Howdy, Stranger!

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

Will Hunt’s political career turn to ash on July 4th? – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,604
    ToryJim said:

    It's official: Eric Ciotti, president of the Les Républicains party, has been excluded from the party presidency and expelled from the party. The political board fired him after Eric Ciotti announced an alliance with the RN for the legislative elections.

    https://x.com/underscoreyara/status/1800902472837550583?s=46

    Rishi no longer has the worst start to an election campaign at least…

    It might give the Tories ideas.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,631

    ToryJim said:

    EXCL: Rishi Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide placed bet on election date days before announcement

    https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/1800937826176901494?s=46

    Outrageous behaviour.

    £100 bet...what is wrong with this morons.


    It is understood that a red flag was automatically raised by Ladbrokes as the bet in Williams’ name was potentially placed by a “politically exposed person”, and the bookmaker is particularly cautious over “novelty” markets.

    The £100 bet, which could have led to a £500 payout on odds of 5/1, is believed to have been placed via an online account that would have required the user to provide personal details including their date of birth and debit card.
    Indeed. Why not stick two large on? Better to be hung for a sheep as for a lamb! *



    (* For the avoidance of any doubt that was satire. A joke.)
    Tells you a lot about the IQ level in the bunker that s/he didn’t use family or friends….
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,358
    @soph_husk
    Rishi Sunak mocked with brutal fundraiser to help him pay for Sky TV - via
    @DaveBurke12


    The fundraiser says: "Rishi is now facing more hardship. He is down to just one helicopter and he could soon be out of a job. Forced to live on just a PM's pension and quite a few tens of millions in the bank, Rishi could once again be deprived of Sky TV. So I am asking you for help."

    (The cash raised will go to food bank charity the Trussell Trust)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,272
    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    EXCL: Rishi Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide placed bet on election date days before announcement

    The Gambling Commission is understood to have launched probe after Craig Williams, PM's parliamentary private secretary, placed bet with Ladbrokes on Sunday 19 May.

    Sunak made surprise announcement that a general election would be held on 4 July just three days later.

    Sweet Lord Above.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,077
    I still don’t quite understand the More in Common point. Does the Wiki page have the data for 5-7 June wrong or something? Why is Labour’s share not down 5 this time? Can someone, patiently, please explain this to me?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,018
    edited June 12
    Interesting polling from YouGov:

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/2024/06/12/69919/2

    If you had a child of school age and could afford it, would you send them to private school?

    Obviously, the "and could afford it" bit is a bit contentious but nevertheless, the political split is as you would expect (Conservative voters more likely to say they would). However, the region split is curious with Londoners a lot more likely to say they would than everywhere else. Given how strong Labour are in London, there must be quite a big difference in responses from Labour supporters there compared with elsewhere:


  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517

    NEW THREAD

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,357
    edited June 12
    OnboardG1 said:

    ToryJim said:

    EXCL: Rishi Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide placed bet on election date days before announcement

    https://x.com/pippacrerar/status/1800937826176901494?s=46

    Outrageous behaviour.

    £100 bet...what is wrong with this morons.


    It is understood that a red flag was automatically raised by Ladbrokes as the bet in Williams’ name was potentially placed by a “politically exposed person”, and the bookmaker is particularly cautious over “novelty” markets.

    The £100 bet, which could have led to a £500 payout on odds of 5/1, is believed to have been placed via an online account that would have required the user to provide personal details including their date of birth and debit card.
    Indeed. Why not stick two large on? Better to be hung for a sheep as for a lamb! :p
    Its like fiddling your taxes or expenses for peanuts. If you are going to do it, you don't do it for £100, unless you are low-IQ.
    On that score I suspect it was just an unwise and very silly decision to take a punt rather than insider trading, but it's very stupid either way.
    I am sure it was. However, if you are anywhere near government decision making with rumours of when election is you don't go placing bets on this stuff. Its just moronic. Also do they not realise that bookies require KYC and are constantly checking for conflicts of interest these days. Hence why the footballers have all got done.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 9,946
    Heathener said:

    I still don’t quite understand the More in Common point. Does the Wiki page have the data for 5-7 June wrong or something? Why is Labour’s share not down 5 this time? Can someone, patiently, please explain this to me?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    Those results are under the former methodology, MiC are quoting this poll against the results under the new methodology so we have like for like (they had both sets of results for that last poll)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,731
    boulay said:



    If (unlikely obviously) Farage’s numbers started tanking in Clacton do people think he would stay and fight it out and face a 9th loss publicly or would something such as his doctors discovering a bone in his leg force him to withdraw in medical grounds to save face?

