Howdy, Stranger!

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

Oh Mandy – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,569
    MattW said:

    geoffw said:

    On the topic of France, this is an interestingly provocative thread:

    https://x.com/bswud/status/1804899087197564950

    Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France.

    Can anyone advise how to read a twix thread without subscribing to X?

    I've added "@threadreaderapp unroll" to it, and it is now here:
    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1804899087197564950.html

    There's a lot of baloney about speed limits and risk aversion in it, imo, and he ignores in his "UK protects the countryside unlike France" thesis that they have more than double our land area.
    I got the impression he knew all that and was having a little fun.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362
    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.

    This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.

    image
    For once, William, we're in agreement.

    Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.

    The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
    Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
    That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.

    If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?

    They just copied Thatcher on housing.
    Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.

    We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
    You're making excuses for what was poor policy.
    Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.

    I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
    Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.

    Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.

    It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
    Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
    Well not really. Many things are a loss to the taxpayer but are justified on the grounds of achieving a policy goal or of redistribution. Council house salea.fall.into that bracket. Whereas Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed gamble which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currenct traders.
    Though those former council houses are BTL now, so the same renters just with privatised revenue.
    At a higher rent than the council / housing association would charge.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.

    This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.

    image
    For once, William, we're in agreement.

    Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.

    The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
    Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
    That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.

    If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?

    They just copied Thatcher on housing.
    Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.

    We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
    You're making excuses for what was poor policy.
    Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.

    I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
    Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.

    Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.

    It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
    Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
    Well not really. Many things are a loss to the taxpayer but are justified on the grounds of achieving a policy goal or of redistribution. Council house salea.fall.into that bracket. Whereas Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed gamble which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currenct traders.
    Though those former council houses are BTL now, so the same renters just with privatised revenue.
    At a higher rent than the council / housing association would charge.
    With worse maintenance, a landlord in France and a contractor who doesn't give a shit running it (I lived in a couple of them).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,617

    Betting post:

    https://x.com/oflynnsocial/status/1804914132581220559

    A lot of gossip on the Westminster grapevine that the election betting scandal may be about to take a devastating new turn for the Tories. 👀

    I've heard similar.
    Is this something that might see them Sunk?
    Not the story I have heard.

    Right now the story is for bets up to £100 and £3k matched on Betfair which as I said the other day is pretty low level.

    Plus a lot of (political) journalists don't understand how the exchanges and spreads work so they are having to outsource stuff.
    Journalists and not understanding numbers.....where have we seen that before.
    I remember at one event a journalist couldn't comprehend how a losing bet could yield a massive profit.

    Think of the Sunak 250/1 tip.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited June 23
    That JL Partner ‘poll’ that wasn’t a proper poll has been removed from Wiki I see:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    edited June 23
    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?

    J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16)
    CON 24% (+1)
    LAB 38% (-2)
    LDM 8% (-1)
    GRN 3% (-2)
    RFM 25% (+7)

    Bit of a shocker I thought.

    That's a poll of 520 GB News viewers not of all voters.

    https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1804823525191999652

    https://jlpartners.co.uk/polling-results
    When GB News viewers break for Starmer it's obvious that Sunak is toast.
    Yes it looks like the Cons are down to the core of their core. People with a strong loyalty to the party who always vote for them come what may. True true blues like HYUFD and BigG. The Con equivalent of people like me and Northern Al and OLB on the Labour side.
    Would you really still be voting Labour if they had been as corrupt and incompetent as this lot? I think I'd be voting Green or Binface.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,617
    edited June 23
    This Jos Buttler can bat.

    Five sixes in a row.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    True of the UK market. There's a shedload of gambling east of Suez.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,098
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 is the greatest government this country has had since WW2.

    This graph says otherwise. Look at the dates.

    image
    For once, William, we're in agreement.

    Blair/Brown perpetuated Thatcher's bigger mistakes. There's a lesson there for the 'continuity of policy in the first term' crew.

    The first year of your first term is when you set the agenda for the rest of that term - and the next, if you're both competent and lucky.
    Labour don't want too many young people owning homes though and becoming Tories
    That sort of nonsense us part of the problem.

    If it were true, why didn't they restart building council houses ?

    They just copied Thatcher on housing.
    Changing circumstances though - Thatcher didn't have population growth, Labour did.

    We had sufficient new housing builds happening in the eighties and early 90s that people could get their own property. Its from the late 90s onwards that the problem became bad.
    You're making excuses for what was poor policy.
    Thatcher sold council houses - and pocketed most of the proceeds. It was part of the sell assets to finance current spending that's been tested to destruction over the following decades.

    I won't go into MIRAS etc, which helped fuel the house price boom.
    Its not poor policy, its great policy that enabled people to own their own homes.

    Had construction kept pace with population growth and demographic change then others could and should have subsequently too.

    It makes no difference whether homes are privately owned or council owned, the problem is we do not have enough homes in this country. We need to build, build, build millions more.
    Sold at a massive loss to the taxpayer, makes Brown's gold sell-off look like small change.
    Well not really. Many things are a loss to the taxpayer but are justified on the grounds of achieving a policy goal or of redistribution. Council house salea.fall.into that bracket. Whereas Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed gamble which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currenct traders.
    It wasn’t a gamble. It was once and forever asset allocation switch out of gold and into interest bearing foreign currency - ie reserves management not active in and out trading for 'profit' or 'loss'. Whether it was done as efficiently as it could have been is a separate question.
    Fine. Brown's gold sell-off was an ill-informed "once and forever asset allocation switch" which predictably failed and which benefited only better-informed gold and currency traders.
    Failed how?
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,903
    The problem at the moment is not that Labour want to get the Tories out, so much as that they want to get Labour in. Preferably with an enormous majority so that they can act as tinpot dictators.

