anything like, for example, installing Dale Vince at the top of the BBC, or awarding him government contracts in the hundreds of millions range.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    It has its uses. One of which is in medical training, e.g. for surgery https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(21)00987-4/fulltext It can also be used in the planning of difficult surgeries: https://europepmc.org/article/med/36503703

    It can also be fun! Holopoint and Beat Saber are both great games.
    There’s quite a few potential uses for AR technology in industry.

    Boeing have spent time trying to integrate AR into aeroplane manufacture and servicing, an area where complicated written and diagrammatic instructions have to be followed closely. They reduced the number of ‘follow-ups’ by 90%, even with older technology.

    https://innovateenergynow.com/resources/down-to-the-wire-how-boeing-uses-ar-in-assembly

    IIRC Mercedes-Benz looked at something similar, as an aid for training their service technicians on new car models.

    That’s thousands of devices at most though, not the millions, or tens of millions, that a company such as Apple will be looking to sell.
    They've been working in the technology for a long time, and have launched nothing. It now sounds as though they think they have a consumer product
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Heathener said:

    Just catching up on responses to my polemic from a few days ago suggesting that we should be taking 08 June 2017 as the benchmark, rather than 12 December 2019. I won't repeat my arguments for this but thank you for the many kind comments suggesting there may be something in it.*

    @Miklosvar posted that: 'I am seeing on the same page both GE 2017 type result and "bloodbath". Which is it?'

    This missed the point that in calculating the starting position for the 2024 election, we should mentally be using June 2017 not December 2019. The swing to Labour needed, for example, comes from the hung parliament, not from Boris' Get Brexit Done election. I am proposing that for punters, we need to consider the December 2019 as a one-off and not use it as the starting position for what will happen next time.

    @Casino_Royale dismissed my reasoning because it was 'ruled by emotion' and that I attack the person, which is rather ironic ... ;) Dismissing a female for being 'emotional' or 'hysterical' is of course classic misogyny, and the most angry person I've ever seen on this forum was Casino R himself. But, either way, I always bet with my head not my heart and in this case I was being fairly reasoned about why I think we should be using June 2017 as our starting point. So it was an unfair example of attacking the person, not the argument.

    More importantly, CR bases his counter on the notion of a 'Centre-right bloc vote'. I find this a curiously old-fashioned view of political intention in this country, and lacking any obvious basis in fact. There is no such 'bloc' vote. But what I think we can observe is when a caucus moves on mass as a reaction to something. So, for example, if home owners feel threatened by one party's policies. Jeremy Corbyn 'did' succeed in scaring off middle Britain (CR's centre-right bloc vote) and in the past we have seen similar REACTIVE movements. There is simply no evidence that Keir Starmer has generated that kind of reaction on the centre-right, despite the best intentions of the Mail and Express to scare people otherwise.

    The centre-right are not scared by Labour, so there is no bloc. It is diffuse and ready to vote against the current Conservative Party. Indeed, if there is any reactive bloc it is precisely that: a hostility against the current governing party that I have not detected since the mid 1990's.


    *Very briefly: Dec 19 was a one-off. Essentially it had one raison d'etre: to 'Get Brexit Done,' coming on the back of a deadlocked parliament that irritated everyone, myself included. Boris galvanised that vote against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-Semite. The last proper General Election was 08 June 2017, which resulted in a hung parliament.

    The critique of using 2017 is that also was a Brexit vote. People voted against giving May a free hand. Last non Brexit vote? Probably 2010, as 2015 had the scourge of Farage looming over the conservatives, leading to 2016.
    Yes, I think 2017 should be discounted too as a Brexit election*. I wouldn't remove 2015 from consideration as baseline.

    *worth noting that even 2019 had a majority of voters voting for parties wanting a further referendum. It was only FPTP that gave Johnson a majority to "get Brexit done".
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    rcs1000 said:

    Heathener said:

    Just catching up on responses to my polemic from a few days ago suggesting that we should be taking 08 June 2017 as the benchmark, rather than 12 December 2019. I won't repeat my arguments for this but thank you for the many kind comments suggesting there may be something in it.*

    @Miklosvar posted that: 'I am seeing on the same page both GE 2017 type result and "bloodbath". Which is it?'

    This missed the point that in calculating the starting position for the 2024 election, we should mentally be using June 2017 not December 2019. The swing to Labour needed, for example, comes from the hung parliament, not from Boris' Get Brexit Done election. I am proposing that for punters, we need to consider the December 2019 as a one-off and not use it as the starting position for what will happen next time.