    Well, much as Hunt might be hampered by local campaigning from national stuff, so may Farage.

    The best action by the Tories against Farage nationally is to campaign vigorously in Clacton. If Farage loses for an eighth time his goose is cooked.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,845
    edited June 12
    OT, it was 44 Celsius in Athens today or yesterday, apparently.

    My wife has come back early.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    EXCL: Rishi Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide placed bet on election date days before announcement

    The Gambling Commission is understood to have launched probe after Craig Williams, PM's parliamentary private secretary, placed bet with Ladbrokes on Sunday 19 May.

    Sunak made surprise announcement that a general election would be held on 4 July just three days later.

    Sweet Lord Above.
    What we need now is a leak from Sky accounts showing a Dr Sunak of Soton paying the premium sub covering the extra telly in your son's bedroom throughout the 90s
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,077
    edited June 12
    ---
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,762

    nova said:

    ‘I’ll have to quit being an NHS doctor and work in Lidl under Labour’s private school tax raid’

    Keir Starmer’s looming reforms force mothers to take on the burden of childcare


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/jobs/schools-universities/labour-private-school-vat-give-up-nhs-doctor-career/

    Its a bit like those weird regular pieces about I earn £100k a year, get free meals at work, but can't afford anything.

    Today's one is I earn £45k a year, spend £25k a year on racing cars....does quick maths, take home is ~£35k...i.e. they are claiming to live on £900 a month. Its possible, but would you be spending £25k a year on your hobby if you did? Absolutely bank and mum and dad involved there or very least no Sky Sports for them.
    For some people their sob stories just do not add up.

    Still nothing will beat that Guardian sob story from 2010 where the bloke argued the cutting of child benefit would stop his kids from receiving piano lessons.
    The Guardian have done the Labour voters who have kids at Private School stories too.

    Apparently, these parents REALLY, REALLY care about inequality, and poor people, but the thought of their kids actually having to go to school with them doesn't bear thinking about.

    They promised to discuss Palestine at the next dinner party they attended. What more could Labour ask of them?
    I think you can argue the hypocrisy angle both ways TBH. Labour supporters who send their kids to private school could argue that they want to see more money spent on education, but while the Tories are starving the state sector of funds they have to go private. From that angle, Tories who vote for the state sector to be underfunded while their kid gets an education that costs twice as much are the bigger hypocrites.
    Anyway, I send my kids to state schools, they're getting a great education, they're not cut off from the rest of society, and I'm saving a ton of money to spend on Sky TV! What's not to like?
    If the school your kids were sent to was poor, and was not giving them a great education, would you still have the same view?

    For that's the case for plenty of parents, and it's an issue that money alone will not fix.
    The vast majority of parents in that situation couldn't afford private school so the only fair solution is to invest both money and effort in improving the performance of the state sector. This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people. Fwiw I would do anything for my kids, luckily sending them to private school isn't something I see myself having to do, especially if we get a government that is a little more attuned to the sector's needs rather than telling us that if we really loved our kids we'd never use the services they're providing.
    "This whole discussion is a distraction driven by the concerns of a small number of rich people"

    I think that's a vast mischaracterisation of the debate. Many people who do not currently send their kids to a private school may see it as an aspiration; or like me, as a useful backstop if the state sector fails my family.

    I also think there's an issue that investment in the performance of the state sector will automagically 'fix' poor schools; at least in time to help the kids who currently attend them. The next generation, perhaps; but many of the issues facing an individual school may take years to fix. And far longer than most of the kids in the school have.
    His kids are alright so why should he bother about those condemned to sink schools....typical leftie
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,112
    edited June 12
    Just looked at the voting results of my local commune in France at the Euros. I have some interesting neighbours.

