Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PaddyPower offering betting market on whether Cameron will
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PaddyPower offering betting market on whether Cameron will face a leadership challenge
There’s definitely “something in the air” about the Conservatives at the moment and I’m one of many, I guess, who’ve had a punt on him facing a leadership challenge before GE2015.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The issue, surely, is that you could make the same challenge in respect of any culture. Plato's point I think is that people are much slower to scoff at the existence of Asian, or Chinese, or black cultures than at the idea of an indigenous English culture.
If you Google the term "no such thing as Asian culture" you get 15,000 results; changing the word "Asian" to "British" gets you 19,000 results. The former term is likely to yield results from around the world, and the highest link are religion-related, whereas the latter would yield only UK results. My inference is that the latter claim is heard much more in the UK.
It doesn't follow that all those on the left think this, but it does seem to be something that only those on the left would think.
I would certainly scoff at the idea of a Asian or black cultures. The idea that a tribesman in Papua New Guinea has anything at all in common culturally with a millionaire English footballer is absurd, as I am sure that everyone would agree. Likewise, an Iranian moslem will have few popints of contact with a secularist from Japan.
People from the UK write about UK cultural issues because those are the ones that most interest them.
Is a there a rider to your speculative hunch that Ed M will never be PM
Lets call it the Francois Hollande caveat. In the event that Cameron makes such a horlicks of it that Ed M does get elected by default, Ed M will then proceed to make an even bigger mess?
Wenger Out
http://www.sport-magazine.co.uk/298/arsenes-emirates-era-transfers-3671
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10068922/Abu-Qatada-admits-defeat-and-says-he-could-be-gone-within-weeks.html
If 66% of people in an opinion poll took no position, would you consider it reasonable to gloss over that, and just cite the split among those who did take a position? E.g reporting the poll as showing 60% Labour, 30% Tories, 10% other, when 66% actually didn't name any party they supported?
I certainly hope not. It's a cheap trick, to inflate the percentage agreeing, and no more.
If only 5% fell into neither camp, it might be acceptable to just give the percentage of those papers taking a side, with a footnote mentioning the 5%, but two-thirds is far too much to brush under the carpet.
As for the thread topic, if Cameron goes, the coalition probably wouldn't long survive him. The new leader would most likely be elected on a more right-wing platform, with a list of demands Clegg couldn't accept without his party rebelling. A confidence and supply arrangement might work for a few months, but wouldn't let the new leader satisfy his party.
Thus, a general election would soon follow, with the new Conservative leader hoping to get a bonus for being new.
Nor is it the minister in charge of the underwater navy.
Real Madrid, PSG, French National team....
Seven more horses found with illegal drugs in their system from the same Newmarket stables as those found a few weeks ago.
Includes a recent big-race winner.
(I would put names, but there;s no way I can spell them from the way they sound on the radio).
Edit: houses=horses. The sentence read very differently with the typo...
2nd edit, now with link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/22600972
You are more Ukip than you thought - "oooh the good old days of council house for 2 and 6 pence"
Unless you have evidence that these loans are at a high LTV rate and going to people who can't service the debt you should stop making a bigger laughing stock of yourself than usual.
I'd agree that Asia = too wide a spread to mean a lot.
Britain is a union, however, and therefore everyone is both British and something else.
That the definition of something is debated, or hard to define, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I am struggling with is the "Nobody has ever been able to define / cite a canonical definition of Englishness for me" type of assertion, with the implication that there is therefore no such thing.
Neither is there a rider to my exceptionally well informed intel that .... and I may have noted this previously :
Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister
The former expression actually means "conurbation with a very high percentage of black and Asian first- and second-generation immigrants" in almost all uses. It's a convenient bit of shorthand but when you read it about Luton it's a sure sign that the writer has never been to Luton.
The word "vibrant" seems to be used a lot in this connection, but you never come across anyone describing the British that way. Only multicultural communities are ever "vibrant", and only minorities are ever a "community".