    At the same time, provided they get their majority, they are not bothered about what other people want. In fact, it seems to me that they would rather have Tory MPs rather than Lib Dems - because they know that, when faced with Tories, they can polarise everything between themselves and the traditional class enemy. Any increase in support for the Lib Dems, or the Green Party, breaks that set-up for them.

    A few weeks ago, when the outcome of this election was no so clear, there was talk about a "secret understanding" between Labour and the Lib Dems, so that one party would be the real challenger to the Tories in each seat, and the other would put on a relatively soft campaign there.

    It seems to me that that undeclared understanding has now disappeared, if ever it existed, and the main objective of the Labour Party is to act as a spoiler and save as many Tory seats as possible.

    If I am right, that could have very important betting implications. Ms M certainly seems to have fallen victim of the Labour spoiler approach.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,704
    edited June 23
    Heathener said:

    That JL Partner ‘poll’ that wasn’t a proper poll has been removed from Wiki I see:

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

    Yes - it's correctly been moved to the very bottom of the page where they have polls of individual seats and demographics etc.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,968
    What happens when a club cricketer bowls at a world class T20 player....
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    carnforth said:

    I have been eavesdropping for an hour in Spoons waiting for a very delayed friend and have yet to hear even a passing mention of the election.

    This is a "chuck the buggers out" election but also a boring one, because we know the main result. Does that mean they average out, and we get an ordinary turnout, or does it mean a low turnout. I'm leaning towards low.

    The FT ran the usual excellent Jen Williams story earlier today where she toured around the North talking to people about how useless everything was. No one was talking about the election because the North keeps getting promised stuff and it never happens. If I were Starmer the easiest win would be to pick a few strategic areas to invest in throughout the North (the Northern Rail Link would be a good one), borrow to fund it and drive it through with a single minded determination. Actually delivering a couple of things for people would massively improve people's faith in politics.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,617
    NEW Constituency Poll in Holborn and St Pancras for @38degrees


    LAB 54% (-12)
    GRE 14% (+11)
    LD 9% (-3)
    CON 9% (-6)
    IND 6% (new)
    REF 5% (+3 from Brexit Party)
    OTH 4% (+4)

    F/w 19th - 21st June. Changes vs. Notional 2019 result


    https://x.com/Survation/status/1804916777182269763
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,639
    Top performance by England

    Now onto the football later
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    BBC News - Fourth Tory investigated in election bets probe

    A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.

    The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.

    A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.

    Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511nv3pjd6o
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362

    BBC News - Fourth Tory investigated in election bets probe

    A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.

    The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.

    A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.

    Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511nv3pjd6o

    That's old news..
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    it's behind the paywall but there's a poll for Richmond

    Sunak 39%
    Labour 28%
    Reform 18%

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-set-to-hang-on-as-mp-despite-predictions-he-could-lose-seat-3127383

    I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
    Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.

    So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
    I’m sorry to tell you SSI there is no limitation on criminal acts in England. You’re well past limitation for civil conversion, but you’ll have to take your chances on criminal prosecution next time you’re here.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    BBC News - Fourth Tory investigated in election bets probe

    A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.

    The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.

    A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.

    Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511nv3pjd6o

    Saw that earlier. That's not ideal from a campaign management point of view to have your man in charge of targeting and your campaign chief off on smacked bum leave.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,098

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?

    J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16)
    CON 24% (+1)
    LAB 38% (-2)
    LDM 8% (-1)
    GRN 3% (-2)
    RFM 25% (+7)

    Bit of a shocker I thought.

    That's a poll of 520 GB News viewers not of all voters.

    https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1804823525191999652

    https://jlpartners.co.uk/polling-results
    When GB News viewers break for Starmer it's obvious that Sunak is toast.
    Yes it looks like the Cons are down to the core of their core. People with a strong loyalty to the party who always vote for them come what may. True true blues like HYUFD and BigG. The Con equivalent of people like me and Northern Al and OLB on the Labour side.
    Would you really still be voting Labour if they had been as corrupt and incompetent as this lot? I think I'd be voting Green or Binface.
    Good question. I kind of hope not but I suspect I would. Eg in 2010 a large part of me recognised New Labour should step aside for a rest and a reset but I still voted for them.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    DougSeal said:

    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    it's behind the paywall but there's a poll for Richmond

    Sunak 39%
    Labour 28%
    Reform 18%

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-set-to-hang-on-as-mp-despite-predictions-he-could-lose-seat-3127383

    I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
    Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.

    So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
    I’m sorry to tell you SSI there is no limitation on criminal acts in England. You’re well past limitation for civil conversion, but you’ll have to take your chances on criminal prosecution next time you’re here.
    We'll never be able to extradite him if he doesn't come back, so I think he's safe.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,046
    edited June 23
    /blockquote>

    NEW Constituency Poll in Holborn and St Pancras for @38degrees


    LAB 54% (-12)
    GRE 14% (+11)
    LD 9% (-3)
    CON 9% (-6)
    IND 6% (new)
    REF 5% (+3 from Brexit Party)
    OTH 4% (+4)

    F/w 19th - 21st June. Changes vs. Notional 2019 result


    https://x.com/Survation/status/1804916777182269763

    Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,282
    edited June 23

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    edited June 23
    MattW said:

    geoffw said:

    On the topic of France, this is an interestingly provocative thread:

    https://x.com/bswud/status/1804899087197564950

    Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France.