    @Casino_Royale dismissed my reasoning because it was 'ruled by emotion' and that I attack the person, which is rather ironic ... ;) Dismissing a female for being 'emotional' or 'hysterical' is of course classic misogyny, and the most angry person I've ever seen on this forum was Casino R himself. But, either way, I always bet with my head not my heart and in this case I was being fairly reasoned about why I think we should be using June 2017 as our starting point. So it was an unfair example of attacking the person, not the argument.

    More importantly, CR bases his counter on the notion of a 'Centre-right bloc vote'. I find this a curiously old-fashioned view of political intention in this country, and lacking any obvious basis in fact. There is no such 'bloc' vote. But what I think we can observe is when a caucus moves on mass as a reaction to something. So, for example, if home owners feel threatened by one party's policies. Jeremy Corbyn 'did' succeed in scaring off middle Britain (CR's centre-right bloc vote) and in the past we have seen similar REACTIVE movements. There is simply no evidence that Keir Starmer has generated that kind of reaction on the centre-right, despite the best intentions of the Mail and Express to scare people otherwise.

    The centre-right are not scared by Labour, so there is no bloc. It is diffuse and ready to vote against the current Conservative Party. Indeed, if there is any reactive bloc it is precisely that: a hostility against the current governing party that I have not detected since the mid 1990's.


    *Very briefly: Dec 19 was a one-off. Essentially it had one raison d'etre: to 'Get Brexit Done,' coming on the back of a deadlocked parliament that irritated everyone, myself included. Boris galvanised that vote against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-Semite. The last proper General Election was 08 June 2017, which resulted in a hung parliament.

    While I'm a little more pessimistic on Labour's chances than you are, I think your analysis of 2019 is spot on.
    Indeed; one of Heathener's best posts.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    Heathener said:

    Just catching up on responses to my polemic from a few days ago suggesting that we should be taking 08 June 2017 as the benchmark, rather than 12 December 2019. I won't repeat my arguments for this but thank you for the many kind comments suggesting there may be something in it.*

    @Miklosvar posted that: 'I am seeing on the same page both GE 2017 type result and "bloodbath". Which is it?'

    This missed the point that in calculating the starting position for the 2024 election, we should mentally be using June 2017 not December 2019. The swing to Labour needed, for example, comes from the hung parliament, not from Boris' Get Brexit Done election. I am proposing that for punters, we need to consider the December 2019 as a one-off and not use it as the starting position for what will happen next time.

    @Casino_Royale dismissed my reasoning because it was 'ruled by emotion' and that I attack the person, which is rather ironic ... ;) Dismissing a female for being 'emotional' or 'hysterical' is of course classic misogyny, and the most angry person I've ever seen on this forum was Casino R himself. But, either way, I always bet with my head not my heart and in this case I was being fairly reasoned about why I think we should be using June 2017 as our starting point. So it was an unfair example of attacking the person, not the argument.

    More importantly, CR bases his counter on the notion of a 'Centre-right bloc vote'. I find this a curiously old-fashioned view of political intention in this country, and lacking any obvious basis in fact. There is no such 'bloc' vote. But what I think we can observe is when a caucus moves on mass as a reaction to something. So, for example, if home owners feel threatened by one party's policies. Jeremy Corbyn 'did' succeed in scaring off middle Britain (CR's centre-right bloc vote) and in the past we have seen similar REACTIVE movements. There is simply no evidence that Keir Starmer has generated that kind of reaction on the centre-right, despite the best intentions of the Mail and Express to scare people otherwise.

    The centre-right are not scared by Labour, so there is no bloc. It is diffuse and ready to vote against the current Conservative Party. Indeed, if there is any reactive bloc it is precisely that: a hostility against the current governing party that I have not detected since the mid 1990's.


    *Very briefly: Dec 19 was a one-off. Essentially it had one raison d'etre: to 'Get Brexit Done,' coming on the back of a deadlocked parliament that irritated everyone, myself included. Boris galvanised that vote against an unelectable Trotskyite anti-Semite. The last proper General Election was 08 June 2017, which resulted in a hung parliament.

    Point of order - the Trotskyite, like many of his ilk, had a tendency to go Tankie and try to support the USSR. Despite it not being there anymore.