(It always sounds a bit colonial-patronising Raj in tone to me. It makes me think of some pissed-up old Maughamesque rubber planter, knocking one back in his stengah-shifter as he gazes at the Hindi-chattering street merchants in downtown Port Blair.)
I suppose what I am saying is that there is often an earnest sucky-up tone to the way in which cultures are discussed, unless it's English culture. To that extent I'd agree with Plato's contention.
The second class/non-status awarded to the British/home culture is very obvious - if it can't be precisely defined it doesn't exist, if you're in favour of preserving it you're an Little England xenophobe and probably a racist if you're genetically White.
If you're of any other skin colour you aren't - you're deemed to be a subset of *vibrant multiculturism* and therefore acceptable.
It's nonsense like this that breeds intolerance and resentment - as Trevor Phillips noted over the weekend - the PC/equalities gang have degenerated into hateful name-calling. That does no one any good.
Jack W, James Kelly, Easterross and MaxPB are all Scots but all of us derive our Scottishness from different aspects of our respective heritage, histories, beliefs, religon, family, education and experience.
From a straight science perspective, I find it strange that such small changes in concentrations could have such a large effect. But I am also aware there has been some small scale experiments that would seem to bear out the view that changes in atmospheric levels is some gasses can make a substantial difference to the level of 'insulation' that occurs. Likewise, the fact that the hitherto sceptical Koch brothers funded a study that came out in favour of the AGW hypothesis (or at least the 'GW' portion) also makes me think that there might be something to it.
Maybe I'm crazy here: but isn't the "right" answer on global warming to maintain a relatively open mind, and keep researching. I'd be particularly keen to see what we can do in the way of *experimental* science (rather than inevitably inaccurate models) to determine its likelihood.
But I'm interested in why you think 'homogeneous' is important, especially as homogeneity will be impossible in any human population. By adding that word, you've made it impossible to define.
However, surely there are a set of generally shared values? I think you missed the point with queuing: it is not that everyone queues, because not everyone does. It is the fact that the majority of us queue politely and well, and those who do not can be tut-tutted or ahem'ed at because they've broken the unwritten rule.
And yes, as I said it's a silly example. But there are many more. Add all these together, and you get something that is uniquely British. Few people would fulfil all of them, but most would fulfil some of them. It is also rather nebulous. But I think it does exist.
Mrs J moved over here in part because the culture more fits her views and lifestyle than her native country. For this reason, she is very protective of English culture, in some ways more than I am.
These common values vary over time. The Regency period is generally seen as being relatively sexually promiscuous; this rapidly changed through Victorian times, and English culture with it, until another change in the 1960s. English culture in the Regency would be very different from that in the late Victorian period.
Whatever English culture may be, it ain't static.
However, Cameron is polling ahead of his party so it's far from clear that he is an electoral liability. In any case, even if he were a drag on the party, it would have to be shown to the MPs both that someone else could do better (and stood a good chance of being elected), and that the damage sustained from going through the process would be worth it, if it's to happen.
In any case, the form book works both ways: John Major was not brought down despite the problems his party faced in the mid-90s. In fact, only one Conservative PM has been removed in office since WWII (though Eden would have been had he not jumped first). The rest all either saw their term out or retired / resigned.
I don't expect a vote of no confidence because I don't think the MPs think it would do any good. I also suspect that the Tory right will recognise that a new leader couldn't act very much differently while in coalition so what's the point of acting this side of an election?
It's as plain as a pike-staff what's going on here - and millions of voters are showing it at the ballot box. In desperation almost a 1m voted BNP FFS in 2009, has the Left learned nothing in the last 4yrs?
Apparently very little, it seems.
Of course, parties don't always act rationally, and I suppose there's an outside chance that the loons have taken over the parliamentary party. More likely, though, these are Westminster-bubble stories worked up by excitable journalists.
Cameron > MPs > swivel eyed loon Chairmen.