    Can anyone advise how to read a twix thread without subscribing to X?

    I've added "@threadreaderapp unroll" to it, and it is now here:
    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1804899087197564950.html

    There's a lot of baloney about speed limits and risk aversion in it, imo, and he ignores in his "UK protects the countryside unlike France" thesis that they have more than double our land area.
    Yeah I'm not sure I buy it either. It was mentioned before that France have a view that there are certain things that should be defended to the hilt (French wine, short working weeks, Secularism, the Constitutional underpinnings of the Republic, 90 minute lunch) which seems rather conservative to me?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,968
    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    Also perhaps that within Westminster everybody knows this stuff goes on. We have seen on PB very suss movements in markets several hours before important polls or prior to announcement of results.

    I think if it was really investigated its could go to some dodgy places.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    Labour HQ's data team should get jobs with GCHQ after the election, because if that's true it's very clever.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,617
    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084

    biggles said:

    /blockquote>

    NEW Constituency Poll in Holborn and St Pancras for @38degrees


    LAB 54% (-12)
    GRE 14% (+11)
    LD 9% (-3)
    CON 9% (-6)
    IND 6% (new)
    REF 5% (+3 from Brexit Party)
    OTH 4% (+4)

    F/w 19th - 21st June. Changes vs. Notional 2019 result


    https://x.com/Survation/status/1804916777182269763

    Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
    Actually it does tell us something very interesting.

    In one of Labour's safe seats there's a Lab to Con swing of 3% which means there's much bigger Con to Lab swings in the marginals if the national polls are right.
    Good spot. Interesting.

    I have long suspected that London will see Labour underperform relative to the national polling which in turn, as you suggest, may mean they do correspondingly better in a few others places.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,282
    biggles said:

    /blockquote>

    NEW Constituency Poll in Holborn and St Pancras for @38degrees


    LAB 54% (-12)
    GRE 14% (+11)
    LD 9% (-3)
    CON 9% (-6)
    IND 6% (new)
    REF 5% (+3 from Brexit Party)
    OTH 4% (+4)

    F/w 19th - 21st June. Changes vs. Notional 2019 result


    https://x.com/Survation/status/1804916777182269763

    Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
    Relevant.

    If there is a swing of 3% TO THE CONSERVATIVES in Holborn and St Pancras, not merely an anaemic swing to Labour due to the Con share only being able to fall so far, then how much more needed elsewhere for Labour to achieve an overall 15% swing.

    Imagine for a moment that the swing is not uniform, not uniform with a proportional element, not proportional, but BEYOND proportional.

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    DougSeal said:

    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    it's behind the paywall but there's a poll for Richmond

    Sunak 39%
    Labour 28%
    Reform 18%

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-set-to-hang-on-as-mp-despite-predictions-he-could-lose-seat-3127383

    I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
    Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.

    So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
    I’m sorry to tell you SSI there is no limitation on criminal acts in England. You’re well past limitation for civil conversion, but you’ll have to take your chances on criminal prosecution next time you’re here.
    I have TSE on quasi-retainer. Is that good news OR bad news? AND for him OR me?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,809
    OnboardG1 said:

    BBC News - Fourth Tory investigated in election bets probe

    A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.

    The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.

    A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.

    Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511nv3pjd6o

    Saw that earlier. That's not ideal from a campaign management point of view to have your man in charge of targeting and your campaign chief off on smacked bum leave.
    Just a good job that the PM didnt randomly tweet about criminals never being shown any mercy a few hours before the story broke. Lucky escape there!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,812

    stodge said:

    England turning the screw

    Top bowling and fielding performance by England

    Now just get the target in a little under 20 overs and we will be fine for the SF 👍
    We're playing those titans of world cricket, the United States.

    It's the equivalent of us going into halftime 3 up against San Marino or Gibraltar.
    It's all about beating the team in front of you

    If we get the target in 18.4 overs or less we are in the SF (per Sky)

    I don’t think he knows much about cricket.
    I don't like cricket, I hate it :lol:
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,809

    OnboardG1 said:

    BBC News - Fourth Tory investigated in election bets probe

    A fourth senior Conservative is being looked into by the Gambling Commission over bets allegedly placed on the date of the general election.

    The Sunday Times reported that the party's chief data officer Nick Mason allegedly placed dozens of bets, which the paper says could have generated winnings of thousands of pounds.

    A spokesman for Mr Mason told the BBC that it would not be appropriate to comment during an investigation but he denied wrongdoing.

    Mr Mason, who is also a Conservative councillor in Herefordshire, has now taken a leave of absence from his Tory party role, 11 days from election day on 4 July. . . .

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511nv3pjd6o

    Saw that earlier. That's not ideal from a campaign management point of view to have your man in charge of targeting and your campaign chief off on smacked bum leave.
    Just a good job that the PM didnt randomly tweet about criminals never being shown any mercy a few hours before the story broke. Lucky escape there!
    And it really could have been worse. Some bright spad might have suggested that they commission an ad against gambling with Labour too.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,274
    The Gambling Commission are reluctant to release any more info re new names so these rumours doing the rounds might not come to anything .

