Howdy, Stranger!

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

If LAB had chosen a local for Mid Beds they’d have walked it – politicalbetting.com

124»

Comments

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    Tory (slim) hopes rest on Lab and LDs not getting their shit together.

    The real campaign is now - between Lab and LD - to establish who the clear rival is. Once that is confirmed (by early polling), one of them needs to get behind the other.

    The earlier poll is not useful, and was probably initiated by the Tories in the hopes of causing disagreement among their rivals.

    If Lab really have selected a “blow-in”, then that is very stupid, as otherwise I’d have made them favourites.

    I don’t think Lab and LD need to get behind whichever of them turns out to be the main challenger. If the main challenger is clear, the voters will do that regardless of the parties.
    True and not true.
    For example, LDs did not throw unlimited resource at Uxbridge.
  • NEW THREAD

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    Tory (slim) hopes rest on Lab and LDs not getting their shit together.

    The real campaign is now - between Lab and LD - to establish who the clear rival is. Once that is confirmed (by early polling), one of them needs to get behind the other.

    The earlier poll is not useful, and was probably initiated by the Tories in the hopes of causing disagreement among their rivals.

    If Lab really have selected a “blow-in”, then that is very stupid, as otherwise I’d have made them favourites.

    I don’t think Lab and LD need to get behind whichever of them turns out to be the main challenger. If the main challenger is clear, the voters will do that regardless of the parties.
    Quite so.

    In Tiverton the LDs were the benediciaries, despite being 3000 votes and 5% behind Labour, and 45% behind the Tories, and won with room to spare. The same arguments were initially made that Labour could be the challengers but the voters disagreed.

    They have a much better chance of convincing the voters of that in Mid Bedfordshire given the seat and its history, but it's a fascinating battle. It might well be the mere fact of it being a seat with 'shire' in the name and a general belief that by-elections are where LDs shine, that they manage to persuade.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 732
    Who came up with the old adage: anti-Tories should look out of their window. If they see green, vote LD; otherwise, Lab.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,497

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.

    You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.

    Taking a fucking look at yourselves.

    Who is arguing for a “single state”.
    Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
    One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
    Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.

    A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    So it would seem.

    Orwell was not a Trotskyist.
    Know them by their bedfellows and all that?

    https://www.tutor2u.net/history/topics/poum

    Waiting in Counterfactual Corner is a discussion where Stalin and his idea’s flee to Mexico, and Trotsky is the heir of Lenin, so what would have been different?

    I would suggest quite a lot. Take Spanish history alone, if POUM and other Trotskyist parties had not been purged and liquidated by Stalinists in the middle of a conflict with the Nationalists, the whole Spanish history to this date could have been different. Likewise UK and many other countries if Communist parties of the world were not just affiliates of Stalin’s Communist party of the USSR.

    I suggest Ace, no one can support both Marx-Lenin-Trotsky on the one hand Stalin-USSR on the other - such a position doesn’t understand such fundamental differences as between anti-capitalist Revolutionary vs. Conservative, or brotherhood of workers v Imperialism.
    If the roles were reversed, perhaps the ideals would have been too. Isn't that what a Marxist analysis would say? In other words, Trotsky would have become Stalin.
    No. The point is they believed in completely different things. Particularly the absence of the democratic dynamic of being able to question the philosophical direction the leader is taking them with their policies.

    Would you argue Sunak has or can become Truss?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,625

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.

    You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.

    Taking a fucking look at yourselves.

    Who is arguing for a “single state”.
    Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
    One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
    Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.

    A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    So it would seem.

    Orwell was not a Trotskyist.
    Know them by their bedfellows and all that?

    https://www.tutor2u.net/history/topics/poum

    Waiting in Counterfactual Corner is a discussion where Stalin and his idea’s flee to Mexico, and Trotsky is the heir of Lenin, so what would have been different?