In what way does the phrase "Even if those figures are true - which i doubt very much" not suggest I am lying?
Either apologise and retract the allegation.
Or enter into a wager with me.
Your call.
Having just seen the stuff about the Labour amendment to the Gay Marriage bill, does anyone on here know why extending the civil partnership provision to heterosexual couples costs £4bn?
Can you give me a single example or are you just making things up because it is what you want to believe?
Cue response relating to pinheads ....
Anthropology is something I wish I was much more familiar with - it seems a fascinating subject most of us are ignorant of, peculiar given its about our own species...
I have no doubt we are effecting the climate. But whether the scale of the effects are worth the vast costs that we are being forced to pay is another matter.
What worries me is the modelling of the effects. The climate is a massively complex system, and we only understand a small fraction of how it works. Since models are very susceptible not just to the data passed in, but also the assumptions made in the model itself, I treat them with a very large dose of salt.
I am aware that many different models are run with different assumptions, but there are still massive gaps in the base knowledge with which the models are run.
Add in inaccuracies in the input data, and there is room for a great amount of doubt.
To be fair that looked a penalty, never a booking.
I suppose it was a case of the boy who cried wolf
Imagine that had been given and converted?
Youd have won 2-0 and still finished 5th
Spurs spend decent dough on players, your managers have just not been as good as our one
rcs,
I think the way to go is to be a 'lukewarmer'. Climate sensitivity to increased CO2 exists but is less than thought due to various feedback mechanisms -probably on the order of 1.5-2degC for a doubling of atmospheric C02. Enough to cause some warming but low enough that the majority of the effects can be mitigated by general economic growth and gradual de-carbonising of the economy rather than requiring a rapid deep-Greening.
So everyone would be civilly married and some would also have had the religious rite. Instead of which we have civil partnerships for gays, marriage for gays and straights, a lot of bad temper and ill-feeling all round and (probably) a law which will end being challenged by some leading to yet more confusion / bad temper etc.
All of it is an avoidable mess and a great pity since sorting out gay marriage is a good policy and Cameron sticking to his guns on it is a good thing. But why he has done so in a way which has upset his own voters when he could have done it better and differently is a mystery.
Frankly, if there is inequality in pensions it should be fixed regardless of all the hoo-ha about gay marriage. If someone contributes X into a pension then they should get the same out of it whether they are gay, straight, asexual or a banana.
The human-centric (the climate may be chaning and if it is we must be the cause) approach reminds me slightly of the early Church's notion that the Earth was the centre of the solar system.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100217832/two-modest-proposals-from-a-swivel-eyed-loon/
"I’ve got two proposals. One is hackneyed through repetition, and might seem counter-productive. All Conservatives standing for any election should be chosen by open primary"
"So here’s my second proposal. The party chairman should be directly elected by the membership"
I have no doubt there is an English culture, just as I have no doubt there is a French culture. Defining it is hard enough without wanting homogeneity.
Nate Silver covers your points with characteristic sense in his book 'The Signal and The Noise'.
The 'greenhouse effect' is such simple elementary science that few would contest it. It does not automatically follow however that AGW is a devastating consequence. It might be, but it might not. You would need a hundred years or so of data to make sound and reliable inferences.
The trouble is that if AGW is right, hundred years from now may well be too late. You can extrapolate from current data, but the predictions vary wildly according to the basic assumption you make; even small differences in those assumptions produce very different outcomes.
He concludes, wisely I think, that in view of the possibility that the more catastrophic scenarios mght be right, it would be only sensible to take preventative measures now, and loosen up a bit if they prove to be unnecessary. Doing it the other way round is like gamblng with the kids' futures.
Does that help?
An amusing blog by Tebbit on his bête noire, Lord Howe.
"One thing ..................... That is the remarkable loyalty of Lord Howe, uphill and down, through thick and thin, to neither his party nor leaders – but to Brussels."
Matthew Parris on the Daily Politics show admitted he used 'swivel eyed loons' when describing the 'far-right' of the Tory Party < Charming.