    Perhaps instead of blocs and Middle England, we should consider core vote.
    Pro_Rata said:

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Back to 97, the size of the voter strike was very approximately 2-2.5m or around 15-18% of 1992 Tory voters, with Labour switching at up to 1.5m, or around 10% of 1992 Tory voters. Both things happened and it was the combination that was killer.
    Exactly. Plus tactical voting / tacit agreements between opposition parties.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Not entirely dissimilar to DuraAce's Porsche part business, except in scale.

    Russia 'buying back' arms parts exported to Myanmar and India
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Ukraine-war/Russia-buying-back-arms-parts-exported-to-Myanmar-and-India
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    DavidL said:

    What I see from Labour at the moment is:

    A self harming commitment to preventing new development in the North Sea.
    A commitment to ever more extravagant "windfall taxes" making our tax regime both arbitrary and unpredictable, discouraging new investment.
    A commitment to abolishing Non Dom status on the basis that it may (or may not) produce more tax.

    A series of spending commitments supposedly funded by the above including some interesting ideas on training.

    It is not an economic policy that is likely to lead to success. Even the windfall taxes are one offs which seem to be funding ongoing programs. I worry about the competence of the incoming government. It looks no improvement on this one, possibly even a step back.

    If you want to talk about self harm, wait til you find out what all those emissions are doing to the planet
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,089

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Exactly.

    It will be the same with Murdoch. He backs winners. He will come out for SKS.
    I’d rather he didn’t. I don’t want any Labour Government to feel beholden to Murdoch to the tune of a single cent.
    Murdoch is in a bit of a hole.

    It's pretty clear that he doesn't like Starmer, and would have to pull of a heck of a U turn to back him. And the Sun/Talk Radio are much more explicitly right wing than they used to be. As are what is left of their audience.

    But Rupe does hate backing losers.
    But he hates Starmer more than I hate Max Verstappen.

    Starmer prosecuted and jailed Rupe’s journalists, he’ll never forgive or forget.
    True. Which takes us back to the Sun being about to lose its reputation for always backing/picking the winner.

    Probably good for Britain, and the sort of thing that couldn't happen to a nicer proprietor
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    ...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2023

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Exactly.

    It will be the same with Murdoch. He backs winners. He will come out for SKS.
    I’d rather he didn’t. I don’t want any Labour Government to feel beholden to Murdoch to the tune of a single cent.
    Murdoch is in a bit of a hole.

    It's pretty clear that he doesn't like Starmer, and would have to pull of a heck of a U turn to back him. And the Sun/Talk Radio are much more explicitly right wing than they used to be. As are what is left of their audience.

    But Rupe does hate backing losers.
    But he hates Starmer more than I hate Max Verstappen.

    Starmer prosecuted and jailed Rupe’s journalists, he’ll never forgive or forget.
    True. Which takes us back to the Sun being about to lose its reputation for always backing/picking the winner.

    Probably good for Britain, and the sort of thing that couldn't happen to a nicer proprietor
    Murdoch certainly doesn't always back the winner in the US, his press and TV backed Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2020 and nor in Australia either, it backed Morrison in 2022.

    However, what I expect is Murdoch will split his support, the Times will endorse Starmer Labour and the Sun will still back the Tories so he doesn't lose either way
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    As you know, I predict a Labour landslide.

    Some of the right-wingers on here don't like me stating and re-stating this but as we've had to put up with years of tory clusterf*ck it's your turn to drink the hemlock.

    Oddly, some class me as a right-winger on here, and some left-wingers have argued against me when I predict a Labour landslide! ;)

    I think this is due to expectations management; if the public think there's going to be a landslide, then they're less likely to either vote, or tactically vote. If they think it's going to be close, then they're more likely to turn out to vote out this government.

    why do I think there'll be a landslide? Because short of a black swan event, I cannot see how this government can turn around the public's perception of them. And whilst I don't think Starmer is compelling, or even good, he's fresh.

    My usual rule of a PM and/or government getting tired aften ten years also comes into play.
    I think Labour largest party is utterly certain. I think that at least a small majority is now very likely - 60-70%.

    Beyond that, it depends, I think on voter turnout. If the voters actively turnout to get the Tories out, then that's your landslide. If it is a vote strike by Tory voters, then not.

    All of which means that Starmer will be the next PM. Hence the donors switching to Labour. It's not the ideology they love, but they want to be backing the winners.
    Exactly.