    I would suggest quite a lot. Take Spanish history alone, if POUM and other Trotskyist parties had not been purged and liquidated by Stalinists in the middle of a conflict with the Nationalists, the whole Spanish history to this date could have been different. Likewise UK and many other countries if Communist parties of the world were not just affiliates of Stalin’s Communist party of the USSR.

    I suggest Ace, no one can support both Marx-Lenin-Trotsky on the one hand Stalin-USSR on the other - such a position doesn’t understand such fundamental differences as between anti-capitalist Revolutionary vs. Conservative, or brotherhood of workers v Imperialism.
    If the roles were reversed, perhaps the ideals would have been too. Isn't that what a Marxist analysis would say? In other words, Trotsky would have become Stalin.
    No. The point is they believed in completely different things. Particularly the absence of the democratic dynamic of being able to question the philosophical direction the leader is taking them with their policies.

    Would you argue Sunak has or can become Truss?
    You could say that Truss had already become Sunak prior to resigning when she backtracked and appointed Hunt.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,213

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.

    You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.

    Taking a fucking look at yourselves.

    Who is arguing for a “single state”.
    Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
    One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
    Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.

    A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    So it would seem.

    Orwell was not a Trotskyist.
    Know them by their bedfellows and all that?

    https://www.tutor2u.net/history/topics/poum

    Waiting in Counterfactual Corner is a discussion where Stalin and his idea’s flee to Mexico, and Trotsky is the heir of Lenin, so what would have been different?

    I would suggest quite a lot. Take Spanish history alone, if POUM and other Trotskyist parties had not been purged and liquidated by Stalinists in the middle of a conflict with the Nationalists, the whole Spanish history to this date could have been different. Likewise UK and many other countries if Communist parties of the world were not just affiliates of Stalin’s Communist party of the USSR.

    I suggest Ace, no one can support both Marx-Lenin-Trotsky on the one hand Stalin-USSR on the other - such a position doesn’t understand such fundamental differences as between anti-capitalist Revolutionary vs. Conservative, or brotherhood of workers v Imperialism.
    If the roles were reversed, perhaps the ideals would have been too. Isn't that what a Marxist analysis would say? In other words, Trotsky would have become Stalin.
    No. The point is they believed in completely different things. Particularly the absence of the democratic dynamic of being able to question the philosophical direction the leader is taking them with their policies.

    Would you argue Sunak has or can become Truss?
    Good to see you back posting Moon. You been away on holiday or something?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,213
    malcolmg said:

    More fun from the SNP.............
    Manchester Police to probe SNP Cash for seats claim. Strange Manchester , only known connection is that their new auditors are in Manchester.
    https://twitter.com/ColumboPolitics/status/1695699685686550642

    Is Alba still a thing, Malcy? To what extent is this an alternative for disillusioned SNP voters?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,497
    edited August 2023

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.

    You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.

    Taking a fucking look at yourselves.

    Who is arguing for a “single state”.
    Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
    One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
    Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.

    A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    So it would seem.

    Orwell was not a Trotskyist.
    Know them by their bedfellows and all that?

    https://www.tutor2u.net/history/topics/poum

    Waiting in Counterfactual Corner is a discussion where Stalin and his idea’s flee to Mexico, and Trotsky is the heir of Lenin, so what would have been different?

    I would suggest quite a lot. Take Spanish history alone, if POUM and other Trotskyist parties had not been purged and liquidated by Stalinists in the middle of a conflict with the Nationalists, the whole Spanish history to this date could have been different. Likewise UK and many other countries if Communist parties of the world were not just affiliates of Stalin’s Communist party of the USSR.

    I suggest Ace, no one can support both Marx-Lenin-Trotsky on the one hand Stalin-USSR on the other - such a position doesn’t understand such fundamental differences as between anti-capitalist Revolutionary vs. Conservative, or brotherhood of workers v Imperialism.
    If the roles were reversed, perhaps the ideals would have been too. Isn't that what a Marxist analysis would say? In other words, Trotsky would have become Stalin.
    No. The point is they believed in completely different things. Particularly the absence of the democratic dynamic of being able to question the philosophical direction the leader is taking them with their policies.