Fair comment is always a defence.
If a penalty had been given would it have been scored ? If scored or not the play would also have started from a different place than the actually given free kick !
Different consequences, different play and a different match.
"We all know, that people are the same wherever you go...."
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/12/15/destruction-goan-culture-protest-plan-against-sonia-gandhi
I guess the last possible window is after conference this year.
Having lived (briefly) in both Hamburg and Bavaria, I should say your friend is right.
I'm not sure I agree. Whilst the basic greenhouse effect is elementary science in a test tube and in theory when in isolation, it is just a small part of an entire planetary system that we are nowhere near understanding. For instance, there are many competing theories about why ice ages occur; these vary from planetary orbits (Milankovitch cycles), solar output or volcanism. More likely, it will be some of these, along with many more that are hardly thought of at current.
We also have little idea of how the seas react to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. We think that the oceans absorb more of the CO2, but where is the limit?
There are so many other factors that make the assumptions and effects exceptionally doubtful.
Making policy based on models of a small part of such an ill-understood system should only be done with extreme care. We would be much better working on mitigation technology that will be useful whatever happens.
The FTSE closes at its highest level since 2000.
Climate Science has been a work in progress - as all Science is - for about 150 years now, and for the vast majority of that time it has been more uncertain than certain. It's only in the last few decades that the majority of Climate Scientists have come to the conclusion that the concentrations of carbon dioxide we will see with unrestrained fossil fuel will most likely lead to a dangerous rate of global warming.
And even now there are substantial uncertainties on the details, which are there for any interested person to read about in the reports of the IPCC. Even the direct radiative impact of carbon dioxide comes with wide error bars, let alone the feedbacks.
I don't understand why you have a problem with a trace gas at concentrations in parts per million affecting the climate. One can be poisoned by arsenic at a concentration of 1mg/kg/day. Given the standard atomic weight of Arsenic at about 75, and water at 18, this is a concentration of about 0.25 parts per million in the human body. Small concentrations can obviously have a large effect.
It's very hard to see what can be done experimentally in Climate Science, because one does not have a spare Earth around to conduct experiments on. Thus, like Astrophysics, it is principally an observational science which relies on so-called natural experiments to test hypotheses. And, yes, also computer modelling.
Finally, on the nature of cycles. When one sees a pendulum swinging backwards and forwards the reason it does so is because of the force of gravity. We can measure this gravitational force and model its effect on the pendulum. This gravity may be the only cause of cycles of the pendulum's motion for a very long time, until a new force is introduced (like a human hand say), which can change the motion of the pendulum from then onwards.
So it is with the Earth's climate. Natural factors have acted to change the Earth's climate over past millennia, with cycles probably based on changes to the Earth's orbit creating one set of dominant changes, from ice age to interglacial and back again. This history does not preclude a new force from intervening and creating different changes to the climate in the future - such as our burning of fossil fuels. Suggesting otherwise is a logical fallacy.
We should be able to observe the natural factors that act on the Earth's climate. When Climate Scientists have done so, the rough story of the 20th century is that an increase in the Sun's brightness in the early part of the 20th century, combined with a reduction in Volcanic activity, was mostly responsible for the warming that occurred in the early part of the century. However, no such natural changes can be observed to explain the warming that has occurred in the latter half of the 20th century. Instead, the natural changes would most likely have led to a modest cooling.
These things you can be pretty sure about, because the Scientists have spent a very long time looking for alternative explanations and found none. You can also be reasonably certain that unconstrained burning of fossil fuels will lead to about 4K of warming by the end of the 21st century, and start sea level rise. It could create very large changes in rainfall patterns that would disrupt agriculture severely, and myriad other impacts, but these details are very uncertain. There is more uncertainty here than certainty, but for some reason the "sceptics" only want to argue about the bits that are more certain - observed warming, the radiative impact of carbon dioxide, etc.
Sounds like we reach the same conclusion for different reasons.