    Unless something leaks but even then I can’t see it being a member of the cabinet .
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,076

    Betting post:

    https://x.com/oflynnsocial/status/1804914132581220559

    A lot of gossip on the Westminster grapevine that the election betting scandal may be about to take a devastating new turn for the Tories. 👀

    Is there a way to place a bet on that back of this gossip being true?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,867

    biggles said:

    /blockquote>

    NEW Constituency Poll in Holborn and St Pancras for @38degrees


    LAB 54% (-12)
    GRE 14% (+11)
    LD 9% (-3)
    CON 9% (-6)
    IND 6% (new)
    REF 5% (+3 from Brexit Party)
    OTH 4% (+4)

    F/w 19th - 21st June. Changes vs. Notional 2019 result


    https://x.com/Survation/status/1804916777182269763

    Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
    Actually it does tell us something very interesting.

    In one of Labour's safe seats there's a Lab to Con swing of 3% which means there's much bigger Con to Lab swings in the marginals if the national polls are right.
    I think we've known that for a while. Here in East Ham, there might be a small swing but nothing like 18-20%. In Richmond & Northallerton the swing is 18% but we know from the earlier poll in Gillingham & Rainham we could be looking at 30% swings in some seats - remarkable.

    Even back in February when Clacton was polled without Farage, the swing from Labour to Conservative was 24%.

    What I think it also shows is the rise of the Greens in London - I think the Green will finish second in Stratford & Bow and a decent third in West Ham & Beckton.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    it's behind the paywall but there's a poll for Richmond

    Sunak 39%
    Labour 28%
    Reform 18%

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-set-to-hang-on-as-mp-despite-predictions-he-could-lose-seat-3127383

    I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
    Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.

    So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
    I’m sorry to tell you SSI there is no limitation on criminal acts in England. You’re well past limitation for civil conversion, but you’ll have to take your chances on criminal prosecution next time you’re here.
    I have TSE on quasi-retainer. Is that good news OR bad news? AND for him OR me?
    I’m an Oxford educated lawyer. What do you think I’m going to say? The reply almost writes itself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    stodge said:

    spudgfsh said:

    full details of the Richmond seat poll

    https://x.com/Samfr/status/1804913573946114415

    Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.

    Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?

    The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
    No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.

    Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    nico679 said:

    The Gambling Commission are reluctant to release any more info re new names so these rumours doing the rounds might not come to anything .

    Unless something leaks but even then I can’t see it being a member of the cabinet .

    Well, LK got hold of a recording of a minister calling the Rwanda policy a load of crap, so the Tory Party is currently as riddled with moles as MI5 in the 60s.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,046

    biggles said:

    /blockquote>

    NEW Constituency Poll in Holborn and St Pancras for @38degrees


    LAB 54% (-12)
    GRE 14% (+11)
    LD 9% (-3)
    CON 9% (-6)
    IND 6% (new)
    REF 5% (+3 from Brexit Party)
    OTH 4% (+4)

    F/w 19th - 21st June. Changes vs. Notional 2019 result


    https://x.com/Survation/status/1804916777182269763

    Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
    Actually it does tell us something very interesting.

    In one of Labour's safe seats there's a Lab to Con swing of 3% which means there's much bigger Con to Lab swings in the marginals if the national polls are right.
    Or it’s a constituency poll and the numbers are all over the place. Or it’s a bit weird because Starmer has attracted far left opponents.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
    Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
  • Pro_Rata said:

    biggles said:

    /blockquote>

    NEW Constituency Poll in Holborn and St Pancras for @38degrees


    LAB 54% (-12)
    GRE 14% (+11)
    LD 9% (-3)
    CON 9% (-6)
    IND 6% (new)
    REF 5% (+3 from Brexit Party)
    OTH 4% (+4)

    F/w 19th - 21st June. Changes vs. Notional 2019 result


    https://x.com/Survation/status/1804916777182269763

    Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
    Relevant.

    If there is a swing of 3% TO THE CONSERVATIVES in Holborn and St Pancras, not merely an anaemic swing to Labour due to the Con share only being able to fall so far, then how much more needed elsewhere for Labour to achieve an overall 15% swing.

    Imagine for a moment that the swing is not uniform, not uniform with a proportional element, not proportional, but BEYOND proportional.

    I think that just implies that swing breaks down in such situations.

    Hovever, having to win well over 100 seats to get a majority is no easy ask whatever the polls say.

    Also this poll suggests establishment parties on both left and right are losing vote share to insurgents on both left and right.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,129
    OnboardG1 said:

    carnforth said:

    I have been eavesdropping for an hour in Spoons waiting for a very delayed friend and have yet to hear even a passing mention of the election.

    This is a "chuck the buggers out" election but also a boring one, because we know the main result. Does that mean they average out, and we get an ordinary turnout, or does it mean a low turnout. I'm leaning towards low.

    The FT ran the usual excellent Jen Williams story earlier today where she toured around the North talking to people about how useless everything was. No one was talking about the election because the North keeps getting promised stuff and it never happens. If I were Starmer the easiest win would be to pick a few strategic areas to invest in throughout the North (the Northern Rail Link would be a good one), borrow to fund it and drive it through with a single minded determination. Actually delivering a couple of things for people would massively improve people's faith in politics.
    Mmm. The Tories failing to deliver on Boris's "levelling up" is just one of their many own goals.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,282
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    /blockquote>

    NEW Constituency Poll in Holborn and St Pancras for @38degrees


    LAB 54% (-12)
    GRE 14% (+11)
    LD 9% (-3)
    CON 9% (-6)
    IND 6% (new)
    REF 5% (+3 from Brexit Party)
    OTH 4% (+4)

    F/w 19th - 21st June. Changes vs. Notional 2019 result


    https://x.com/Survation/status/1804916777182269763

    Thank god someone spent the money. We were all on tenterhooks.
    Actually it does tell us something very interesting.