    It will be the same with Murdoch. He backs winners. He will come out for SKS.
    I’d rather he didn’t. I don’t want any Labour Government to feel beholden to Murdoch to the tune of a single cent.
    Murdoch is in a bit of a hole.

    It's pretty clear that he doesn't like Starmer, and would have to pull of a heck of a U turn to back him. And the Sun/Talk Radio are much more explicitly right wing than they used to be. As are what is left of their audience.

    But Rupe does hate backing losers.
    But he hates Starmer more than I hate Max Verstappen.

    Starmer prosecuted and jailed Rupe’s journalists, he’ll never forgive or forget.
    Considering Ruperts age, that may not be for long. This is not the nineteen-nineties, it is his nineties.
    Nothing lasts forever. Unless he croaks before the election, the Sun will lose its record.

    Point of order on the Sun being more right wing than ever - I’d argue the Kelvin McKenzie years further rightwards than today (witness his notorious characterisation of his core readership).
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,793

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    I like the first paragraph in the first answer in that thread. It's very versatile:

    "The Telegraph article is lazy. It misrepresents the state of academic research into early English identity by downplaying recent research, ignores tonnes of evidence and scholarship, and has no real interest in learning. It's shoddy tabloid content that does its readers a disservice, and exists to get a reaction from readers who want to slam researchers for doing their jobs. That gets good engagement, and therefore maintains the value of advertising space. Intellectual honesty, integrity, or curiosity were not factors in its authorship and we should not pretend that it is anything other than cynical. "

    Just substitute "...into early English identity..." with virtually anything else, and it's useful for almost anything the Telegraph presents on any scientific area.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sell Meta - Apple are taking VR seriously.

    Does anyone actually want VR?
    Did anyone want a smartphone when they first launched theirs ?
    Me! I flew to NY and queued outside the Apple Store.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    I like the first paragraph in the first answer in that thread. It's very versatile:

    "The Telegraph article is lazy. It misrepresents the state of academic research into early English identity by downplaying recent research, ignores tonnes of evidence and scholarship, and has no real interest in learning. It's shoddy tabloid content that does its readers a disservice, and exists to get a reaction from readers who want to slam researchers for doing their jobs. That gets good engagement, and therefore maintains the value of advertising space. Intellectual honesty, integrity, or curiosity were not factors in its authorship and we should not pretend that it is anything other than cynical. "

    Just substitute "...into early English identity..." with virtually anything else, and it's useful for almost anything the Telegraph presents on any scientific area.
    What an objectionable comment: that does its readers a disservice? There's no evidence I've seen that Telegraph readers want or deserve anything other than exactly what they're getting. Telegraph readers want comforting lies and incurious polemics. They literally pay for exactly that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2023

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?

    Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    I like the first paragraph in the first answer in that thread. It's very versatile:

    "The Telegraph article is lazy. It misrepresents the state of academic research into early English identity by downplaying recent research, ignores tonnes of evidence and scholarship, and has no real interest in learning. It's shoddy tabloid content that does its readers a disservice, and exists to get a reaction from readers who want to slam researchers for doing their jobs. That gets good engagement, and therefore maintains the value of advertising space. Intellectual honesty, integrity, or curiosity were not factors in its authorship and we should not pretend that it is anything other than cynical. "

    Just substitute "...into early English identity..." with virtually anything else, and it's useful for almost anything the Telegraph presents on any scientific area.
    Once you truly realise that most journalism is an exercise in getting people to look at advertising space, the scales fall.

    In fairness, there are some organs and writers that balance the need for insight and quality with appeal, but the proliferation of ragebait on social media is more understandable when you see that it is only written to generate clicks.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2023

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    I like the first paragraph in the first answer in that thread. It's very versatile:

    "The Telegraph article is lazy. It misrepresents the state of academic research into early English identity by downplaying recent research, ignores tonnes of evidence and scholarship, and has no real interest in learning. It's shoddy tabloid content that does its readers a disservice, and exists to get a reaction from readers who want to slam researchers for doing their jobs. That gets good engagement, and therefore maintains the value of advertising space. Intellectual honesty, integrity, or curiosity were not factors in its authorship and we should not pretend that it is anything other than cynical. "

    Just substitute "...into early English identity..." with virtually anything else, and it's useful for almost anything the Telegraph presents on any scientific area.
    I note you deliberately ignored the last paragraph of the Telegraph article 'While some have argued that a single term like “Anglo-Saxon” is inaccurate as the Dark Ages were a period of population change, including the Viking invasions, others such as Prof Howard William at the university of Chester maintain that the term remains useful historically and archaeologically.
    A statement signed by more than 70 academics in 2020 argued that the furore over the term “Anglo-Saxon” was an American import, with an open letter stating: “The conditions in which the term is encountered, and how it is perceived, are very different in the USA from elsewhere.