I wouldn't propose an all out drive to limit AGW in the absence of clear evidence that the threat is severe. Some sensible precautions now however may well be prudent.
Meanwhile the task of understanding the eco-system goes on.
Incidentally, Nate is quite kind about meteorologists. He reckons that twenty years ago their predictions were little better than infored guesswork. Their accuracy has improved a lot in recent years.
Who does he rank the worst forecasters of all? You guessed it - economists.
but that doesnt suit your argument.
Im fully aware of how much more successful than Spurs Arsenal have been over the last 25 years, but it never makes getting one over them any less enjoyable. We usually do finish streets ahead of you, despite overpaying idiots that we dont play, but cant get rid of, like Squillaci, Denilson, Bendtner & Arshavin, but youve had three fantastic seasons while we have under performed
You know the rest
Spurs in the 80s were a bigger club than Arsenal, with a bigger wage bill and bigger transfer kitty... You had Gazza, Lineker, Waddle, even spent over £2m on Paul Stewart when our record signing was Alan Smith at £800,000
And we still won more than you...
So dont come all that "oh we're only little Spurs" now youve failed again, youre big enough just not good enough.
Alex Canfor-Dumas @alexcd88 22h
If a Spurs fan bet an Arsenal fan £1 in 95/6 on who'd finish higher that year and went double or quits each year since he'd now owe £131,072
By bringing homogeneity into it, you are making it impossible to define. In other words, you have altered the argument.
Mind you, Id like to see the Labour Party run with the line that there was no such thing as British or English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh Identity though
really there's quite a bit.
And now, with easy access to pornography worldwide, we have to add the heat generated by hundreds of millions of teenagers fapping off.
We should stop having sex immediately...
Castration Saves The Nation!
Abstinence is Fun!
[My apologies to Yes, Minister for the paraphrasing].
To go back to the very beginning I originally took issue with Plato's statement that "Something I've never understood about many Lefties on PB is why they pretend there is no English/British culture or identity".
My point was that no PB leftie has to my knowledge ever claimed that there is no English/British identity or culture. Instead, our ideas of what they encompass probably differ from hers.
We don't stab our leaders in the back, we stab them in the front, usually very publicly.
Cameron could "win" a vote of confidence, but not by enough to be able to carry on.
A bit like Thatcher in 1990.
The Met Office only started running a forecast model that covered the whole globe in the late 1980s. The changes have been astonishing. I recall some stat from the Met Office along the lines that their four day forecasts today are as accurate as their one day forecasts were thirty years ago.
Anyway, some thoughts on the thread:
If polling continues to be dire for the Tories and the Kippers hoover up the "dissident" vote, I can easily see some sort of challenge to Cameron's leadership, even if unsuccessful.
Personally, I see Britishness as for more of a question of attitude rather than genetics.
Sea level at the height of the Ice Age some 20,000 years ago was roughly 100 METRES lower than it is today.
Yet, 5,000 years ago during the "Flandrian Transgression" (one last bout of post-glacial melting), sea level was actually roughly 5 metres HIGHER than it is today.
Jose Mourinho leaves @realmadrid. Official announcement to follow. #Mourinho
Here's a clue, Alan - whatever you think the British identity is, that's the English identity. Plato hit the nail on the head earlier without even noticing.
British identity is a multi-national one like the Scandinavian identity.
Tax scam and money laundering vehicle par excellence.
However, I'm even more impressed by Cameron refusing to play this idiotic game with his guests. If we don't like how UK taxation works for international companies, we should change the law, not insult distinguished businessmen who have done absolutely nothing wrong and who certainly are not under any obligation to arrange their companies' affairs to benefit the UK.
Just 22% can name their MP...
Just 41% are certain to vote in 2015...
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/press_releases/archive/2013/05/16/new-hansard-society-research-shows-further-decline-in-public-s-certainty-to-vote-but-improved-perceptions-of-parliament-s-work.aspx
Good old FPTP...