"The Conservatives are also on track to slump to just 53 seats, with around three-quarters of the Cabinet voted out, a major opinion poll for The Telegraph has revealed.
The Liberal Democrats are on course to be just behind the Tories on 50 MPs, according to the Savanta and Electoral Calculus polling analysis, leaving them in touching distance of becoming the official opposition.
Labour is forecast to have 516 seats and an estimated House of Commons majority of 382 – double that won by Sir Tony Blair in 1997 – as Sir Keir Starmer becomes prime minister."
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
A rather O.T. post, but I'm hoping there maybe someone on here who knows more about this than I do.
I have a short YouTube video of a couple of steam traction engines running on the road. I took it about 11 years ago, and about 2 years ago the youtube algorithm picked it up and sent it viral - it's now at 8million views. I moneyised it and it currently earns a fraction under £1k/year.
Anyway, I got an email tonight from a bloke at one of the big music corps who had been tasked with tracking me down. They have an artist who has sampled some of the audio from my videos for a track and want to licence the rights to it - the artist wants to drop the track in July. I've looked the artist up, they are a big name in their genre - their top track has had over a billion plays on Spotify, they have won multiple grammys etc.
Any idea how one plays this sort of negotiation? I'm happy enough to licence the audio in question to them, but literally no idea of a fair value, which doesn't exactly make for a strong negotiating position...
Consult a good lawyer. You don't want to be ripped off.
Any suggestions for where to look for said lawyer? I've a bally good solicitor for things like business contracts, but I've never had cause to dabble in music licences before.
Before I getting too excited, they want to licence a segment that I think is about 5 seconds of audio, although apparently it's repeated at multiple intervals across their track; my fear is that if I push back hard on their initial offer they will just create a similar sound and use that instead (it's basically steam loco whistle being blown).
Just for funsies surely, negotiate a percentage (not a fee)? Could end up buying a castle!
One thing I would say about THAT PP poll is that if other pollsters had such numbers, would they be brave enough to release them? After tonight they are more likely to.
One thing I would say about THAT PP poll is that if other pollsters had such numbers, would they be brave enough to release them? After tonight they are more likely to.
Well, we know what the raw numbers are for most of the pollsters, so we can be fairly sure that nothing is being hidden.
God the BBC cricket commentator knowledge of T20 tactics is shit. They just said oh its gambling which bowler you pick, you never really know. Its the f##king opposite, teams spend ages working out match-ups.
United States sprinter Erriyon Knighton has been cleared to compete at the Paris Olympics after avoiding a ban for a failed drug test.The 20-year-old was provisionally suspended in April after testing positive for a metabolite of trenbolone in March.
But an independent arbitrator ruled that it was more likely than not Knighton digested the banned substance when he ate some contaminated meat.
One thing I would say about THAT PP poll is that if other pollsters had such numbers, would they be brave enough to release them? After tonight they are more likely to.
Well, we know what the raw numbers are for most of the pollsters, so we can be fairly sure that nothing is being hidden.
I think Nunu's claim (which I don't agree with) is that pollsters might sit on polls entirely. If they don't release the polls then they don't have to release the raw numbers.
But what pollster is going to suppress a poll they are being paid for? It would be commercial suicide.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
A rather O.T. post, but I'm hoping there maybe someone on here who knows more about this than I do.
I have a short YouTube video of a couple of steam traction engines running on the road. I took it about 11 years ago, and about 2 years ago the youtube algorithm picked it up and sent it viral - it's now at 8million views. I moneyised it and it currently earns a fraction under £1k/year.
Anyway, I got an email tonight from a bloke at one of the big music corps who had been tasked with tracking me down. They have an artist who has sampled some of the audio from my videos for a track and want to licence the rights to it - the artist wants to drop the track in July. I've looked the artist up, they are a big name in their genre - their top track has had over a billion plays on Spotify, they have won multiple grammys etc.
Any idea how one plays this sort of negotiation? I'm happy enough to licence the audio in question to them, but literally no idea of a fair value, which doesn't exactly make for a strong negotiating position...
Consult a good lawyer. You don't want to be ripped off.
A rather O.T. post, but I'm hoping there maybe someone on here who knows more about this than I do.
I have a short YouTube video of a couple of steam traction engines running on the road. I took it about 11 years ago, and about 2 years ago the youtube algorithm picked it up and sent it viral - it's now at 8million views. I moneyised it and it currently earns a fraction under £1k/year.
Anyway, I got an email tonight from a bloke at one of the big music corps who had been tasked with tracking me down. They have an artist who has sampled some of the audio from my videos for a track and want to licence the rights to it - the artist wants to drop the track in July. I've looked the artist up, they are a big name in their genre - their top track has had over a billion plays on Spotify, they have won multiple grammys etc.
Any idea how one plays this sort of negotiation? I'm happy enough to licence the audio in question to them, but literally no idea of a fair value, which doesn't exactly make for a strong negotiating position...
Consult a good lawyer. You don't want to be ripped off.
Any suggestions for where to look for said lawyer? I've a bally good solicitor for things like business contracts, but I've never had cause to dabble in music licences before.
Before I getting too excited, they want to licence a segment that I think is about 5 seconds of audio, although apparently it's repeated at multiple intervals across their track; my fear is that if I push back hard on their initial offer they will just create a similar sound and use that instead (it's basically steam loco whistle being blown).
Just for funsies surely, negotiate a percentage (not a fee)? Could end up buying a castle!
I'd say talk to DACS (Design And Artists Copyright Society), who are the go to association, and ask their helpline about finding lawyers. Their basic service is as a non-profit managing licensing.
No idea if you will be asked to join, but they have answered casual queries from me in the past.
A rather O.T. post, but I'm hoping there maybe someone on here who knows more about this than I do.
I have a short YouTube video of a couple of steam traction engines running on the road. I took it about 11 years ago, and about 2 years ago the youtube algorithm picked it up and sent it viral - it's now at 8million views. I moneyised it and it currently earns a fraction under £1k/year.
Anyway, I got an email tonight from a bloke at one of the big music corps who had been tasked with tracking me down. They have an artist who has sampled some of the audio from my videos for a track and want to licence the rights to it - the artist wants to drop the track in July. I've looked the artist up, they are a big name in their genre - their top track has had over a billion plays on Spotify, they have won multiple grammys etc.
Any idea how one plays this sort of negotiation? I'm happy enough to licence the audio in question to them, but literally no idea of a fair value, which doesn't exactly make for a strong negotiating position...
Consult a good lawyer. You don't want to be ripped off.
Any suggestions for where to look for said lawyer? I've a bally good solicitor for things like business contracts, but I've never had cause to dabble in music licences before.
Before I getting too excited, they want to licence a segment that I think is about 5 seconds of audio, although apparently it's repeated at multiple intervals across their track; my fear is that if I push back hard on their initial offer they will just create a similar sound and use that instead (it's basically steam loco whistle being blown).
I would look for a musical agent rather than a lawyer. Solicitors aren't necessarily any good at negotiating the terms of the contracts they draft (you don't get a conveyancer to make an offer for a house for you). It might not be the worst idea to ask the guy who has contacted you to suggest a couple of possibilities to act on your behalf.
Remember, Russia said they would treat any ship heading towards, or leaving from, a Ukrainian port as part of the war effort, but their attempt to enforce a blockade has completely collapsed, and they are defeated in the Black Sea.
Brilliant news! That the entire Black Sea Fleet is either on the bottom of the sea, damaged, or stuck in port in Novorossiysk, is a major victory for Ukraine.
Next challenge is to properly take out the Kerch Bridge, leave it so the repairs will take years.
Even if Starmer was caught campaigning for Jezza and Sunak has been betting big on GE dates, 300000000/1 would still be too short for Farage as next PM.
Quite. A few people here lost their critical faculties, and one or two lost their minds, last night.
God the BBC cricket commentator knowledge of T20 tactics is shit. They just said oh its gambling which bowler you pick, you never really know. Its the f##king opposite, teams spend ages working out match-ups.
They weren't good on the football yesterday either. I suppose it's reasonable to be partisan when one of the home nations is involved but not to the point of hardly mentioning the opposition players by name. We saw an extraordinary Swiss goal but it got less mention than whether McTominay should be credited with a goal which came off a Swiss player.
A rather O.T. post, but I'm hoping there maybe someone on here who knows more about this than I do.
I have a short YouTube video of a couple of steam traction engines running on the road. I took it about 11 years ago, and about 2 years ago the youtube algorithm picked it up and sent it viral - it's now at 8million views. I moneyised it and it currently earns a fraction under £1k/year.
Anyway, I got an email tonight from a bloke at one of the big music corps who had been tasked with tracking me down. They have an artist who has sampled some of the audio from my videos for a track and want to licence the rights to it - the artist wants to drop the track in July. I've looked the artist up, they are a big name in their genre - their top track has had over a billion plays on Spotify, they have won multiple grammys etc.
Any idea how one plays this sort of negotiation? I'm happy enough to licence the audio in question to them, but literally no idea of a fair value, which doesn't exactly make for a strong negotiating position...
Consult a good lawyer. You don't want to be ripped off.
Any suggestions for where to look for said lawyer? I've a bally good solicitor for things like business contracts, but I've never had cause to dabble in music licences before.
Before I getting too excited, they want to licence a segment that I think is about 5 seconds of audio, although apparently it's repeated at multiple intervals across their track; my fear is that if I push back hard on their initial offer they will just create a similar sound and use that instead (it's basically steam loco whistle being blown).
Just for funsies surely, negotiate a percentage (not a fee)? Could end up buying a castle!
I'd say talk to DACS (Design And Artists Copyright Society), who are the go to association, and ask their helpline about finding lawyers. Their basic service is as a non-profit managing licensing.
No idea if you will be asked to join, but they have answered casual queries from me in the past.
Yes you want a music industry rep, who’ll have a standard sample contract that can be used as the starting point, and will at least be able to ballpark what a fair deal looks like for the samples in question. Musicians sample each other’s material all the time these days.