    In one of Labour's safe seats there's a Lab to Con swing of 3% which means there's much bigger Con to Lab swings in the marginals if the national polls are right.
    Or it’s a constituency poll and the numbers are all over the place. Or it’s a bit weird because Starmer has attracted far left opponents.
    Lab to Con swings are far from unknown in council by elections in London in the last 2 years.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    spudgfsh said:

    full details of the Richmond seat poll

    https://x.com/Samfr/status/1804913573946114415

    Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.

    Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?

    The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
    No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.

    Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
    Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    spudgfsh said:

    full details of the Richmond seat poll

    https://x.com/Samfr/status/1804913573946114415

    Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.

    Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?

    The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
    No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.

    Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
    Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
    You beat me to it.
  • The Tories had a once in a generation sea change and they've completely let it go. The Red Wall will I expect, never be fooled again.
  • lockhimuplockhimup Posts: 59
    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    spudgfsh said:

    full details of the Richmond seat poll

    https://x.com/Samfr/status/1804913573946114415

    Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.

    Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?

    The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
    No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.

    Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
    Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
    Didn't Selby have similar demographics (and a similar lead in 2019).
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,046
    DougSeal said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
    Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
    Now knowing what these people were like, and the lack of a sense of ethics, if I was the FCA I’d be requisitioning documents showing me when Number 10 became aware of various bits of market sensitive information in its regulated markets, and cross referencing with trading patterns.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,617
    DougSeal said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
    Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
    If you bet on the date of the election you may need to report yourself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,513
    OnboardG1 said:

    carnforth said:

    I have been eavesdropping for an hour in Spoons waiting for a very delayed friend and have yet to hear even a passing mention of the election.

    This is a "chuck the buggers out" election but also a boring one, because we know the main result. Does that mean they average out, and we get an ordinary turnout, or does it mean a low turnout. I'm leaning towards low.

    The FT ran the usual excellent Jen Williams story earlier today where she toured around the North talking to people about how useless everything was. No one was talking about the election because the North keeps getting promised stuff and it never happens. If I were Starmer the easiest win would be to pick a few strategic areas to invest in throughout the North (the Northern Rail Link would be a good one), borrow to fund it and drive it through with a single minded determination. Actually delivering a couple of things for people would massively improve people's faith in politics.
    The trouble is he might have scores of new MPs in the South.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,046
    edited June 23

    The Tories had a once in a generation sea change and they've completely let it go. The Red Wall will I expect, never be fooled again.

    A cynic would say “they have been this time as well, who will they vote for next time when they get let down”?
  • DougSeal said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    spudgfsh said:

    full details of the Richmond seat poll

    https://x.com/Samfr/status/1804913573946114415

    Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.

    Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?

    The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
    No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.

    Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
    Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
    You beat me to it.
    Also it has a forces population who are annoyed about D-Day.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    edited June 23

    DougSeal said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
    Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
    If you bet on the date of the election you may need to report yourself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
    I didn’t. And even if I did they are so fucked after allowing my old firm to be sold to a man who took £64m out of the client account to buy it, I don’t think they are going to be a regulator for much longer.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,169

    The Tories had a once in a generation sea change and they've completely let it go. The Red Wall will I expect, never be fooled again.

    Have to have a look at the relative changes in the red wall compared to non red wall before we can say that. I might take a look at how the mrps view this
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
    Could you link to the header where you tipped July?

    I would be interested to have another read of it.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,569
    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    spudgfsh said:

    full details of the Richmond seat poll

    https://x.com/Samfr/status/1804913573946114415

    Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.

    Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?

    The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
    No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.

    Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
    Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
    Since the total spend is the same, there must be farmers who love it and who hate it. Unless it's simply the paperwork they hate.

    As I understand it, the system is being introduced slowly, 80% old and 20% new in year one, 60% and 40% in year two etc...
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,984
    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    DougSeal said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
    Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
    But were there sudden moves? If yes how did labour spot them when this site didn't, or did it?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,569
    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Macron is attractive? Youthful I suppose but attractive?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,747
    Does anyone know whether, on the marked register, someone who spoils a ballot paper is shown as having voted or not voted?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,617
    Foxy said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
    Could you link to the header where you tipped July?

    I would be interested to have another read of it.
    Here you go.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/03/27/we-may-need-to-revise-our-summer-plans/
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    DougSeal said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
    Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
    But were there sudden moves? If yes how did labour spot them when this site didn't, or did it?
    I didn’t see any on the roughly two occasions I looked but I wasn’t watching it as closely as Labour political strategists. AIUI there was a sudden jump on 21 May Labour noticed.

    FWIW I nearly put some money on October but bottled it.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,867
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    spudgfsh said:

    full details of the Richmond seat poll

    https://x.com/Samfr/status/1804913573946114415

    Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.

    Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?

    The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
    No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.

    Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
    As you well know, it's nothing to do with any of that.