    The French party names are hilarious. Not only do they change constantly, but they give themselves special ones for Euro elections.

    Fortunately RN (aka "La France Revient!") didn't come first, that was Macron's lot ("Besoin d'Europe") with 23% (16 votes), then the socialists on 22% (15), but Marine was third (8) then the Liste Asselineau-Frexit (6), and after the Greens and Melenchon's Corbynistas, even Zemmour ("La France Fiere") got 4 votes.

    So there are at least 18 people in our little collection of hamlets who opted for populist right or far right parties. And 6 who want France to leave the EU!

    One sole voter opted for the totally normal sounding "Pour un monde sans frontieres ni patrons, urgence revolution!" party. I'd love to know who that was.

    Here's the interactive map so you can explore. The sea of brown over France is where the RN won.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2024/06/09/la-carte-des-resultats-des-elections-europeennes-2024-par-commune-en-france_6238291_4355771.html
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,337
    pigeon said:

    nico679 said:

    You’d think going last might help Sunak . He’d hear what Starmer said and could modify his answers .

    OTOH how many people (especially those who may still be open to persuasion) pay attention to any of these events, let alone one held on a relatively niche channel like Sky News?

    Provided that Starmer doesn't make any catastrophic gaffes the event should do him neither harm nor good.
    The event itself, not so much (even when on BBC One). The clips which make it onto Radio 2's news the next morning, get turned into memes, put your opponent on the attack? Just look at the Sunak Sky clip from this morning. You don't have to watch ITV for an hour tonight to have your face rubbed in that. That's what a campaign is made of.

    (Which is why there's a massive incentive for candidates not to commit news on such occasions.. unless they have a well-planned big announcement to spring)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,462
    boulay said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    We earlier today had a brief discussion about defence policy and procurement.

    This is a new paper from Tony Blair's vanity institute which actually has some interesting and useful things to say.

    Reimagining Defence and Security: New Capabilities for New Challenges
    https://www.institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/reimagining-defence-and-security-new-capabilities-for-new-challenges

    This bit in particular suggests it's not all hot air, even if the language is overly florid:

    Review, Repurpose, Retrain or Retire Capabilities
    As the nature of defence and deterrence evolves, so must the arsenal of capabilities. As resources and funding will always be limited, choices may need to be made as to which capabilities should be deprioritised* if they cannot be repurposed. Advances in technology will accelerate the need for focus and prioritisation, with emerging technology rendering more existing capabilities redundant over time. Identifying and reducing support for these capabilities will be key.
    Furthermore, rather than trying to maintain every defence capability and often doing so insufficiently well, the UK must focus on delivering key capabilities effectively...

    ...There is evidence to suggest that neither the government nor the armed forces are currently taking these kinds of decisions. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee found a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s stated capability requirements and its budget, warning that “the MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which operational activities to curtail and which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford”. Similarly, experts have warned of cultural barriers to this kind of prioritisation within the armed forces, with some senior leaders concerned that winding down certain capabilities jeopardises the perception of our armed forces as a tier-one fighting power...


    * I think they mean cut.

    Genuinely interesting. As with space exloration, the future of the military is going be defined by who is quick and nimble and cheap, rather than those spending billions on decade-long programs designed to fight the last war.

    Meanwhile, have another video of a small Ukranian drone with a grenade on board, $2k tops, taking out a Russian tank.

    https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1800339316734099563
    Many of those drone hits are one tanks that have already been disabled and/or abandoned by the their crews.
    And not a few aren't.
    Drone payloads extend well beyond grenades.

    MBTs are a good example of a capability we really don't need for our defence - somewhere like Poland will of course calculate differently.

    But Challenger III should be scrapped as far as the British army is concerned. The army will scream, but it should be told to go away and think about what capabilities are actually useful - and might be used in the next decade - for the defence of these islands.
    That's utterly wrong IMO. The best place to defend our country is outside our country: and that means we need a land force capable of working alongside our friends. And whilst I acknowledge the number of CIII's is going to be farcically low, they will keep an institutional knowledge of tank warfare going. Once such knowledge is lost, it is not easy to regain.
    It's a great example of a capability it would be nice to have, but we don't really need. Why do we have to have 'an institutional knowledge of tank warfare' ?
    We need an institutional knowledge of tank warfare because if we suddenly need tanks, that knowledge is blooming useful.