Polls with fieldwork ending on 17 June or later (excluding the three big MRPs done over long timescales):
Norstat: C 20, R 19 (C+1) PeoplePolling: C 15, R 24 (C-9) Survation: C 20, R 15 (C+5) Focaldata C 21, R 16 (C+5) Deltapoll C 19, R 16 (C+3) Redfield & Wilton: C 18, R 18 (tie) Verian: C 21, R13 (C+8) Ashcroft: C 18, R 18 (tie)
Average: C 19.0, R 17.4 (C+1.6)
Average excluding PeoplePolling: C 19.6, R 16.4 (C+3.2)
So even if you exclude PeoplePolling it doesn't change the overall picture that much.
Is there a stage below apocalyptically bad? As the Tories getting circa 20%, at best, has to be at that point.
and the Tories will likely have to be absorbed into Reform under Farage
You keep trolling this but you, especially, don’t know what the future holds. That scenario is not impossible but it’s about ten steps away with many other permutations.
We don’t even know for sure yet that the Conservatives are heading for a sub-100 seat performance. I’m still not convinced, although admittedly there are no signs of them recovering right now and people have begun voting.
Anything around the 150 seat mark and I see no way the Conservatives, the most successful party in western democracy, would suddenly disband and join up a hard right party with six MPs.
If they wish to survive then the future of the Conservative, after they are defeated in 2028-9 will be to begin returning to the centre-right.
There is no hope on the far right with Farage. The absolute maximum ceiling there, if I’m being generous, is 30% and arguably closer to 25%.
If you read the piece it’s more about her being the only big beast to survive. But this is typical of the Daily Tel at the moment. Whatever one’s politics, they are all at sea. They look completely lost.
I sort-of agree with @Leon about one thing. The kind of hard right-wing politics within the Conservative Party seems pointless when you have the read deal out on the right in Farage and Reform. The Tory Right are Reform Lite. So in this sense, Leon is probably correct. If the nasties want to go that way, they should join Reform.
Where I disagree with him and @jamesdoyle , is that I believe there is still a future for the Conservative Party. There is always a place for a centre-right party in this country, and that place is often in Government. The extreme right? Never.
Anyway, the most exciting election of my lifetime.
That will always be '97.
Sorry but really can’t agree Roger.
1997 was amazing but nothing imho compared to this. It was all pretty much foregone then.
This one has so much more, from appalling Conservative campaign, to endless permutations with tactical voting but, above all, the rise of Reform and potential catastrophe for the tories.
If you read the piece it’s more about her being the only big beast to survive. But this is typical of the Daily Tel at the moment. Whatever one’s politics, they are all at sea. They look completely lost.
I sort-of agree with @Leon about one thing. The kind of hard right-wing politics within the Conservative Party seems pointless when you have the read deal out on the right in Farage and Reform. The Tory Right are Reform Lite. So in this sense, Leon is probably correct. If the nasties want to go that way, they should join Reform.
Where I disagree with him and @jamesdoyle , is that I believe there is still a future for the Conservative Party. There is always a place for a centre-right party in this country, and that place is often in Government. The extreme right? Never.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. While it wish it weren't so, there is a reason why the Tories have been described as 'the natural party of government'. We are quite a centre right country.
You only need look to France to see what could happen when a centre right political party gets decimated and a hard right party steps into their place.
If you read the piece it’s more about her being the only big beast to survive. But this is typical of the Daily Tel at the moment. Whatever one’s politics, they are all at sea. They look completely lost.
I sort-of agree with @Leon about one thing. The kind of hard right-wing politics within the Conservative Party seems pointless when you have the read deal out on the right in Farage and Reform. The Tory Right are Reform Lite. So in this sense, Leon is probably correct. If the nasties want to go that way, they should join Reform.
Where I disagree with him and @jamesdoyle , is that I believe there is still a future for the Conservative Party. There is always a place for a centre-right party in this country, and that place is often in Government. The extreme right? Never.
We’ve all joked about a Labour mole in CCHQ from the very beginning of this election but I’m beginning to wonder if it's true? Sunak’s team have literally run the worst campaign ever.
Might we need to consider this is true?!
If so, it’s House of Cards and then some. I mean can you imagine the Frank Underwood style seeding advice to the PM not to come away from D-Day for an “important" ITV election interview, yielding the perfect result that he does decide to come away from it early?! Or even further back, maliciously suggesting that although it looks weak for a PM to stand under an umbrella he doesn’t want to get his suit wet? So the seed is sown and he does just that.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Which was the point I was making to @rcs1000 and @TSE
It had and has absolutely nothing to do with political affiliation. It was utterly vile. If moderators can’t distinguish the difference then this place is lost.
Those defending Leon on the grounds of ‘free speech’ in an Elon Musk way, missed the point that a forum like this at least under Mike Smithson distinguished itself from the cesspit of social media by balanced and considerate, whilst still thought-provoking, political debate. What Leon wrote to you, and others, was utterly vile personal abuse.
If you read the piece it’s more about her being the only big beast to survive. But this is typical of the Daily Tel at the moment. Whatever one’s politics, they are all at sea. They look completely lost.
I sort-of agree with @Leon about one thing. The kind of hard right-wing politics within the Conservative Party seems pointless when you have the read deal out on the right in Farage and Reform. The Tory Right are Reform Lite. So in this sense, Leon is probably correct. If the nasties want to go that way, they should join Reform.
Where I disagree with him and @jamesdoyle , is that I believe there is still a future for the Conservative Party. There is always a place for a centre-right party in this country, and that place is often in Government. The extreme right? Never.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. While it wish it weren't so, there is a reason why the Tories have been described as 'the natural party of government'. We are quite a centre right country.
You only need look to France to see what could happen when a centre right political party gets decimated and a hard right party steps into their place.
It’s also because, despite being the nasty party lacking in compassion, people could see that the Tories were in the main down to earth pragmatic folk who knew how the world worked and had their feet on the ground rather than being hidebound by ideology.
That reputation for pragmatism over ideology went down the toilet with Brexit and Johnson and Truss and now they just look nasty. And useless, which is worse.
And looking at the Humanist's own commentary on it they point out that the Government guidance states:
"It is open to a school to have acts of worship that are wholly of a broadly Christian character, acts of worship that are broadly in the tradition of another religion, and acts of worship which contain elements drawn from a number of different faiths. [The law provides] that within each school term the majority of acts of worship must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character, but it is not necessary for every act of worship to be so… Thus, whatever the decision on individual acts of worship, the majority of acts of worship over a term must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.’
We are, after all, a Christian country with an Establishment Church and our head of State is head of the Church. Now it may be that like me (I am an atheist) you would prefer this not to be the case, but as long as it is, the mildly Christian leaning of school asemblies does not seem like a great burden to me.
In the US of course it is very different. They have constitutional laws which are interpreted as enforcing the separation of CHurch and State (actually they don't but that is the long standing interpretation of the 1st Amendment) and of course they have a lot more religious extremism over there so I can understand their concerns.
"..Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." is pretty clear on that.
Anyway, the most exciting election of my lifetime.
That will always be '97.
Sorry but really can’t agree Roger.
1997 was amazing but nothing imho compared to this. It was all pretty much foregone then.
This one has so much more, from appalling Conservative campaign, to endless permutations with tactical voting but, above all, the rise of Reform and potential catastrophe for the tories.
This is ’97 on speed.
I can see little difference between Reform and this incarnation of the Tories. After Johnson led the Leave campaign and they cleansed the party of Remainers they have gone down a rabbit hole from where there was no return finally culminating in Rwanda which even Farage might have baulked at had he been in a position of power
Anyway, the most exciting election of my lifetime.
That will always be '97.
Sorry but really can’t agree Roger.
1997 was amazing but nothing imho compared to this. It was all pretty much foregone then.
This one has so much more, from appalling Conservative campaign, to endless permutations with tactical voting but, above all, the rise of Reform and potential catastrophe for the tories.
This is ’97 on speed.
I can see little difference between Reform and this incarnation of the Tories. After Johnson led the Leave campaign and they cleansed the party of Remainers they have gone down a rabbit hole from where there was no return culminating in Rwanda which even Farage might have baulked at had he been in a position of power
I agree with you Roger except for your comment that ‘there was no return’ - you even used the past tense for emphasis.
Was this not also said before my time of Labour under Michael Foot? Did not Neil Kinnock have to drag the Party back from the dead with that incredibly brave speech at the Labour Conference?
No party can be complacent, and it does look like they are about to get their comeuppance, but I believe there will always be a place for a centre-right party in this country, more than any other position. Why? Because the vast majority want sensible economic management, low taxation, and individual wealth and the freedom that brings. Thatcher knew this.
It’s not foremost that the people have abandoned the Conservative Party. It’s that the Conservative Party have abandoned the people.
Indeed, a veritable smorgasbord of spooks and weirdos. But, cleaning out this deadwood would be necessary before any kind of recovery.
The point is also that Farage, Lee Anderthal et al are even worse and even less popular (except amongst certain over stimulated hacks, of course).
On a more general point, OGH created this site to get the views of people prepared to back their judgement with cold, hard cash. I don't see Leon backing his excitable doomsaying with anything beyond bullshit. If you have a controversial opinion but won't offer anything but Mickey Mouse odds, then you are basically a troll who prefers a Trumpian, post truth fantasy. It's superficial, obnoxious and increasingly childish. I guess it's therefore like most of the commentary from the right wing media: poisonous but pointless.
The political danger isn’t so much the legality as the self-interest; it paints a picture of the Tories as people who react to every major event by thinking how they personally can make a few quid, just as we saw during the pandemic with the PPE scandal.
The suggestion is misconduct in public office, from acting on information he came across in the course of his work for personal gain. As a police officer working in No.10, he’s supposed to see nothing and hear nothing except as it relates to the security of the people working there.
Most likely that he gets a written warning for professional standards breaches, and transferred from VIP close protection to desk duty keeping track of uniforms and weapons.
Gambling commission are also looking at a few people who were close, but it doesn’t appear that any of them were actually in a position to influence the date. Betting on insider information isn’t illegal, at least not with regular bookies. Spreads do count as trading though.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
The political danger isn’t so much the legality as the self-interest; it paints a picture of the Tories as people who react to every major event by thinking how they personally can make a few quid, just as we saw during the pandemic with the PPE scandal.
And it's a symptom of a more general issue.
It used to be accepted that there were things that weren't against any rules, but just weren't cricket. At some point those who think that unwritten rules are for losers became dominant and started setting the culture.