    If I were Labour in R&N, I would be sending details of that poll to every non-Conservative voter (including Reform). As you think all Reform voters are just Conservatives who have lost their way, you won't realise but if you think Reform voters detest Sunak as much as voters from other non-Conservative parties, you might see Labour trying to squeeze LD, Green AND Reform and there's enough of those to defeat Sunak.

    It probably won't happen but I wouldn't dismiss it so easily.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,496
    Ratters said:

    Betting post:

    https://x.com/oflynnsocial/status/1804914132581220559

    A lot of gossip on the Westminster grapevine that the election betting scandal may be about to take a devastating new turn for the Tories. 👀

    Is there a way to place a bet on that back of this gossip being true?
    You may find the odds mysteriously shortened a few hours before this tweet after CCHQ staff were all in a queue at Ladbrokes.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    Chris said:

    Does anyone know whether, on the marked register, someone who spoils a ballot paper is shown as having voted or not voted?

    Must be voted I would think. The marked register reflects that you turned up and got given a ballot paper. Not an expert.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    Chris said:

    Does anyone know whether, on the marked register, someone who spoils a ballot paper is shown as having voted or not voted?

    Must be voted I would think. The marked register reflects that you turned up and got given a ballot paper. Not an expert.
    I think that’s right
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,747
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
    Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
    But were there sudden moves? If yes how did labour spot them when this site didn't, or did it?
    I didn’t see any on the roughly two occasions I looked but I wasn’t watching it as closely as Labour political strategists. AIUI there was a sudden jump on 21 May Labour noticed.

    FWIW I nearly put some money on October but bottled it.
    There are always sudden moves in political market because the bet size of those interested far outweighs the amount anyone is prepared to leave at risk to sudden announcements. I got slightly clobbered with the July thing, but it was in fivers whereas if I actually seeks a bet it'll be in the hundreds. I will always be a little bitter that the December bet that I'd been carefully assembling turned out to be a loser (I really though I had a winner nailed there).
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 1,494

    Chris said:

    Does anyone know whether, on the marked register, someone who spoils a ballot paper is shown as having voted or not voted?

    Must be voted I would think. The marked register reflects that you turned up and got given a ballot paper. Not an expert.
    once ballots go into the ballot box there's no cross checking of names to votes.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,937
    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    spudgfsh said:

    full details of the Richmond seat poll

    https://x.com/Samfr/status/1804913573946114415

    Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.

    Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?

    The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
    No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.

    Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
    Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
    I vaguely know a local (ie farmer) in the constituency who told me, before the election was called, that Sunak wasn't locally popular. Seen as not 'one of us' (by which I mean shire tory vs city dweller, rather than anything racist).

    Mentioned this a couple of times previously, e.g. https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4792674#Comment_4792674

    My guess is he underperforms vs national swing but still not enough to unseat him. Those shire tories remain loyal to party and banner, even if the person leading them isn't always up to snuff in their opinion.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,591
    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Current, ongoing Tory insiders betting scandal strikes a stranger from an even stranger land, as quintessentially British.

    Have been trying to imagine how this would play on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) if US politicos were involved? My guess is that while it would be a biggish news story, it would NOT have as much impact on USers than on UKers.

    Because while betting is a long-standing and fast-growing pastime in US, it is NOT as ubiquitous as in UK. Not as ingrained in the culture, and also higher percentage of folks who are disinclined to gamble and/or disapproving of gambling if not gamblers. Meaning largish segment of likely voters who really don't understand what the issue is with insider betting. (Note this was case with, for example, conviction of Martha Stewart for illegal insider stock trading.)
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,569

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    Young starmer looks like a twit. Present day starmer is in the top half of his age group.

    Source: gayer.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,747

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    Cameron is clearly the poster-boy of PMs
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    You’re basing that off a 1980s machine taken passport photo published by the Mail? No one looked good in 80s passport photos. Not even me.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,309
    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?

    J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16)
    CON 24% (+1)
    LAB 38% (-2)
    LDM 8% (-1)
    GRN 3% (-2)
    RFM 25% (+7)

    Bit of a shocker I thought.

    That's a poll of 520 GB News viewers not of all voters.

    https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1804823525191999652

    https://jlpartners.co.uk/polling-results
    When GB News viewers break for Starmer it's obvious that Sunak is toast.
    Yes it looks like the Cons are down to the core of their core. People with a strong loyalty to the party who always vote for them come what may. True true blues like HYUFD and BigG. The Con equivalent of people like me and Northern Al and OLB on the Labour side.
    The fools who blindly follow dogma regardless how bad it is for them
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,411
    eek said:

    Chameleon said:

    Apparently at least one pollster is currently in the fieldwork phase of polling Rishi's seat.

    Rishi is spending today campaigning in Richmond - that tells you everything you need to know...
    On the other hand, if they're letting Sunak loose somewhere, they mustn't mind shedding a few thousand votes there.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,747
    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Is everyone resolutely ignoring the JL Partners poll, which I think is brekky published, or am I missing the frenzied discussion earlier in the thread, or yesterday, or whenever?

    J L Partners (17-20 June; changes on 14-16)
    CON 24% (+1)
    LAB 38% (-2)
    LDM 8% (-1)
    GRN 3% (-2)
    RFM 25% (+7)

    Bit of a shocker I thought.