    Would you argue Sunak has or can become Truss?
    You could say that Truss had already become Sunak prior to resigning when she backtracked and appointed Hunt.
    But that was different in trying to save her political life, not doing what she actually believed. Like a Protestant converting to Catholicism on the night of the St Bartholomew Massacre.

    Her political blood ended up running through the gutter anyway.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,625

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.

    You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.

    Taking a fucking look at yourselves.

    Who is arguing for a “single state”.
    Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
    One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
    Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.

    A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    So it would seem.

    Orwell was not a Trotskyist.
    Know them by their bedfellows and all that?

    https://www.tutor2u.net/history/topics/poum

    Waiting in Counterfactual Corner is a discussion where Stalin and his idea’s flee to Mexico, and Trotsky is the heir of Lenin, so what would have been different?

    I would suggest quite a lot. Take Spanish history alone, if POUM and other Trotskyist parties had not been purged and liquidated by Stalinists in the middle of a conflict with the Nationalists, the whole Spanish history to this date could have been different. Likewise UK and many other countries if Communist parties of the world were not just affiliates of Stalin’s Communist party of the USSR.

    I suggest Ace, no one can support both Marx-Lenin-Trotsky on the one hand Stalin-USSR on the other - such a position doesn’t understand such fundamental differences as between anti-capitalist Revolutionary vs. Conservative, or brotherhood of workers v Imperialism.
    If the roles were reversed, perhaps the ideals would have been too. Isn't that what a Marxist analysis would say? In other words, Trotsky would have become Stalin.
    No. The point is they believed in completely different things. Particularly the absence of the democratic dynamic of being able to question the philosophical direction the leader is taking them with their policies.

    Would you argue Sunak has or can become Truss?
    You could say that Truss had already become Sunak prior to resigning when she backtracked and appointed Hunt.
    But that was different in trying to save her political life, not doing what she actually believed. Like a Protestant converting to Catholicism on the night of the St Bartholomew Massacre.

    Her political blood ended up running through the gutter anyway.
    The question is what would Trotsky have needed to do to save his position at the head of the USSR? Probably not what he actually believed in.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,376
    Dirty Liverpool.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419

    IanB2 said:



    Yep I understand that many do support it - and my apologies if my initial reply to Northern Monkey was too harsh. I udnerstand there are those who are strongly in favour of the idea for what they perceive as the best of reasons.

    Even though I fall on the other side of the debate my argument was not about whether it was or was not desirable but about whether the UK inside had had any significant - or even fairly minor - direct impact on preventing progression towards it. I think the idea that we were important or powerful enough within the EU to do anything about it, even had we wanted to, is simply a myth.

    I'm a single state fan too, but I think any member can veto it, and the UK seemed very likely to impose a veto.
    I don't see how a democracy can function properly when people do not speak the same language as their leaders. So we could try and make all people in Europe multi-lingual. It would also be, in the words of Hugh Gaitskill 'the end of a 1000 years of history.'
    What a silly comment, Tell that to India.
    They've never had an alternative one and I hardly think it is the ideal example.
    How about Switzerland, then.
    All the major languages are just extensions of their respective nation states so it's not replicable. The same thing doesn't work quite so well in Belgium.
    I don’t even understand what this means.

    What I will say is that I believe Swiss Germans can speak French and vice versa, and the Italian speakers are too small to worry about. Also the Swiss central government is famously limited.
    The point is that it's sui generis because it is surrounded by France, Germany and Italy. If you took them away and Switzerland were just a mountainous island, the concept wouldn't work.
    A country that has always made its money by robbing people; originally the mountains made this easier; nowadays, not so much.
    Switzerland still, in essence, is an “offshore” centre which succeeds because it is next to those other countries (kind of what Ireland is now doing to the UK).