In politics, the triumph of Boris'n'Dom, 2016-19 was an important milestone, but I doubt that they were the first, or that politics was the first field to succumb.
To answer my own question, the Workers Party are standing in 152 seats and the SDP in 122 seats - who the heck is paying for that, and how did two zombie parties even organise it?
According to wiki the Heritage Party (right wing cranks) have 41 candidates and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (left wing cranks - no, the other ones) have 40, which is pretty impressive.
Even the joke that is the Yorkshire party have stood more than UKIP.
152 candidates at £500 lost deposit per candidate = £76,000 which is small change for your average millionaire.
A rather O.T. post, but I'm hoping there maybe someone on here who knows more about this than I do.
I have a short YouTube video of a couple of steam traction engines running on the road. I took it about 11 years ago, and about 2 years ago the youtube algorithm picked it up and sent it viral - it's now at 8million views. I moneyised it and it currently earns a fraction under £1k/year.
Anyway, I got an email tonight from a bloke at one of the big music corps who had been tasked with tracking me down. They have an artist who has sampled some of the audio from my videos for a track and want to licence the rights to it - the artist wants to drop the track in July. I've looked the artist up, they are a big name in their genre - their top track has had over a billion plays on Spotify, they have won multiple grammys etc.
Any idea how one plays this sort of negotiation? I'm happy enough to licence the audio in question to them, but literally no idea of a fair value, which doesn't exactly make for a strong negotiating position...
Consult a good lawyer. You don't want to be ripped off.
Any suggestions for where to look for said lawyer? I've a bally good solicitor for things like business contracts, but I've never had cause to dabble in music licences before.
Before I getting too excited, they want to licence a segment that I think is about 5 seconds of audio, although apparently it's repeated at multiple intervals across their track; my fear is that if I push back hard on their initial offer they will just create a similar sound and use that instead (it's basically steam loco whistle being blown).
You could try talking to PRS. They may have a list of specialist lawyers
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Yeah. It’s bonkers. And those demanding the bans are hardly pure themselves. Let he (or she) who is free of all sin cast the first stone.
They can set their own forum up and ban whoever they want.
If you read the piece it’s more about her being the only big beast to survive. But this is typical of the Daily Tel at the moment. Whatever one’s politics, they are all at sea. They look completely lost.
I sort-of agree with @Leon about one thing. The kind of hard right-wing politics within the Conservative Party seems pointless when you have the read deal out on the right in Farage and Reform. The Tory Right are Reform Lite. So in this sense, Leon is probably correct. If the nasties want to go that way, they should join Reform.
Where I disagree with him and @jamesdoyle , is that I believe there is still a future for the Conservative Party. There is always a place for a centre-right party in this country, and that place is often in Government. The extreme right? Never.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. While it wish it weren't so, there is a reason why the Tories have been described as 'the natural party of government'. We are quite a centre right country.
You only need look to France to see what could happen when a centre right political party gets decimated and a hard right party steps into their place.
It’s also because, despite being the nasty party lacking in compassion, people could see that the Tories were in the main down to earth pragmatic folk who knew how the world worked and had their feet on the ground rather than being hidebound by ideology.
That reputation for pragmatism over ideology went down the toilet with Brexit and Johnson and Truss and now they just look nasty. And useless, which is worse.
Truss was the only factor, I think, not Brexit or Johnson. Brexit didn't stop the Conservatives winning hugely in 2019 (and the Conservative leadership actually opposed it in 2016 anyway). But Truss turned normal mid-term blues under Johnson into a catastrophe of perceived incompetence, which Sunak has completely failed to recover from (perhaps it was impossible, who knows?)
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
I don’t think that’s particularly sensitive and caring @Taz and, if I may says so, it’s not really for you to tell someone to get over it. It was a really vile under-the-skin provocation.
And many people online can’t just gloss past abuse. If you are thick-skinned enough, be thankful.
We all know Leon isn’t anonymous. Everyone on here knows who he is because he has regularly revealed himself.
I do think being abusive about one’s children or personal home life should be a sin-bin offence or even ban. I can’t see what that has got to do with the foundations of this website.
But, then, according to @Malmesbury I’ve only been here since 2021 ...
The suggestion is misconduct in public office, from acting on information he came across in the course of his work for personal gain. As a police officer working in No.10, he’s supposed to see nothing and hear nothing except as it relates to the security of the people working there.
The trouble is that the misconduct has to be "that of a public officer acting as such".
Surely he wasn't acting as a police officer when he placed the bet?
This savours of someone feeling what he did was wrong and then trying to find a law he had broken. But that's been going on since Albert Haddock jumped off Hammersmith Bridge, and long before that.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Sorry but that’s a silly remark. This site is supposed to be better than most social media and Mike Smithson didn’t found it just to be an online trolling zone. You are undoubtedly supporting Leon because he is hard right like yourself. But that’s ‘disappointing.'
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
To answer my own question, the Workers Party are standing in 152 seats and the SDP in 122 seats - who the heck is paying for that, and how did two zombie parties even organise it?
According to wiki the Heritage Party (right wing cranks) have 41 candidates and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (left wing cranks - no, the other ones) have 40, which is pretty impressive.
Even the joke that is the Yorkshire party have stood more than UKIP.
152 candidates at £500 lost deposit per candidate = £76,000 which is small change for your average millionaire.
Still an impressive number of seats to stand for, for very minor parties with no hope.
I still think someone rich should have put up deposits for 650 Binface candidates. From a political viewpoint it might have slightly held back the Reform vote as the none-of-the-above option, and they may even have got a handful of their deposits back as well as the publicity. Surprised that a Jim Radcliffe or a Richard Branson type hasn’t tried it before.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Sorry but that’s a silly remark. This site is supposed to be better than most social media and Mike Smithson didn’t found it just to be an online trolling zone. You are undoubtedly supporting Leon because he is hard right like yourself. But that’s ‘disappointing.'
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Yeah. It’s bonkers. And those demanding the bans are hardly pure themselves. Let he (or she) who is free of all sin cast the first stone.
They can set their own forum up and ban whoever they want.
Again, a silly remark
Most of us joined this site because Mike was offering something a little different. A really good forum for those interested in political betting.
I don’t see how Leon’s constant personal abuse is within the remit and I don’t believe Mike would have stood idly by on some sort of ‘Musk-esque’ freedom for all basis.
The question is rather paradigmatic of the Conservative Party. Do you stand idly by and let it be taken over and changed beyond recognition? Or at some point do you stand up for decency and say, ‘Enough is enough’?
The suggestion is misconduct in public office, from acting on information he came across in the course of his work for personal gain. As a police officer working in No.10, he’s supposed to see nothing and hear nothing except as it relates to the security of the people working there.
The trouble is that the misconduct has to be "that of a public officer acting as such".
Surely he wasn't acting as a police officer when he placed the bet?
This savours of someone feeling what he did was wrong and then trying to find a law he had broken. But that's been going on since Albert Haddock jumped off Hammersmith Bridge, and long before that.
Yes it could be a difficult charge to make stick, unless he walked into a bookie on Whitehall in his No.1 dress uniform, or placed the bet from his phone whist on duty.
Most likely it’s dealt with internally, just another one of the Met’s many bad apples. At least this one didn’t rape or murder someone.
A rather O.T. post, but I'm hoping there maybe someone on here who knows more about this than I do.
I have a short YouTube video of a couple of steam traction engines running on the road. I took it about 11 years ago, and about 2 years ago the youtube algorithm picked it up and sent it viral - it's now at 8million views. I moneyised it and it currently earns a fraction under £1k/year.
Anyway, I got an email tonight from a bloke at one of the big music corps who had been tasked with tracking me down. They have an artist who has sampled some of the audio from my videos for a track and want to licence the rights to it - the artist wants to drop the track in July. I've looked the artist up, they are a big name in their genre - their top track has had over a billion plays on Spotify, they have won multiple grammys etc.
Any idea how one plays this sort of negotiation? I'm happy enough to licence the audio in question to them, but literally no idea of a fair value, which doesn't exactly make for a strong negotiating position...
Consult a good lawyer. You don't want to be ripped off.
Any suggestions for where to look for said lawyer? I've a bally good solicitor for things like business contracts, but I've never had cause to dabble in music licences before.
Before I getting too excited, they want to licence a segment that I think is about 5 seconds of audio, although apparently it's repeated at multiple intervals across their track; my fear is that if I push back hard on their initial offer they will just create a similar sound and use that instead (it's basically steam loco whistle being blown).
You could try talking to PRS. They may have a list of specialist lawyers
Imo, google around to see what you can expect. No point paying more than your cut to a fancy Soho lawyer. And if the musician does use a different whistle, you will still need to pay your legal bill.
But one other thought. Do you want money at all, or would a credit be better in the long term if it boosts views of your videos?
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Sorry but that’s a silly remark. This site is supposed to be better than most social media and Mike Smithson didn’t found it just to be an online trolling zone. You are undoubtedly supporting Leon because he is hard right like yourself. But that’s ‘disappointing.'
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
So much air. So much head.
Not your most impressive response Alan, if I may say. It’s a serious point and what Leon wrote to JJ (and others) was vile and personal abuse. It had absolutely nothing to do with the foundations of this forum.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
To be clear: I don't want @Leon banned. But I do reserve the right to say what an odious little piece of shit he is.
Since apparently speech can be much freer on PB now.
p.s. by the way, I’ve no problem with sin bins. Possibly a better solution than bans. Or a ‘3-strikes out’ approach.
Robert said that the bar for banning was high, but that bar should be set when there’s a crossover into abuse of a person’s home life or personal family circumstances. I’ve seen it done against Casino Royale, Big G North Wales, and now JJ et. al. Not right and not what Mike Smithson made this site for.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
To be clear: I don't want @Leon banned. But I do reserve the right to say what an odious little piece of shit he is.
Since apparently speech can be much freer on PB now.
I agree that a sin bin approach would be better but it does need moderating. All sites do unless you want them descending the way of most social media.
James Cleverly ‘lacks appetite’ for Conservative Party leadership contest
The home secretary is popular with centrists and is predicted to keep his Braintree seat but he has told friends he won’t be putting himself forward
Suella Braverman, his predecessor as home secretary, has been deserted by key allies who predict she may not enter the contest due to a lack of support since her departure from government last November.