    That's a poll of 520 GB News viewers not of all voters.

    https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1804823525191999652

    https://jlpartners.co.uk/polling-results
    When GB News viewers break for Starmer it's obvious that Sunak is toast.
    Yes it looks like the Cons are down to the core of their core. People with a strong loyalty to the party who always vote for them come what may. True true blues like HYUFD and BigG. The Con equivalent of people like me and Northern Al and OLB on the Labour side.
    The fools who blindly follow dogma regardless how bad it is for them
    Are you dogmatically saying that dogmatic policy is wrong then? :)
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362
    edited June 23
    carnforth said:

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    spudgfsh said:

    full details of the Richmond seat poll

    https://x.com/Samfr/status/1804913573946114415

    Key points here are the very large Margin of Error (up to 6%) so read that how you like.

    Will this be the 2024 equivalent of the 1997 Observer poll which did for Portillo in Enfield Southgate?

    The very fact we are even considering a Conservative defeat in their 29th safest seat shows where we are....
    No, Sunak has a much bigger lead on this evening's poll than Portillo had in the Observer poll.

    Demographically the core vote in Richmond is conservative farmers too, nothing like the core vote in Enfield Southgate which is liberal professionals and of course Enfield Southgate has a Labour MP again just a symptom of the London shift left 1997 affirmed
    Farmers absolutely hate the Tories this time round though thanks to the silly buggers with the CAP subsidies replacement. I don't think he'll lose it either, but demographics don't necessarily help him here.
    Since the total spend is the same, there must be farmers who love it and who hate it. Unless it's simply the paperwork they hate.

    As I understand it, the system is being introduced slowly, 80% old and 20% new in year one, 60% and 40% in year two etc...
    The money has not been sent/spent - so a lot of farmers are worse off..
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,978
    I guess Farridge has seen some polling on his Russian comments...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,591
    DougSeal said:

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    You’re basing that off a 1980s machine taken passport photo published by the Mail? No one looked good in 80s passport photos. Not even me.
    Some people had good passport photos:

    https://art-sheep.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PassportPhotosofIconicFiguresinThePast2.jpg
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    Current, ongoing Tory insiders betting scandal strikes a stranger from an even stranger land, as quintessentially British.

    Have been trying to imagine how this would play on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) if US politicos were involved? My guess is that while it would be a biggish news story, it would NOT have as much impact on USers than on UKers.

    Because while betting is a long-standing and fast-growing pastime in US, it is NOT as ubiquitous as in UK. Not as ingrained in the culture, and also higher percentage of folks who are disinclined to gamble and/or disapproving of gambling if not gamblers. Meaning largish segment of likely voters who really don't understand what the issue is with insider betting. (Note this was case with, for example, conviction of Martha Stewart for illegal insider stock trading.)

    Also the dates of elections in the States are no secret.

    However, if an SC justice’s clerk decided to put some money on the outcome of a case he’d been working on that would make news. By definition, wouldn’t impact an election, but still newsworthy
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    Quite hunky in this picture, if a bit earnest.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/02/could-keir-starmer-student-picture-win-votes
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,309

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    It seems Tim S is either mentally deranged or needs to visit Specsavers.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,747
    TimS said:


    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    All those Conservatives under 50 or so whose early sexual experiences involved fantasies about Margaret Thatcher are shocked by that sentiment.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    edited June 23
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    kle4 said:

    spudgfsh said:

    it's behind the paywall but there's a poll for Richmond

    Sunak 39%
    Labour 28%
    Reform 18%

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-set-to-hang-on-as-mp-despite-predictions-he-could-lose-seat-3127383

    I still think he is seriously under threat as there's an undercurrent of rebellious former Tories eagerly wanting to make history, but Richmond is one of those seats that should never be in play, especially when a senior Minister is the MP.
    Now it can be told. That back during the 2001 UK GE, yours truly absconded with a William Hague yardsign from a farm field in the vicinity of Richmond, Yorkshire. There were a fair number of such signs dotting the landscape in WH's then-constituency, where he was re-elected without difficulty.

    So doubt I altered the outcome there or anywhere else. AND hope the statute of limitations has expired.
    I’m sorry to tell you SSI there is no limitation on criminal acts in England. You’re well past limitation for civil conversion, but you’ll have to take your chances on criminal prosecution next time you’re here.
    I have TSE on quasi-retainer. Is that good news OR bad news? AND for him OR me?
    I’m an Oxford educated lawyer. What do you think I’m going to say? The reply almost writes itself.
    I am throwing myself upon the mercy of the PB Bar! PROVIDED I confess my guilt, could you law-mongers arrange for my extradition to England to answer for my crime? With reasonable expense account for lodging, dining, entertainment, etc., etc. while undergoing the rigors of due process?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,747
    spudgfsh said:

    Chris said:

    Does anyone know whether, on the marked register, someone who spoils a ballot paper is shown as having voted or not voted?

    Must be voted I would think. The marked register reflects that you turned up and got given a ballot paper. Not an expert.
    once ballots go into the ballot box there's no cross checking of names to votes.
    Thanks. On reflection it was a silly question.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    What's wrong with all of you? Should we have a Country Life style political deb of the month feature? Some commentary is a little too homo-erotic for my old fashioned post-Brexit tastes.

    I blame Love Island!
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,274
    Omnium said:

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    Cameron is clearly the poster-boy of PMs
    He’s got a butt mouth . Definitely not good looking . I think Starmer wins because of his lovely hair , he needs to smile more and what were Labour thinking with that manifesto cover . He looked like a relative of the Krays, far too severe .