    I don’t want to be too reductive, it’s manufacturing and pharma industries are enviable, there is a lot to learn, but ultimately it’s model cannot replicated at a larger scale in the UK.
    Why?
    It kind of predates on the surrounding economies.
    Geneva is for French businesses that don’t want French regulation, etc etc.

    You might argue that London can/does do this with respect to the EU but I don’t think it’s enough to sustain 65million.

    For similar reasons, Singapore‘s position as the East Asian entrepot is not a model we can adopt, although of course there is much to learn.
    The Swiss economy is, as you say, based on banking, but also high quality manufacture and high quality agriculture. There's no reason why the UK economy can't aim to become similarly renowned, and in some areas (Scotch whisky springs to mind) we are.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,497

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    All this stupid shit on here today and talk of a "single state" explains fucking precisely why so many of your compatriots voted to Leave.

    You fed and fuelled it and have no-one to blame but yourselves.

    Taking a fucking look at yourselves.

    Who is arguing for a “single state”.
    Maybe @OldKingCole? But I don’t think he deserves such venom.
    One of the few things that Orwell got right was that the only truly worthy political goal was a socialist United States of Europe.
    Shame Stalin didn’t manage to shoot Orwell for being a Trot, we would have been spared the denigration of pigs. 🐖🐖❤️Not that Animal Farm was Orwell’s idea, his wife wrote it, based on her life under him.

    A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    So it would seem.

    Orwell was not a Trotskyist.
    Know them by their bedfellows and all that?

    https://www.tutor2u.net/history/topics/poum

    Waiting in Counterfactual Corner is a discussion where Stalin and his idea’s flee to Mexico, and Trotsky is the heir of Lenin, so what would have been different?

    I would suggest quite a lot. Take Spanish history alone, if POUM and other Trotskyist parties had not been purged and liquidated by Stalinists in the middle of a conflict with the Nationalists, the whole Spanish history to this date could have been different. Likewise UK and many other countries if Communist parties of the world were not just affiliates of Stalin’s Communist party of the USSR.

    I suggest Ace, no one can support both Marx-Lenin-Trotsky on the one hand Stalin-USSR on the other - such a position doesn’t understand such fundamental differences as between anti-capitalist Revolutionary vs. Conservative, or brotherhood of workers v Imperialism.
    If the roles were reversed, perhaps the ideals would have been too. Isn't that what a Marxist analysis would say? In other words, Trotsky would have become Stalin.
    No. The point is they believed in completely different things. Particularly the absence of the democratic dynamic of being able to question the philosophical direction the leader is taking them with their policies.

    Would you argue Sunak has or can become Truss?
    You could say that Truss had already become Sunak prior to resigning when she backtracked and appointed Hunt.
    But that was different in trying to save her political life, not doing what she actually believed. Like a Protestant converting to Catholicism on the night of the St Bartholomew Massacre.

    Her political blood ended up running through the gutter anyway.
    The question is what would Trotsky have needed to do to save his position at the head of the USSR? Probably not what he actually believed in.
    The actual answer is Stalin did do exactly as he thought and pleased “because” he didn’t believe in the degree of democratic challenge Marx, Lenin and Trotsky understood to be so important to the philosophy of a workers movement taking ownership of the means of production and control.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,319
    Stocky said:

    malcolmg said:

    More fun from the SNP.............
    Manchester Police to probe SNP Cash for seats claim. Strange Manchester , only known connection is that their new auditors are in Manchester.
    https://twitter.com/ColumboPolitics/status/1695699685686550642

    Is Alba still a thing, Malcy? To what extent is this an alternative for disillusioned SNP voters?
    @stocky Yes still going and growing. SNP are in a death spiral , independence supporters will need to go somewhere and those that have left SNP are now in ALBA. Who knows how it will end but looks like SNP are in serious trouble unless totally cleared out.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,075
    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories will be a lot more confident in Mid Beds because of the fact that it's not clear who the challenger will be.

    Until it becomes clear who the challenger is. Then they won't.

    :)
This discussion has been closed.