Allies believe that even if she did decide to run, it would not be a serious bid and motivated more by trying to secure a senior role in the shadow cabinet.
Tbf if the rumours are true that he’s started collecting Adepta Sororitas for his Warhammer hobby he’ll need to spend a lot of his spare time painting anyway.
Hahaha a second Tory PPC under investigation for betting on the election date.
Is this breaking news or are you confusing a police officer with a PPC?
Breaking news on the Beeb - Bristol NW PPC in addition to the close protection officer & that other bloke we already know about.
Laura Saunders? Did she work in #10 prior to GE being called or something? Its not a name I have ever heard before.
Yep, her. Worked for the Tories for 9 years, including in CCHQ (which probably means she's fine - it's blatantly obvious no-one near CCHQ have a clue about anything).
Just think, all these hapless followers of MoonRabbit being charged for insider bets!
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Sorry but that’s a silly remark. This site is supposed to be better than most social media and Mike Smithson didn’t found it just to be an online trolling zone. You are undoubtedly supporting Leon because he is hard right like yourself. But that’s ‘disappointing.'
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
So much air. So much head.
Not your most impressive response Alan, if I may say. It’s a serious point and what Leon wrote to JJ (and others) was vile and personal abuse. It had absolutely nothing to do with the foundations of this forum.
You have no idea why people come on this forum so claiming you do is garbage. people are on here for a variety of reasons and it's one of the attractions that you get to understand views which are not your own. You are clearly struggling with that bit.
If I understand some of your posts you are claiming you will bugger off after 4th July and make no further contribution so two weeks today you are history. Quite why you think everyone is going to change their behaviour on that timescale is optimistic to say the least. So the site will have to struggle on without you.
You have given it your best Flora Poste efforts and failed. Have a break.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
Thanks for the advice, but nah. @Leon made a post stating essentially his comments about Ukraine meant more because he had been there. I disagreed, essentially stating I didn't report very well.
@Leon then goes off on one, doubting the parentage of my child in a real nasty way. And he isn't man enough to realise he's gone too far and apologise.
@Leon is the sort of poster that destroys sites. He's already seen off other good posters, and yet he hangs around, like a paedophile outside a girls' school.
So yeah @Leon can fuck off and die as far as I'm concerned. It'll be interesting to see how far I can push this 'free speech' stuff before I get my first ever ban.
Good morning all. Anyone holding a Farage for next Tory leader bet and planning to trade? I'm not sure on the optimum time to trade it out - he's down to under 10 on Betfair right now, but purely for practical reasons (needing a caretaker, etc) I can't see him actually becoming leader. Just after a Tory GE hiding seems the best choice at the moment
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
To be clear: I don't want @Leon banned. But I do reserve the right to say what an odious little piece of shit he is.
Since apparently speech can be much freer on PB now.
Well you Lean and myself have been on this board for quite some time and we all seem to put up with each other. Run ins of course but why let them get to us. The current round of name calling is nothing like the fun of Indy Ref where some of our Nat posters got very Glaswegian.
As for the right to say what you want feel free, I suspect the mods will only intervene if it becomes serial and tedious for the rest of the posters.
Apparently only 3 former Tory MPs are seeking to get elected this time around, all only having served for 2 years prior. I guess it is not worth retrying this time for most.
Contrastingly 8 former LD MPs are giving it a go. I particularly like Andrew George, who has stood in St Ives every election since 1992 (being an MP from 1997-2015). He came really close in 2017 and I guess just will not give up on the getting his place back.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
Thanks for the advice, but nah. @Leon made a post stating essentially his comments about Ukraine meant more because he had been there. I disagreed, essentially stating I didn't report very well.
@Leon then goes off on one, doubting the parentage of my child in a real nasty way. And he isn't man enough to realise he's gone too far and apologise.
@Leon is the sort of poster that destroys sites. He's already seen off other good posters, and yet he hangs around, like a paedophile outside a girls' school.
So yeah @Leon can fuck off and die as far as I'm concerned. It'll be interesting to see how far I can push this 'free speech' stuff before I get my first ever ban.
Please let it go, even if for no other reason that this feud stinks up the site for the rest of us. Whatever you said to him and he said to you originally will soon be lost in the thousands of posts per day here. You might also want to steer clear of the p-word after the Barton/Vine kerfuffle landed some huge bills because the judge did not believe in metaphor.
James Cleverly ‘lacks appetite’ for Conservative Party leadership contest
The home secretary is popular with centrists and is predicted to keep his Braintree seat but he has told friends he won’t be putting himself forward
Suella Braverman, his predecessor as home secretary, has been deserted by key allies who predict she may not enter the contest due to a lack of support since her departure from government last November.
Allies believe that even if she did decide to run, it would not be a serious bid and motivated more by trying to secure a senior role in the shadow cabinet.
Tbf if the rumours are true that he’s started collecting Adepta Sororitas for his Warhammer hobby he’ll need to spend a lot of his spare time painting anyway.
So many angry nuns. Especially if he magnetised all the weapons options like I did. Madness.
We’ve all joked about a Labour mole in CCHQ from the very beginning of this election but I’m beginning to wonder if it's true? Sunak’s team have literally run the worst campaign ever.
Might we need to consider this is true?!
If so, it’s House of Cards and then some. I mean can you imagine the Frank Underwood style seeding advice to the PM not to come away from D-Day for an “important" ITV election interview, yielding the perfect result that he does decide to come away from it early?! Or even further back, maliciously suggesting that although it looks weak for a PM to stand under an umbrella he doesn’t want to get his suit wet? So the seed is sown and he does just that.
Just playing. I guess.
It’s a fun thought but no, I think Rishi’s Razor applies. He, and his team, are irredeemably shit at politics.
I admit I’m surprised at just *how* shit during the campaign though - I would have thought they would have employed some expensive but good external consultants and agencies.
So maybe add ‘hubristic arrogance’ to ‘shit at politics’ as well - probably more his comms team and spads, who no doubt see themselves as Underwood/Tucker-esque colossi. Nemesis is in the post.
Sure they may have been covered already but the Eye has a story that may be relevant for any Conservative next leader bets.
Suella Braverman is apparently due at this conference https://nationalconservatism.org/natcon-4-2024/ on 8 / 10 July so not pressing the flesh of the diminished Tory Party post election (if she is even still even an MP).
James Cleverly ‘lacks appetite’ for Conservative Party leadership contest
The home secretary is popular with centrists and is predicted to keep his Braintree seat but he has told friends he won’t be putting himself forward
Suella Braverman, his predecessor as home secretary, has been deserted by key allies who predict she may not enter the contest due to a lack of support since her departure from government last November.
Allies believe that even if she did decide to run, it would not be a serious bid and motivated more by trying to secure a senior role in the shadow cabinet.
Tbf if the rumours are true that he’s started collecting Adepta Sororitas for his Warhammer hobby he’ll need to spend a lot of his spare time painting anyway.
So many angry nuns. Especially if he magnetised all the weapons options like I did. Madness.
As a Genestealer Cult enjoyer, I’m afraid I have little sympathy.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Yeah. It’s bonkers. And those demanding the bans are hardly pure themselves. Let he (or she) who is free of all sin cast the first stone.
They can set their own forum up and ban whoever they want.
Again, a silly remark
Most of us joined this site because Mike was offering something a little different. A really good forum for those interested in political betting.
I don’t see how Leon’s constant personal abuse is within the remit and I don’t believe Mike would have stood idly by on some sort of ‘Musk-esque’ freedom for all basis.
The question is rather paradigmatic of the Conservative Party. Do you stand idly by and let it be taken over and changed beyond recognition? Or at some point do you stand up for decency and say, ‘Enough is enough’?
What usually happened was that he got banned when he went too far and after things had calmed down and apologies been made was allowed back in.
Plenty who are just plain nasty or trolls have been banned over the years.
But a betting site is no use if it is a silo and (legal) views that are uncomfortable to read are excluded as you need an objective picture.
Also you need to understand why people have those views, rather than just dismiss them as wronguns, otherwise you get caught out by those that do, and leverage them.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Sorry but that’s a silly remark. This site is supposed to be better than most social media and Mike Smithson didn’t found it just to be an online trolling zone. You are undoubtedly supporting Leon because he is hard right like yourself. But that’s ‘disappointing.'
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
So much air. So much head.
Not your most impressive response Alan, if I may say. It’s a serious point and what Leon wrote to JJ (and others) was vile and personal abuse. It had absolutely nothing to do with the foundations of this forum.
You have no idea why people come on this forum so claiming you do is garbage. people are on here for a variety of reasons and it's one of the attractions that you get to understand views which are not your own. You are clearly struggling with that bit.
If I understand some of your posts you are claiming you will bugger off after 4th July and make no further contribution so two weeks today you are history. Quite why you think everyone is going to change their behaviour on that timescale is optimistic to say the least. So the site will have to struggle on without you.
You have given it your best Flora Poste efforts and failed. Have a break.
I’ll leave aside the misogyny of your last part although I’ve had to look it up.
I’m glad you put the caveat, ‘If I understand’ because you’re right, you don’t. I’m on this site primarily because I enjoy betting on politics which is why this forum was founded and, like other forums the world over, it has a definable raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean everyone has to bet to be here, of course.
After July 4th there are fewer betting opportunities for me. I personally find betting on the next Conservative leader market to be fool’s gold because you’re not betting from reason but betting to guess how the Conservative Party membership will vote. That’s not an area I trust myself on sufficiently to risk money.
I have also previously made a lot on the US Presidential but I think this time I may sit it out.
The third reason though is more nuanced. I suspect strongly that after July 4th the landscape will look and feel very different. The froth and bubble about which we get so excited is going to abate. A strong Labour win will be exciting for a few days and then it won’t be. We will become used to the (complete) change of Government. I don’t especially want to spend a lot of time that might be put to better use debating or arguing with a predominantly older demographic, many of whom are on the right, when the country is moving on. I don’t need to spend a lot of my life on here.
Question: why wasn’t Nigel Farage invited to join tonight’s BBC debate?
That’s really really bad in my opinion.