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,546
    Foxy said:

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    Quite hunky in this picture, if a bit earnest.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/02/could-keir-starmer-student-picture-win-votes
    Yuck. That sort of student picture's of the sort taken by the I'm-going-to-be-famous-one-day sorts of shits who infested halls. Few ever actually made it. ;) I mean, the skull...

    All pose, no spontaneity, zero character.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,617
    edited June 23
    When parliament reconvenes he's going to get his supporters to protest outside parliament isn't he?

    🚨 ELECTION INTERFERENCE ALERT 🚨

    Today's Mail on Sunday claimed President Zelensky said that I was personally infected with Putinism. This is totally untrue and I have instructed Carter Ruck to deal with it.

    Tomorrow’s Daily Mail are so desperate to smear Reform that they have now contacted the Russian Foreign Ministry and goaded them into a supposed quote from someone in Sergey Lavrov’s office calling me an ‘ally’.

    That a UK newspaper group is actively collaborating with the Kremlin to protect their dying Conservative party is an absolute scandal. The British people will see through this act of utter desperation.


    https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1804921708073144741
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,344
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    The whole gambling scandal is so ridiculous in the sense that the markets have such small liquidity that a) people putting a decent amount of money on will set off alarm bells and b) you can't get on life changing money.

    You must be really thick if you don't realise the former (and we have had loads of stories in the past couple of years where people have got in trouble betting) and later you risk all this for limited upside i.e. Its not like you can get on millions worth of profit.

    From the Thick of It...so dense light bends around them.

    The report that Labour campaigners got ready to roll their advertising on the back of keeping an eye on the betting markets, per Kuenssberg, is an indication in and of itself how much this stuck out like a sore thumb.
    The Sunday Times published an article the Sunday after the election was called which said Labour's election chief new there was going to be a July election based on the betting moves he had seen.
    Even I remember checking the BF market on a couple of occasions on the basis that knowledgeable people might have moved it and I’m as far from a savvy political operator as is possible to imagine.
    If you bet on the date of the election you may need to report yourself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
    I didn’t. And even if I did they are so fucked after allowing my old firm to be sold to a man who took £64m out of the client account to buy it, I don’t think they are going to be a regulator for much longer.
    I know two ex solicitors who stole large sums from their clients, and while they were struck off, no effort has been made to recover the money.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,694

    Re GB News viewer poll. That will shut up Jon Sopel who claimed that its viewers are dominated by Reform voters and thus shows that it is a dangerous propaganda channel. And that BBC / ITV viewer breakdowns much more in line with national polling so perfectly balanced. Strangely he also forgot to mention Ch4 News viewer are massively bias to left wing parties, but that isn't a dangerous propaganda news outlet in his book.

    tbf it's only the GB news viewers who are capable of interacting with modern technology that have been polled.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    malcolmg said:

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    It seems Tim S is either mentally deranged or needs to visit Specsavers.
    Don't worry Malc, there's only one Alex Salmond.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    edited June 23

    DougSeal said:

    TimS said:

    On the topic of looks in our PMs.

    Important, I think. For our international reputation.

    Starmer would be the best looking PM since, well, when exactly? Gladstone? Douglas Home? Certainly better looking than any in my lifetime.

    The best looking major party leader since Clegg (though I did like that Plaid leader in 2019).

    Followed in the recent PM looks stakes by Liz Truss, then Rishi (he’s pretty presentable), then a big gap before you reach, whom? Gordon Brown I reckon.

    But none of them hold a candle to Macron. Or Obama. Or Zelenskyy. Or, though I hate to say it, Meloni. Different league entirely.

    Oh come on. He may have grown into his looks, but he was never an oil painting:

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/06/14/22/86140977-13532089-image-a-99_1718399099491.jpg
    You’re basing that off a 1980s machine taken passport photo published by the Mail? No one looked good in 80s passport photos. Not even me.
    Some people had good passport photos:

    https://art-sheep.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PassportPhotosofIconicFiguresinThePast2.jpg
    At this point Bowie didn’t have to get his taken at a machine on the bus station. He could just send in his suitably cropped professionally take publicity stills. As he clearly did here. Those machines would make Matt Damon look like Matt le Tissier.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,411

    Sunak backed Johnson to be leader. His judgment is terrible.

    He also backed himself to be leader - that shows even less judgement.

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    DougSeal said:

    Current, ongoing Tory insiders betting scandal strikes a stranger from an even stranger land, as quintessentially British.

    Have been trying to imagine how this would play on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) if US politicos were involved? My guess is that while it would be a biggish news story, it would NOT have as much impact on USers than on UKers.

    Because while betting is a long-standing and fast-growing pastime in US, it is NOT as ubiquitous as in UK. Not as ingrained in the culture, and also higher percentage of folks who are disinclined to gamble and/or disapproving of gambling if not gamblers. Meaning largish segment of likely voters who really don't understand what the issue is with insider betting. (Note this was case with, for example, conviction of Martha Stewart for illegal insider stock trading.)

    Also the dates of elections in the States are no secret.

    However, if an SC justice’s clerk decided to put some money on the outcome of a case he’d been working on that would make news. By definition, wouldn’t impact an election, but still newsworthy
    In many American states, it is illegal to bet on the OUTCOME of elections.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,978

    I have instructed Carter Ruck to deal with it.

    I am suing the Ukranian President to prove I am not a Russian shill is next level...
This discussion has been closed.