    Your view is that we will never need tanks again. I'd argue the last hundred years strongly suggests otherwise.
    I really don’t understand your position.

    In the UK what would we need tanks for? To fight against enemy infantry and armour yes?

    How do the enemy infantry and armour get here? Across the sea.

    Can we attack them at sea and on the other side of the sea before they get here? Uh, yes with ships, subs, aircraft and missiles.

    But if all our planes, helicopters, ships, subs and missiles are used up and they get across? Well last chance is infantry units with anti-tank weapons v the armour and infantry v the infantry.

    But aren’t we absolutely fucked if it gets to that point where the enemy has air superiority, naval superiority and has landed tanks and troops? Yes, so we will have already resorted to nukes or accepted we’ve lost.

    The point is that European NATO countries such as Germany and Poland should be focussing on big land war v Russia whilst countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Us should be bolstering naval power and air power to stop Russia from going around the big land forces made up of the countries susceptible to a Russian land invasion. We can help with specialist infantry and kit but absolutely bonkers to be blowing money on tanks.
    I think where we differ is: "How do the enemy infantry and armour get here?"

    You seem to want to wait for the armour to get *here*. I'd rather fight them *before* they get here. And that involves fighting abroad.

    Under your view, we should never have designed, built or fielded any tanks - because we have only ever used them in anger on foreign shores.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    Scott_xP said:

    @soph_husk
    Rishi Sunak mocked with brutal fundraiser to help him pay for Sky TV - via
    @DaveBurke12


    The fundraiser says: "Rishi is now facing more hardship. He is down to just one helicopter and he could soon be out of a job. Forced to live on just a PM's pension and quite a few tens of millions in the bank, Rishi could once again be deprived of Sky TV. So I am asking you for help."

    (The cash raised will go to food bank charity the Trussell Trust)

    I used to help Tyrell Trust in London. I’m protecting British Food Chain now in God’s Own.

    Rishi talking about not having sky is because his spads were watching worms, during the debate with Labour, Starmer winning on number 1 voter issue of credit crisis by relating with them using his upbringing.

    They are even copying Starmer’s football ground rally’s.

    It’s a reactive Tory campaign.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,465

    Chameleon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Loads of yellow diamonds in and around Axminster.

    Yet to see a single election poster.

    There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
    I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.

    Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.

    You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
    Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
    If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
    Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
    Labour are shooting themselves in the foot. Their spoiler act in Didcot & Wantage, and Bicester & Woodstock too, is making the LibDems rather mulish in Banbury.

    Labour don't have a gnat's chance in D&W or B&W, and nor do the LibDems in Banbury. But there are rather more LibDem diamonds in the latter than you would be expecting given that it's clearly a Con/Lab marginal.
    Well exactly. 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' is a tried and tested formula. They need to adopt it, and quick.
    Never encountered a LibDem willing to scratch any backs - they were supposedly convinced they were poised to win Broxtowe throughout my time there, whereas they never exceeded 20%. I'm involved in the Labour effort in D&W, and am not too bothered whether the LibDems like it or not.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,649

    Chameleon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Loads of yellow diamonds in and around Axminster.

    Yet to see a single election poster.

    There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
    I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.

    Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.

    You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
    Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
    If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
    Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
    Labour are shooting themselves in the foot. Their spoiler act in Didcot & Wantage, and Bicester & Woodstock too, is making the LibDems rather mulish in Banbury.

    Labour don't have a gnat's chance in D&W or B&W, and nor do the LibDems in Banbury. But there are rather more LibDem diamonds in the latter than you would be expecting given that it's clearly a Con/Lab marginal.
    Well exactly. 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' is a tried and tested formula. They need to adopt it, and quick.
    Never encountered a LibDem willing to scratch any backs - they were supposedly convinced they were poised to win Broxtowe throughout my time there, whereas they never exceeded 20%. I'm involved in the Labour effort in D&W, and am not too bothered whether the LibDems like it or not.
    The question is whether you will like the Tories clinging on.