Probably because this debate was arranged some time ago and any attempt to reopen negotiations would give Rishi and/or SKS a plausible excuse to withdraw, and that would leave the BBC with a lame duck. In any case, if number of seats in the outgoing parliament was the criterion for inviting Sunak, Starmer, Swinney and Davey, then Farage has none.
Even if Starmer was caught campaigning for Jezza and Sunak has been betting big on GE dates, 300000000/1 would still be too short for Farage as next PM.
Quite. A few people here lost their critical faculties, and one or two lost their minds, last night.
At least one appears to have been losing their mind, incrementally, since Covid. People Polling is the equivalent of those polls commissioned by the political parties in America to ramp their man. Typically showing a surge, close second etc. as Wulfrun Phil pointed out, you can have a legit methodology but a skewed sampling approach.
I see little evidence where I am - Telford - of a RefUK intended vote of 25-30% which is what would be indicated for here by Goodwin’s Poll. Very Brexity new town constituency, with a demographic that falls squarely in Reform’s target zone.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Yeah. It’s bonkers. And those demanding the bans are hardly pure themselves. Let he (or she) who is free of all sin cast the first stone.
They can set their own forum up and ban whoever they want.
Again, a silly remark
Most of us joined this site because Mike was offering something a little different. A really good forum for those interested in political betting.
I don’t see how Leon’s constant personal abuse is within the remit and I don’t believe Mike would have stood idly by on some sort of ‘Musk-esque’ freedom for all basis.
The question is rather paradigmatic of the Conservative Party. Do you stand idly by and let it be taken over and changed beyond recognition? Or at some point do you stand up for decency and say, ‘Enough is enough’?
What usually happened was that he got banned when he went too far and after things had calmed down and apologies been made was allowed back in.
Plenty who are just plain nasty or trolls have been banned over the years.
But a betting site is no use if it is a silo and (legal) views that are uncomfortable to read are excluded as you need an objective picture.
Also you need to understand why people have those views, rather than just dismiss them as wronguns, otherwise you get caught out by those that do, and leverage them.
I don’t disagree with any of that, Mister B.
As I’ve mentioned, I don’t have issues with his views. To be frank he’s a post-truth disruptor. An anarchist. Bringing down this site would make him very happy. Fine. But it’s the personal abuse that is so often bang out of order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the wide spectrum of political discourse on this website. It’s vile and out of order.
Let’s not pretend a turd is polished gold please.*
Question: why wasn’t Nigel Farage invited to join tonight’s BBC debate?
That’s really really bad in my opinion.
Probably because this debate was arranged some time ago and any attempt to reopen negotiations would give Rishi and/or SKS a plausible excuse to withdraw, and that would leave the BBC with a lame duck. In any case, if number of seats in the outgoing parliament was the criterion for inviting Sunak, Starmer, Swinney and Davey, then Farage has none.
Also from Farage’s pov, it’s probably better for him to be able to whinge about the deep state/swamp/liblabcon/liberal elite/delete as appropriate excluding him, than to be subject to actual debate and scrutiny.
Why Labour should be panicking and ratings in the mid-to-low 30s could be right:
- The big Labour leads were soft because they were driven by dissatisfaction with the present government rather than active support - Labour's 'Ming vase' strategy was based on complacency and assumed that all they needed to guard against was swingback to Sunak and a Tory revival - The combination of Sunak's campaign flopping and the return of Farage has blown a hole in Labour's strategy because they need 'the Tories, the Tories, the Tories' to be able to consolidate and get out their vote - In addition, the general feeling that Labour have it in the bag means that they can't capitalise on the anti-establishment mood, and indeed there is a even an element of a protest vote against Labour in some places
Boys, boys. You are all getting understandably carried away. Partly because it’s exciting to imagine some sort of paradigm breaking shift, partly because your own political views make it seem logical that Reform ought to be surging.
I made the same mistake in 2010. Hordes of young lefties made the same mistake after 2017, convinced their man had triggered a mould breaking youthquake.
Reform are definitely getting a polling bump but look at Farage’s approval numbers. They’re horrendous. Not as bad as Rishi’s of course, but pretty damned bad. Meanwhile Starmer’s keep rising.
And I’m not convinced there’s an anti-establishment mood, any more than there always is among the electorate. There’s an anti-Tory mood.
This is a gasm.
Unfortunately “Faragegasm” is just awkward to say. We need a new term. May I humbly propose “Farorgy”.
The 2024 Farorgy.
And yet it has the strange whiff of 2016, when the establishment media were telling us all that remain was a slam dunk. I recall being able to get 5/1 on Leave on the night.
Farage as PM is obviously preposterous, but this does have a feel like 2016, and something in the MSM won't pick up on quickly, because the MSM is all bien pensant left or right wing, take your pick - Farage remains beyond the cordon sanitaire for most middle class journos.
I would be watching what the Mail and the Express do, if they decidedly break for Farage in the next week or so, something big is up. Not big enough to make Farage PM, but big enough to make him LOTO. They know who their audience are.
I got 6/1 that day, put £20 on and won £120.
Could have got the same odds on Trump later that year but bottled it.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Sorry but that’s a silly remark. This site is supposed to be better than most social media and Mike Smithson didn’t found it just to be an online trolling zone. You are undoubtedly supporting Leon because he is hard right like yourself. But that’s ‘disappointing.'
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
So much air. So much head.
Not your most impressive response Alan, if I may say. It’s a serious point and what Leon wrote to JJ (and others) was vile and personal abuse. It had absolutely nothing to do with the foundations of this forum.
You have no idea why people come on this forum so claiming you do is garbage. people are on here for a variety of reasons and it's one of the attractions that you get to understand views which are not your own. You are clearly struggling with that bit.
If I understand some of your posts you are claiming you will bugger off after 4th July and make no further contribution so two weeks today you are history. Quite why you think everyone is going to change their behaviour on that timescale is optimistic to say the least. So the site will have to struggle on without you.
You have given it your best Flora Poste efforts and failed. Have a break.
I’ll leave aside the misogyny of your last part although I’ve had to look it up.
I’m glad you put the caveat, ‘If I understand’ because you’re right, you don’t. I’m on this site primarily because I enjoy betting on politics which is why this forum was founded and, like other forums the world over, it has a definable raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean everyone has to bet to be here, of course.
After July 4th there are fewer betting opportunities for me. I personally find betting on the next Conservative leader market to be fool’s gold because you’re not betting from reason but betting to guess how the Conservative Party membership will vote. That’s not an area I trust myself on sufficiently to risk money.
I have also previously made a lot on the US Presidential but I think this time I may sit it out.
The third reason though is more nuanced. I suspect strongly that after July 4th the landscape will look and feel very different. The froth and bubble about which we get so excited is going to abate. A strong Labour win will be exciting for a few days and then it won’t be. We will become used to the (complete) change of Government. I don’t especially want to spend a lot of time that might be put to better use debating or arguing with a predominantly older demographic, many of whom are on the right, when the country is moving on. I don’t need to spend a lot of my life on here.
Your final paragraph is very succinct, but my only hope is that predictions on how well Farage and the right do are not born out in the ballot boxes two weeks today
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
To be clear: I don't want @Leon banned. But I do reserve the right to say what an odious little piece of shit he is.
Since apparently speech can be much freer on PB now.
As for the right to say what you want feel free, I suspect the mods will only intervene if it becomes serial and tedious for the rest of the posters.
Well it is serial and, as I said, it’s the crossover into extreme personal abuse that ruins this site.
Many people have left because of him, or perhaps re-appeared after a long break, sometimes with new handles.
The suggestion is misconduct in public office, from acting on information he came across in the course of his work for personal gain. As a police officer working in No.10, he’s supposed to see nothing and hear nothing except as it relates to the security of the people working there.
Most likely that he gets a written warning for professional standards breaches, and transferred from VIP close protection to desk duty keeping track of uniforms and weapons.
Gambling commission are also looking at a few people who were close, but it doesn’t appear that any of them were actually in a position to influence the date. Betting on insider information isn’t illegal, at least not with regular bookies. Spreads do count as trading though.
I've read through the CPS guidance, and it will fall down on mens rea I think as well as seriousness.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Then eventually there is no site left! Successful online communities require some degree of moderation, as per the work of Jenny Preece (“Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability”, John Wiley & Sons, 2000). Where you draw the lines is, of course, the difficult bit.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Sorry but that’s a silly remark. This site is supposed to be better than most social media and Mike Smithson didn’t found it just to be an online trolling zone. You are undoubtedly supporting Leon because he is hard right like yourself. But that’s ‘disappointing.'
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
So much air. So much head.
Not your most impressive response Alan, if I may say. It’s a serious point and what Leon wrote to JJ (and others) was vile and personal abuse. It had absolutely nothing to do with the foundations of this forum.
You have no idea why people come on this forum so claiming you do is garbage. people are on here for a variety of reasons and it's one of the attractions that you get to understand views which are not your own. You are clearly struggling with that bit.
If I understand some of your posts you are claiming you will bugger off after 4th July and make no further contribution so two weeks today you are history. Quite why you think everyone is going to change their behaviour on that timescale is optimistic to say the least. So the site will have to struggle on without you.
You have given it your best Flora Poste efforts and failed. Have a break.
I’ll leave aside the misogyny of your last part although I’ve had to look it up.
I’m glad you put the caveat, ‘If I understand’ because you’re right, you don’t. I’m on this site primarily because I enjoy betting on politics which is why this forum was founded and, like other forums the world over, it has a definable raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean everyone has to bet to be here, of course.
After July 4th there are fewer betting opportunities for me. I personally find betting on the next Conservative leader market to be fool’s gold because you’re not betting from reason but betting to guess how the Conservative Party membership will vote. That’s not an area I trust myself on sufficiently to risk money.
I have also previously made a lot on the US Presidential but I think this time I may sit it out.
The third reason though is more nuanced. I suspect strongly that after July 4th the landscape will look and feel very different. The froth and bubble about which we get so excited is going to abate. A strong Labour win will be exciting for a few days and then it won’t be. We will become used to the (complete) change of Government. I don’t especially want to spend a lot of time that might be put to better use debating or arguing with a predominantly older demographic, many of whom are on the right, when the country is moving on. I don’t need to spend a lot of my life on here.
Your final paragraph is very succinct, but my only hope is that predictions on how well Farage and the right do are not born out in the ballot boxes two weeks today
Good morning Big G.