    “In the UK the period has been carefully presented and discussed in popular and successful documentaries and exhibitions over many years.

    “The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is historically authentic in the sense that from the 8th century it was used externally to refer to a dominant population in southern Britain. Its earliest uses, therefore, embody exactly the significant issues we can expect any general ethnic or national label to represent.”

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    HYUFD said:

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?

    Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
    Actually yes, much more so than the Telegraph. Look at the top reply: detailed and sourced to a degree that shames anything the Telegraph has to say.

    So I'll say it: Reddit is better that the Telegraph for science reporting.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Markets up this morning, on the back of OPEC oil production cuts intended to stabilise prices, which are now 20% below the price at the start of the Ukraine war, albeit well above the pandemic lows of 2020.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/05/ftse-100-markets-live-news-oil-prices-live/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2023
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?

    Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
    Actually yes, much more so than the Telegraph. Look at the top reply: detailed and sourced to a degree that shames anything the Telegraph has to say.

    So I'll say it: Reddit is better that the Telegraph for science reporting.
    No, the Telegraph had a whole final paragraph of leading historians quoted endorsing continued use of the term Anglo Saxon, including a top historian from Chester University and a letter from 20 academic historians both of which I quoted below.

    Which you ignored as it doesn't confirm with your Marxist view of history which ignores all historical fact to suit its agenda.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    HYUFD said:

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?

    Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
    That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:

    Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?

    Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
    Actually yes, much more so than the Telegraph. Look at the top reply: detailed and sourced to a degree that shames anything the Telegraph has to say.

    So I'll say it: Reddit is better that the Telegraph for science reporting.
    No, the Telegraph had a whole final paragraph of leading historians quoted endorsing continued use of the term Anglo Saxon, including a top historian from Chester University and a letter from 20 academic historians both of which I quoted below.

    Which you ignored as it doesn't confirm with your Marxist view of history which ignores all historical fact to suit its agenda.

    "Marxist view of history" :lol:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited June 2023

    HYUFD said:

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?

    Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
    That first reddit post seems rather disjointed to me. Perhaps a better question may be:

    Did the Angles and Saxons see *themselves* as a distinct ethnic group / groups?
    Compared to the Romano British and Celts and later the Normans, absolutely
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,168
    HYUFD said:

    @HYUFD recently posted a link to a Telegraph article railing against Cambridge University for saying “Anglo-Saxons” were not a distinct ethnic group: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/ Presumably this was to demonstrate the spread of the woke mind virus in our universities.

    I saw today this r/AskHistorians Reddit thread saying that Cambridge’s position here is standard, accepted history: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1405ht8/do_you_agree_with_the_recent_statement_from/

    You really think Reddit is a source of top historians?

    Anglo Saxons certainly were an accepted group, from the Saxon coast in Germany and Anglia in southern Denmark
    Firstly, r/AskHistorians is heavily moderated. It’s not just random people answering: answers are only allowed if they keep to rigorous standards of historical scholarship.

    Secondly, one of those standards is giving citations, as are given in that answer. You can go read the original research on this topic.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    On Anglo-Saxons:
    https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/1661815607853981716

    Also, I can strongly recommend Marc Morris' great book The Anglo-Saxons.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037
    What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Good morning, everyone.

    On Anglo-Saxons:
    https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/1661815607853981716

    Also, I can strongly recommend Marc Morris' great book The Anglo-Saxons.

    As that link makes clear this is just leftwing American cultural Marxists with zero understanding of English history engaging in wokeism. To deny Anglo Saxons were a distinct group from northern Germany and Denmark who came to England in about the 8th century as a distinct group from the Romano British and Celts is not only historical ignorance on an epic scale but deliberate lies to suit a Marxist agenda
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    murali_s said:

    What should worry Sunak is soaring inflation and mortgages. Are these the sunlit uplands that this fool and other deluded fools promised us? The sooner the Tory filth are ejected from power, the better!

    You really think Sunak and Reeves are going to magically slash inflation and mortgage rates better than Sunak and Hunt?
This discussion has been closed.