    How many seats do Labour need? 450? 500?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,762

    Chameleon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Loads of yellow diamonds in and around Axminster.

    Yet to see a single election poster.

    There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
    I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.

    Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.

    You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
    Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
    If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
    Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
    Labour are shooting themselves in the foot. Their spoiler act in Didcot & Wantage, and Bicester & Woodstock too, is making the LibDems rather mulish in Banbury.

    Labour don't have a gnat's chance in D&W or B&W, and nor do the LibDems in Banbury. But there are rather more LibDem diamonds in the latter than you would be expecting given that it's clearly a Con/Lab marginal.
    Well exactly. 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' is a tried and tested formula. They need to adopt it, and quick.
    Never encountered a LibDem willing to scratch any backs - they were supposedly convinced they were poised to win Broxtowe throughout my time there, whereas they never exceeded 20%. I'm involved in the Labour effort in D&W, and am not too bothered whether the LibDems like it or not.
    The question is whether you will like the Tories clinging on.

    How many seats do Labour need? 450? 500?
    I would be happy with labour getting all seats as long as lib dems get none, no one wants them anywhere near power. They lie and dissemble far more than either labour or tory
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,444
    edited June 12
    boulay said:

    If (unlikely obviously) Farage’s numbers started tanking in Clacton do people think he would stay and fight it out and face a 9th loss publicly or would something such as his doctors discovering a bone in his leg force him to withdraw in medical grounds to save face?

    He'll follow the Trump playbook. Election was stolen. Other side cheated again. "I was ahead in the postal votes before they turned up with some 'extra' votes in mysterious black boxes."
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,762
    I have seen lib dems at both national and local level and they get elected on we are going to oppose this then they get into power and the first thing they do is vote for it.....the whole bunch of them are sack of lying c words
  • timpletimple Posts: 123
    Pagan2 said:

    I have seen lib dems at both national and local level and they get elected on we are going to oppose this then they get into power and the first thing they do is vote for it.....the whole bunch of them are sack of lying c words

    Oh why won't those nuisance 3rd parties go away? Don't they realise our Great British Democracy is a FPTP system where only 2 parties are really "proper" parties? Why don't they understand they are supposed to be squeezed at General Elections and just shut up?
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 2,978
    Pagan2 said:

    Chameleon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Loads of yellow diamonds in and around Axminster.

    Yet to see a single election poster.

    There's not much point here as the odds of anyone other than Labour winning are not far off Bootle territory.
    I don't know if @Dumbosaurus has seen many posters in his part of the seat but nothing at all round my part. Safe labour seat.

    Lots of stuff on twitter of Luke Akehurst campaigning and eating his way around North Durham. Little else.

    You wouldn't know there was an election on if you didn't know !!!
    Lots of Labour and LibDem posters up in Didcot and Wantage, supposedly a safe Tory seat which both parties have as long-shot possibilities. I've yet to see a Tory poster.
    If they're both working it then a very strong chance Tories come through the middle.
    Yep. There's a disaster unfolding there because neither will seemingly back down. I know the seat very well and friends are perplexed about who to vote for. The MRP says the Libs are in the box seat, so Labour should probably back down.
    Labour are shooting themselves in the foot. Their spoiler act in Didcot & Wantage, and Bicester & Woodstock too, is making the LibDems rather mulish in Banbury.

    Labour don't have a gnat's chance in D&W or B&W, and nor do the LibDems in Banbury. But there are rather more LibDem diamonds in the latter than you would be expecting given that it's clearly a Con/Lab marginal.
    Well exactly. 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' is a tried and tested formula. They need to adopt it, and quick.
    Never encountered a LibDem willing to scratch any backs - they were supposedly convinced they were poised to win Broxtowe throughout my time there, whereas they never exceeded 20%. I'm involved in the Labour effort in D&W, and am not too bothered whether the LibDems like it or not.
    The question is whether you will like the Tories clinging on.

    How many seats do Labour need? 450? 500?
    I would be happy with labour getting all seats as long as lib dems get none, no one wants them anywhere near power. They lie and dissemble far more than either labour or tory
    I think you need some medical help.
This discussion has been closed.