I share your fear on this. I may have mis-read the mood. We (nearly all) may have.
I do think it’s bad of the BBC not to invite Farage to tonight’s debate. I don’t like him but ostracising him for his views feeds the disenchantment. Does anyone know their reasoning?
If you read the piece it’s more about her being the only big beast to survive. But this is typical of the Daily Tel at the moment. Whatever one’s politics, they are all at sea. They look completely lost.
I sort-of agree with @Leon about one thing. The kind of hard right-wing politics within the Conservative Party seems pointless when you have the read deal out on the right in Farage and Reform. The Tory Right are Reform Lite. So in this sense, Leon is probably correct. If the nasties want to go that way, they should join Reform.
Where I disagree with him and @jamesdoyle , is that I believe there is still a future for the Conservative Party. There is always a place for a centre-right party in this country, and that place is often in Government. The extreme right? Never.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. While it wish it weren't so, there is a reason why the Tories have been described as 'the natural party of government'. We are quite a centre right country.
You only need look to France to see what could happen when a centre right political party gets decimated and a hard right party steps into their place.
It’s also because, despite being the nasty party lacking in compassion, people could see that the Tories were in the main down to earth pragmatic folk who knew how the world worked and had their feet on the ground rather than being hidebound by ideology.
That reputation for pragmatism over ideology went down the toilet with Brexit and Johnson and Truss and now they just look nasty. And useless, which is worse.
Truss was the only factor, I think, not Brexit or Johnson. Brexit didn't stop the Conservatives winning hugely in 2019 (and the Conservative leadership actually opposed it in 2016 anyway). But Truss turned normal mid-term blues under Johnson into a catastrophe of perceived incompetence, which Sunak has completely failed to recover from (perhaps it was impossible, who knows?)
Brexit didn’t stop the Conservatives winning big in 2019 because it hadn’t happened and still held promise. The promises of Brexit have now failed to materialise.
One thing that was very little discussed in the cold civil war the country had from 2015-19 was what that leaving would exclude us from future EU legislation and it's implications.
It won't be too long before things like Low Voltage and EU directives get replaced with updated ones as they do periodically.
At the moment we are accepting CE marking indefinitely and have done with a slew of EU reguldtions what British Standards have done with hundreds of European Norms (standards), that is prefix EN with BS in the title and change nothing else.
That position might not last if the EU make radical and intrusive changes to said directives.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Sorry but that’s a silly remark. This site is supposed to be better than most social media and Mike Smithson didn’t found it just to be an online trolling zone. You are undoubtedly supporting Leon because he is hard right like yourself. But that’s ‘disappointing.'
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
So much air. So much head.
Not your most impressive response Alan, if I may say. It’s a serious point and what Leon wrote to JJ (and others) was vile and personal abuse. It had absolutely nothing to do with the foundations of this forum.
You have no idea why people come on this forum so claiming you do is garbage. people are on here for a variety of reasons and it's one of the attractions that you get to understand views which are not your own. You are clearly struggling with that bit.
If I understand some of your posts you are claiming you will bugger off after 4th July and make no further contribution so two weeks today you are history. Quite why you think everyone is going to change their behaviour on that timescale is optimistic to say the least. So the site will have to struggle on without you.
You have given it your best Flora Poste efforts and failed. Have a break.
I’ll leave aside the misogyny of your last part although I’ve had to look it up.
I’m glad you put the caveat, ‘If I understand’ because you’re right, you don’t. I’m on this site primarily because I enjoy betting on politics which is why this forum was founded and, like other forums the world over, it has a definable raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean everyone has to bet to be here, of course.
After July 4th there are fewer betting opportunities for me. I personally find betting on the next Conservative leader market to be fool’s gold because you’re not betting from reason but betting to guess how the Conservative Party membership will vote. That’s not an area I trust myself on sufficiently to risk money.
I have also previously made a lot on the US Presidential but I think this time I may sit it out.
The third reason though is more nuanced. I suspect strongly that after July 4th the landscape will look and feel very different. The froth and bubble about which we get so excited is going to abate. A strong Labour win will be exciting for a few days and then it won’t be. We will become used to the (complete) change of Government. I don’t especially want to spend a lot of time that might be put to better use debating or arguing with a predominantly older demographic, many of whom are on the right, when the country is moving on. I don’t need to spend a lot of my life on here.
xx
I cant see how Cold Comfort Farm is remotely mysoginist. Try reading.
And then try understanding. Youre here for the political betting - good luck - lots of other posters are not. Some posters like malc will bet on horses not politics and will swap tips. Some posters are here for the exchange of views - like myself.
This site is one of the longer lasting sites, so it must be doing something right even in those arid years when we didnt have your "guidance", Im sure we'll do quite well post $th July and when you leave how about making a decent contribution to site funds before you leave ?
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Sorry but that’s a silly remark. This site is supposed to be better than most social media and Mike Smithson didn’t found it just to be an online trolling zone. You are undoubtedly supporting Leon because he is hard right like yourself. But that’s ‘disappointing.'
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
So much air. So much head.
Not your most impressive response Alan, if I may say. It’s a serious point and what Leon wrote to JJ (and others) was vile and personal abuse. It had absolutely nothing to do with the foundations of this forum.
You have no idea why people come on this forum so claiming you do is garbage. people are on here for a variety of reasons and it's one of the attractions that you get to understand views which are not your own. You are clearly struggling with that bit.
If I understand some of your posts you are claiming you will bugger off after 4th July and make no further contribution so two weeks today you are history. Quite why you think everyone is going to change their behaviour on that timescale is optimistic to say the least. So the site will have to struggle on without you.
You have given it your best Flora Poste efforts and failed. Have a break.
I’ll leave aside the misogyny of your last part although I’ve had to look it up.
I’m glad you put the caveat, ‘If I understand’ because you’re right, you don’t. I’m on this site primarily because I enjoy betting on politics which is why this forum was founded and, like other forums the world over, it has a definable raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean everyone has to bet to be here, of course.
After July 4th there are fewer betting opportunities for me. I personally find betting on the next Conservative leader market to be fool’s gold because you’re not betting from reason but betting to guess how the Conservative Party membership will vote. That’s not an area I trust myself on sufficiently to risk money.
I have also previously made a lot on the US Presidential but I think this time I may sit it out.
The third reason though is more nuanced. I suspect strongly that after July 4th the landscape will look and feel very different. The froth and bubble about which we get so excited is going to abate. A strong Labour win will be exciting for a few days and then it won’t be. We will become used to the (complete) change of Government. I don’t especially want to spend a lot of time that might be put to better use debating or arguing with a predominantly older demographic, many of whom are on the right, when the country is moving on. I don’t need to spend a lot of my life on here.
Your final paragraph is very succinct, but my only hope is that predictions on how well Farage and the right do are not born out in the ballot boxes two weeks today
Good morning Big G.
I share your fear on this. I may have mis-read the mood. We (nearly all) may have.
I do think it’s bad of the BBC not to invite Farage to tonight’s debate. I don’t like him but ostracising him for his views feeds the disenchantment. Does anyone know their reasoning?
Farage is hardly ostracised, He has received massively disproportionate coverage in recent years. His QT appearances are practically ubiquitous. especially compared to the Liberal Democrats who are rarely invited at all. By doing this, it enables the BBC to claim some spurious "even handedness". Farage will make noise, he always does, but in truth he knows he has been on a good thing.
If you read the piece it’s more about her being the only big beast to survive. But this is typical of the Daily Tel at the moment. Whatever one’s politics, they are all at sea. They look completely lost.
I sort-of agree with @Leon about one thing. The kind of hard right-wing politics within the Conservative Party seems pointless when you have the read deal out on the right in Farage and Reform. The Tory Right are Reform Lite. So in this sense, Leon is probably correct. If the nasties want to go that way, they should join Reform.
Where I disagree with him and @jamesdoyle , is that I believe there is still a future for the Conservative Party. There is always a place for a centre-right party in this country, and that place is often in Government. The extreme right? Never.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. While it wish it weren't so, there is a reason why the Tories have been described as 'the natural party of government'. We are quite a centre right country.
You only need look to France to see what could happen when a centre right political party gets decimated and a hard right party steps into their place.
It’s also because, despite being the nasty party lacking in compassion, people could see that the Tories were in the main down to earth pragmatic folk who knew how the world worked and had their feet on the ground rather than being hidebound by ideology.
That reputation for pragmatism over ideology went down the toilet with Brexit and Johnson and Truss and now they just look nasty. And useless, which is worse.
Truss was the only factor, I think, not Brexit or Johnson. Brexit didn't stop the Conservatives winning hugely in 2019 (and the Conservative leadership actually opposed it in 2016 anyway). But Truss turned normal mid-term blues under Johnson into a catastrophe of perceived incompetence, which Sunak has completely failed to recover from (perhaps it was impossible, who knows?)
Brexit didn’t stop the Conservatives winning big in 2019 because it hadn’t happened and still held promise. The promises of Brexit have now failed to materialise.
Further, and as I've said before, the appeal of 'Get Brexit Done' for many voters was that the government would then turn its attention to all the other stuff, and is better expressed as 'Get Brexit Done With'.
On the latest opinion polls, nothing much has changed. I still expect Farage and his band of fascists to get 3 seats max, while the Tories should be comfortably in the 100-150 seat band.
If you read the piece it’s more about her being the only big beast to survive. But this is typical of the Daily Tel at the moment. Whatever one’s politics, they are all at sea. They look completely lost.
I sort-of agree with @Leon about one thing. The kind of hard right-wing politics within the Conservative Party seems pointless when you have the read deal out on the right in Farage and Reform. The Tory Right are Reform Lite. So in this sense, Leon is probably correct. If the nasties want to go that way, they should join Reform.
Where I disagree with him and @jamesdoyle , is that I believe there is still a future for the Conservative Party. There is always a place for a centre-right party in this country, and that place is often in Government. The extreme right? Never.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. While it wish it weren't so, there is a reason why the Tories have been described as 'the natural party of government'. We are quite a centre right country.
You only need look to France to see what could happen when a centre right political party gets decimated and a hard right party steps into their place.
It’s also because, despite being the nasty party lacking in compassion, people could see that the Tories were in the main down to earth pragmatic folk who knew how the world worked and had their feet on the ground rather than being hidebound by ideology.
That reputation for pragmatism over ideology went down the toilet with Brexit and Johnson and Truss and now they just look nasty. And useless, which is worse.
Truss was the only factor, I think, not Brexit or Johnson. Brexit didn't stop the Conservatives winning hugely in 2019 (and the Conservative leadership actually opposed it in 2016 anyway). But Truss turned normal mid-term blues under Johnson into a catastrophe of perceived incompetence, which Sunak has completely failed to recover from (perhaps it was impossible, who knows?)
Brexit didn’t stop the Conservatives winning big in 2019 because it hadn’t happened and still held promise. The promises of Brexit have now failed to materialise.
Also, losing three seats to the dead parrot party in by-elections, culminating with losing a 24,009 majority, is not normal mid-term blues. It was a sign of a sub-ELE event.m which they desperately tried, and apparently failed, to avoid.
An issue is that he spreads his legs and cr@ps all over the site with his 'beliefs' - whether it's AI will steal our jobs, UFOs, China/Covid, etc, etc. It's difficult to scroll by when his effluent flows over the threads.
I quite like him, in a way. I've found I'm using 'noom' a little; a good term. But he goes too far, too often. Many of us shitpist at times; most of his contributions seem to be shitposts.
If you read the piece it’s more about her being the only big beast to survive. But this is typical of the Daily Tel at the moment. Whatever one’s politics, they are all at sea. They look completely lost.
I sort-of agree with @Leon about one thing. The kind of hard right-wing politics within the Conservative Party seems pointless when you have the read deal out on the right in Farage and Reform. The Tory Right are Reform Lite. So in this sense, Leon is probably correct. If the nasties want to go that way, they should join Reform.
Where I disagree with him and @jamesdoyle , is that I believe there is still a future for the Conservative Party. There is always a place for a centre-right party in this country, and that place is often in Government. The extreme right? Never.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. While it wish it weren't so, there is a reason why the Tories have been described as 'the natural party of government'. We are quite a centre right country.
You only need look to France to see what could happen when a centre right political party gets decimated and a hard right party steps into their place.
It’s also because, despite being the nasty party lacking in compassion, people could see that the Tories were in the main down to earth pragmatic folk who knew how the world worked and had their feet on the ground rather than being hidebound by ideology.
That reputation for pragmatism over ideology went down the toilet with Brexit and Johnson and Truss and now they just look nasty. And useless, which is worse.
Truss was the only factor, I think, not Brexit or Johnson. Brexit didn't stop the Conservatives winning hugely in 2019 (and the Conservative leadership actually opposed it in 2016 anyway). But Truss turned normal mid-term blues under Johnson into a catastrophe of perceived incompetence, which Sunak has completely failed to recover from (perhaps it was impossible, who knows?)
Brexit didn’t stop the Conservatives winning big in 2019 because it hadn’t happened and still held promise. The promises of Brexit have now failed to materialise.
One of the reasons for the rise of Reform is I think the unwillingness of the Tory party to speak up for Brexit. While a majority consistently poll that Brexit has failed, and a plurality for Rejoin, there is a significant minority who cannot get enough of nativist autarky. The sort of people who want to sink the boats etc.
Neither major party wants to talk of Brexit, leaving it to the smaller parties of Reform, LDs and Greens, though even then it isn't their leading position.
“If Keir Starmer becomes the Prime Minister, within six months, Britain will be at war. I mean an actual war with British troops deployed. Don’t arm these dangerous people with a super-majority in Parliament.”
Why do you insist on giving oxygen to this odious individual?
I won't mention him again.
Don’t be bullied. It’s an open forum and you can say what you like unless the mods forbid it. @Anabobazina is not a moderator
Neither are you. But as we can apparently say what we like:
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
Get over it. I had far worse from that drunken piece of shit Ishmael, I followed RCS’s advice and ignored the soppy twat.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
We seem to be going through a period where everyone wants everyone else banned. If people dont like whats being said just dont come on the site.
Sorry but that’s a silly remark. This site is supposed to be better than most social media and Mike Smithson didn’t found it just to be an online trolling zone. You are undoubtedly supporting Leon because he is hard right like yourself. But that’s ‘disappointing.'
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
So much air. So much head.
Not your most impressive response Alan, if I may say. It’s a serious point and what Leon wrote to JJ (and others) was vile and personal abuse. It had absolutely nothing to do with the foundations of this forum.
You have no idea why people come on this forum so claiming you do is garbage. people are on here for a variety of reasons and it's one of the attractions that you get to understand views which are not your own. You are clearly struggling with that bit.
If I understand some of your posts you are claiming you will bugger off after 4th July and make no further contribution so two weeks today you are history. Quite why you think everyone is going to change their behaviour on that timescale is optimistic to say the least. So the site will have to struggle on without you.
You have given it your best Flora Poste efforts and failed. Have a break.
I’ll leave aside the misogyny of your last part although I’ve had to look it up.
I’m glad you put the caveat, ‘If I understand’ because you’re right, you don’t. I’m on this site primarily because I enjoy betting on politics which is why this forum was founded and, like other forums the world over, it has a definable raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean everyone has to bet to be here, of course.
After July 4th there are fewer betting opportunities for me. I personally find betting on the next Conservative leader market to be fool’s gold because you’re not betting from reason but betting to guess how the Conservative Party membership will vote. That’s not an area I trust myself on sufficiently to risk money.
I have also previously made a lot on the US Presidential but I think this time I may sit it out.
The third reason though is more nuanced. I suspect strongly that after July 4th the landscape will look and feel very different. The froth and bubble about which we get so excited is going to abate. A strong Labour win will be exciting for a few days and then it won’t be. We will become used to the (complete) change of Government. I don’t especially want to spend a lot of time that might be put to better use debating or arguing with a predominantly older demographic, many of whom are on the right, when the country is moving on. I don’t need to spend a lot of my life on here.
xx
I cant see how Cold Comfort Farm is remotely mysoginist. Try reading.
And then try understanding. Youre here for the political betting - good luck - lots of other posters are not. Some posters like malc will bet on horses not politics and will swap tips. Some posters are here for the exchange of views - like myself.
This site is one of the longer lasting sites, so it must be doing something right even in those arid years when we didnt have your "guidance", Im sure we'll do quite well post $th July and when you leave how about making a decent contribution to site funds before you leave ?
You’d be so much better if you dropped the snide stuff. It’s unnecessary and doesn’t add value to your comments. I do read. I mean, I’m an (bestselling) author after all. But I had to remind myself about CCF as it’s a long time since I read it. There’s something naaaaasty in the woodshed, and all that.
It really amuses me though this assumption that because I joined in 2021, the elders are better. But are they? Did I …?
Have a nice day. Be kind, play fair. It makes the world a better place.
xx
p.s. I bet on sports - hence a recent betting post on it - and various other areas.
Comments
"The Conservatives are also on track to slump to just 53 seats, with around three-quarters of the Cabinet voted out, a major opinion poll for The Telegraph has revealed.
The Liberal Democrats are on course to be just behind the Tories on 50 MPs, according to the Savanta and Electoral Calculus polling analysis, leaving them in touching distance of becoming the official opposition.
Labour is forecast to have 516 seats and an estimated House of Commons majority of 382 – double that won by Sir Tony Blair in 1997 – as Sir Keir Starmer becomes prime minister."
Sunak
Hunt
Mordaunt
Shapps
Cleverly
Truss
Braverman
Mogg
IDS
Patel
Jenrick
McVey
Ellwood
Coffey
Fabricant
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/19/tory-big-beasts-set-to-lose-seats-in-election-bloodbath/
But an independent arbitrator ruled that it was more likely than not Knighton digested the banned substance when he ate some contaminated meat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/c9990z2zrqlo
What will China letting all their swimmers off. That enhanced games gimmick isn't required, its called the Olympic games.
But what pollster is going to suppress a poll they are being paid for? It would be commercial suicide.
No idea if you will be asked to join, but they have answered casual queries from me in the past.
https://www.dacs.org.uk/
Next challenge is to properly take out the Kerch Bridge, leave it so the repairs will take years.
We don’t even know for sure yet that the Conservatives are heading for a sub-100 seat performance. I’m still not convinced, although admittedly there are no signs of them recovering right now and people have begun voting.
Anything around the 150 seat mark and I see no way the Conservatives, the most successful party in western democracy, would suddenly disband and join up a hard right party with six MPs.
If they wish to survive then the future of the Conservative, after they are defeated in 2028-9 will be to begin returning to the centre-right.
There is no hope on the far right with Farage. The absolute maximum ceiling there, if I’m being generous, is 30% and arguably closer to 25%.
Today’s EU debate is about their plan to ban encryption and read everyone’s messages. For the children, of course.
https://it.slashdot.org/story/24/06/19/2040238/eu-chat-control-law-proposes-scanning-your-messages---even-encrypted-ones
And the Telegraph has responded in typical fashion with a headline that ‘Badenoch is the Future of the Party’.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/19/kemi-badenoch-future-of-tory-party-general-election-2024/
If you read the piece it’s more about her being the only big beast to survive. But this is typical of the Daily Tel at the moment. Whatever one’s politics, they are all at sea. They look completely lost.
I sort-of agree with @Leon about one thing. The kind of hard right-wing politics within the Conservative Party seems pointless when you have the read deal out on the right in Farage and Reform. The Tory Right are Reform Lite. So in this sense, Leon is probably correct. If the nasties want to go that way, they should join Reform.
Where I disagree with him and @jamesdoyle , is that I believe there is still a future for the Conservative Party. There is always a place for a centre-right party in this country, and that place is often in Government. The extreme right? Never.
The poorest I have heard from Pienaar or Times Radio by a distance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3mzORfbJx8
Anyway, the most exciting election of my lifetime.
1997 was amazing but nothing imho compared to this. It was all pretty much foregone then.
This one has so much more, from appalling Conservative campaign, to endless permutations with tactical voting but, above all, the rise of Reform and potential catastrophe for the tories.
This is ’97 on speed.
You only need look to France to see what could happen when a centre right political party gets decimated and a hard right party steps into their place.
Might we need to consider this is true?!
If so, it’s House of Cards and then some. I mean can you imagine the Frank Underwood style seeding advice to the PM not to come away from D-Day for an “important" ITV election interview, yielding the perfect result that he does decide to come away from it early?! Or even further back, maliciously suggesting that although it looks weak for a PM to stand under an umbrella he doesn’t want to get his suit wet? So the seed is sown and he does just that.
Just playing. I guess.
As far as I am concerned @Leon, you can go and rot in Hell.
What you said to me yesterday was not robust debate. It was not politics. It was plain and simply nasty.
Go to Hell.
It had and has absolutely nothing to do with political affiliation. It was utterly vile. If moderators can’t distinguish the difference then this place is lost.
Those defending Leon on the grounds of ‘free speech’ in an Elon Musk way, missed the point that a forum like this at least under Mike Smithson distinguished itself from the cesspit of social media by balanced and considerate, whilst still thought-provoking, political debate. What Leon wrote to you, and others, was utterly vile personal abuse.
That reputation for pragmatism over ideology went down the toilet with Brexit and Johnson and Truss and now they just look nasty. And useless, which is worse.
Was this not also said before my time of Labour under Michael Foot? Did not Neil Kinnock have to drag the Party back from the dead with that incredibly brave speech at the Labour Conference?
No party can be complacent, and it does look like they are about to get their comeuppance, but I believe there will always be a place for a centre-right party in this country, more than any other position. Why? Because the vast majority want sensible economic management, low taxation, and individual wealth and the freedom that brings. Thatcher knew this.
It’s not foremost that the people have abandoned the Conservative Party. It’s that the Conservative Party have abandoned the people.
The point is also that Farage, Lee Anderthal et al are even worse and even less popular (except amongst certain over stimulated hacks, of course).
On a more general point, OGH created this site to get the views of people prepared to back their judgement with cold, hard cash. I don't see Leon backing his excitable doomsaying with anything beyond bullshit. If you have a controversial opinion but won't offer anything but Mickey Mouse odds, then you are basically a troll who prefers a Trumpian, post truth fantasy. It's superficial, obnoxious and increasingly childish. I guess it's therefore like most of the commentary from the right wing media: poisonous but pointless.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/mary-lou-mcdonald-defends-pat-cullen-as-a-good-woman-after-failure-to-condemn-bombings/a549905474.html
Most likely that he gets a written warning for professional standards breaches, and transferred from VIP close protection to desk duty keeping track of uniforms and weapons.
Gambling commission are also looking at a few people who were close, but it doesn’t appear that any of them were actually in a position to influence the date. Betting on insider information isn’t illegal, at least not with regular bookies. Spreads do count as trading though.
It’s good advice. Scroll past. Why care about what some anonymous person on the net says or thinks about you. They cannot affect your life unless you let it get to you.
It used to be accepted that there were things that weren't against any rules, but just weren't cricket. At some point those who think that unwritten rules are for losers became dominant and started setting the culture.
In politics, the triumph of Boris'n'Dom, 2016-19 was an important milestone, but I doubt that they were the first, or that politics was the first field to succumb.
https://www.prsformusic.com/
They can set their own forum up and ban whoever they want.
And many people online can’t just gloss past abuse. If you are thick-skinned enough, be thankful.
We all know Leon isn’t anonymous. Everyone on here knows who he is because he has regularly revealed himself.
I do think being abusive about one’s children or personal home life should be a sin-bin offence or even ban. I can’t see what that has got to do with the foundations of this website.
But, then, according to @Malmesbury I’ve only been here since 2021 ...
Surely he wasn't acting as a police officer when he placed the bet?
This savours of someone feeling what he did was wrong and then trying to find a law he had broken. But that's been going on since Albert Haddock jumped off Hammersmith Bridge, and long before that.
Political views? Fine. Personal and/or home life abuse? Not alright.
I still think someone rich should have put up deposits for 650 Binface candidates. From a political viewpoint it might have slightly held back the Reform vote as the none-of-the-above option, and they may even have got a handful of their deposits back as well as the publicity. Surprised that a Jim Radcliffe or a Richard Branson type hasn’t tried it before.
Most of us joined this site because Mike was offering something a little different. A really good forum for those interested in political betting.
I don’t see how Leon’s constant personal abuse is within the remit and I don’t believe Mike would have stood idly by on some sort of ‘Musk-esque’ freedom for all basis.
The question is rather paradigmatic of the Conservative Party. Do you stand idly by and let it be taken over and changed beyond recognition? Or at some point do you stand up for decency and say, ‘Enough is enough’?
Most likely it’s dealt with internally, just another one of the Met’s many bad apples. At least this one didn’t rape or murder someone.
But one other thought. Do you want money at all, or would a credit be better in the long term if it boosts views of your videos?
Since apparently speech can be much freer on PB now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl6p/2024/07/04
Lots of tennis and a Not Going Out repeat.
What party demographic is that going to keep on their sofa so that they don't do their civic duty?
Robert said that the bar for banning was high, but that bar should be set when there’s a crossover into abuse of a person’s home life or personal family circumstances. I’ve seen it done against Casino Royale, Big G North Wales, and now JJ et. al. Not right and not what Mike Smithson made this site for.
I might get a Red myself for this but there’s a line in the sand and it was crossed imho.
If I understand some of your posts you are claiming you will bugger off after 4th July and make no further contribution
so two weeks today you are history. Quite why you think everyone is going to change their behaviour on that timescale is optimistic to say the least. So the site will have to struggle on without you.
You have given it your best Flora Poste efforts and failed. Have a break.
@Leon then goes off on one, doubting the parentage of my child in a real nasty way. And he isn't man enough to realise he's gone too far and apologise.
@Leon is the sort of poster that destroys sites. He's already seen off other good posters, and yet he hangs around, like a paedophile outside a girls' school.
So yeah @Leon can fuck off and die as far as I'm concerned. It'll be interesting to see how far I can push this 'free speech' stuff before I get my first ever ban.
That’s really really bad in my opinion.
As for the right to say what you want feel free, I suspect the mods will only intervene if it becomes serial and tedious for the rest of the posters.
I admit I’m surprised at just *how* shit during the campaign though - I would have thought they would have employed some expensive but good external consultants and agencies.
So maybe add ‘hubristic arrogance’ to ‘shit at politics’ as well - probably more his comms team and spads, who no doubt see themselves as Underwood/Tucker-esque colossi. Nemesis is in the post.
There is also the money issue.
Suella Braverman is apparently due at this conference https://nationalconservatism.org/natcon-4-2024/ on 8 / 10 July so not pressing the flesh of the diminished Tory Party post election (if she is even still even an MP).
Plenty who are just plain nasty or trolls have been banned over the years.
But a betting site is no use if it is a silo and (legal) views that are uncomfortable to read are excluded as you need an objective picture.
Also you need to understand why people have those views, rather than just dismiss them as wronguns, otherwise you get caught out by those that do, and leverage them.
I’m glad you put the caveat, ‘If I understand’ because you’re right, you don’t. I’m on this site primarily because I enjoy betting on politics which is why this forum was founded and, like other forums the world over, it has a definable raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean everyone has to bet to be here, of course.
After July 4th there are fewer betting opportunities for me. I personally find betting on the next Conservative leader market to be fool’s gold because you’re not betting from reason but betting to guess how the Conservative Party membership will vote. That’s not an area I trust myself on sufficiently to risk money.
I have also previously made a lot on the US Presidential but I think this time I may sit it out.
The third reason though is more nuanced. I suspect strongly that after July 4th the landscape will look and feel very different. The froth and bubble about which we get so excited is going to abate. A strong Labour win will be exciting for a few days and then it won’t be. We will become used to the (complete) change of Government. I don’t especially want to spend a lot of time that might be put to better use debating or arguing with a predominantly older demographic, many of whom are on the right, when the country is moving on. I don’t need to spend a lot of my life on here.
xx
I see little evidence where I am - Telford - of a RefUK intended vote of 25-30% which is what would be indicated for here by Goodwin’s Poll. Very Brexity new town constituency, with a demographic that falls squarely in Reform’s target zone.
As I’ve mentioned, I don’t have issues with his views. To be frank he’s a post-truth disruptor. An anarchist. Bringing down this site would make him very happy. Fine. But it’s the personal abuse that is so often bang out of order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the wide spectrum of political discourse on this website. It’s vile and out of order.
Let’s not pretend a turd is polished gold please.*
* the behaviour and actions, not the person
Could have got the same odds on Trump later that year but bottled it.
Your final paragraph is very succinct, but my only hope is that predictions on how well Farage and the right do are not born out in the ballot boxes two weeks today
Many people have left because of him, or perhaps re-appeared after a long break, sometimes with new handles.
Best to simply scroll by.
I share your fear on this. I may have mis-read the mood. We (nearly all) may have.
I do think it’s bad of the BBC not to invite Farage to tonight’s debate. I don’t like him but ostracising him for his views feeds the disenchantment. Does anyone know their reasoning?
It won't be too long before things like Low Voltage and EU directives get replaced with updated ones as they do periodically.
At the moment we are accepting CE marking indefinitely and have done with a slew of EU reguldtions what British Standards have done with hundreds of European Norms (standards), that is prefix EN with BS in the title and change nothing else.
That position might not last if the EU make radical and intrusive changes to said directives.
And then try understanding. Youre here for the political betting - good luck - lots of other posters are not. Some posters like malc will bet on horses not politics and will swap tips. Some posters are here for the exchange of views - like myself.
This site is one of the longer lasting sites, so it must be doing something right even in those arid years when we didnt have your "guidance", Im sure we'll do quite well post $th July and when you leave how about making a decent contribution to site funds before you leave ?
Things may change, let’s see how it pans out.
I quite like him, in a way. I've found I'm using 'noom' a little; a good term. But he goes too far, too often. Many of us shitpist at times; most of his contributions seem to be shitposts.
(Shitposting is a recognised term, seE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitposting )
Neither major party wants to talk of Brexit, leaving it to the smaller parties of Reform, LDs and Greens, though even then it isn't their leading position.
It really amuses me though this assumption that because I joined in 2021, the elders are better. But are they? Did I …?
Have a nice day. Be kind, play fair. It makes the world a better place.
xx
p.s. I bet on sports - hence a recent betting post on it - and various other areas.