politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Result : February 5th 2015

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Result : February 5th 2015

Birmington on Derbyshire (Lab Defence)
Tricia Gilby (Labour) 1,293 votes (62% -7%)
Paul Stone (United Kingdom Independence Party) 380 votes (18%, no candidate in 2013)
Mick Bagshaw (Independent) 157 votes (8%)
John Ahern (Liberal Democrat) 135 votes (6% -3%)
Lewis Preston (Conservative) 120 votes (6% -5%)
Labour HOLD with a majority of 913 votes (44%) on a swing of 12% from Labour to…

Read the full story here

Ave_it

1% swing LAB to CON!

On target for overall majority!!

Pulpstar

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ad_146375020.jpg?quality=70&strip=all

It shows East Dunbartonshire at 39% Yes,

But when I look at http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/council_and_government/councillors_politics_elections/elections_and_voting/sir_2014.aspx

I calculate the Yes% at 43 though...

Quite a big difference as Jo losing her seat is important for my p&l - 43% Yes makes me feel very comfortable whereas 39% is a bit sketchy.

Ave_it

Jo Swinson is a long way up the road - cheerio!

MP_SE

SeanT said:

Don't think I will ever forget the moment, on pb, when antifrank patiently and logically produced his rough reckoning of the number of Rotherham-like rape and grooming victims, in the UK, in the last decade.

Two Hundred Thousand.

That was pb at its best. A clever commenter doing what no journalist has been brave or smart enough to do. Sit down, work it out, then make a cautious, informed yet astonishing estimate.

200,000

And with that, good night.

The 1,400 number was sickening enough. 200,000 is simply beyond comprehension.

I think a journalist floated a number in the tens of thousands which seemed insane. But 200,000 is something else. Then once you factor in those who committed the abuse, those who covered it up, those who chose to ignore it you are looking at a huge number of people.

I wonder if other supposedly civilised countries have had industrial scale child abuse on the scale which we potentially face here. The Roman Catholic abuse scandal had around 100,000 victims.

AndyJS

So 200,000 grooming victims, and 135,000 FGM victims.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/07/135000-fgm-survivors-uk-says-new-study

MP_SE said:

SeanT said:

Don't think I will ever forget the moment, on pb, when antifrank patiently and logically produced his rough reckoning of the number of Rotherham-like rape and grooming victims, in the UK, in the last decade.

Two Hundred Thousand.

That was pb at its best. A clever commenter doing what no journalist has been brave or smart enough to do. Sit down, work it out, then make a cautious, informed yet astonishing estimate.

200,000

And with that, good night.

The 1,400 number was sickening enough. 200,000 is simply beyond comprehension.

I think a journalist floated a number in the tens of thousands which seemed insane. But 200,000 is something else. Then once you factor in those who committed the abuse, those who covered it up, those who chose to ignore it you are looking at a huge number of people.

I wonder if other supposedly civilised countries have had industrial scale child abuse on the scale which we potentially face here. The Roman Catholic abuse scandal had around 100,000 victims.

AndyJS

We're number 5 in the world in terms of military power according to this:

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-10-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world/6/

MP_SE

AndyJS said:

So 200,000 grooming victims, and 135,000 FGM victims.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/07/135000-fgm-survivors-uk-says-new-study

MP_SE said:

SeanT said:

Don't think I will ever forget the moment, on pb, when antifrank patiently and logically produced his rough reckoning of the number of Rotherham-like rape and grooming victims, in the UK, in the last decade.

Two Hundred Thousand.

That was pb at its best. A clever commenter doing what no journalist has been brave or smart enough to do. Sit down, work it out, then make a cautious, informed yet astonishing estimate.

200,000

And with that, good night.

The 1,400 number was sickening enough. 200,000 is simply beyond comprehension.

I think a journalist floated a number in the tens of thousands which seemed insane. But 200,000 is something else. Then once you factor in those who committed the abuse, those who covered it up, those who chose to ignore it you are looking at a huge number of people.

I wonder if other supposedly civilised countries have had industrial scale child abuse on the scale which we potentially face here. The Roman Catholic abuse scandal had around 100,000 victims.

As someone has mentioned previously, lengthy sentences to those involved, would quickly reduce the number of victims. It would be almost impossible for the parents to be unaware their child has been the victim of FGM. At the very least they have demonstrated that they are unfit to look after the child and it should be removed from them.

At least the issue of FGM is getting media attention, albeit many years too late. I won't hold my breath for the first successful prosecution. I wouldn't be suprised if we see a token one this year.

AndyJS said:

We're number 5 in the world in terms of military power according to this:

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-10-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world/6/

America's military budget is obscene. I think if you add up every other country's budget it still won't come close to America's.

Dair

SeanT said:

fpt for Viewcode (and goodnight from me)

But Dair was trying to claim that the UK is an insignificant power, some kind of drizzly Finland, or mistier Gabon. This is ridiculous, when the UK is (however temporarily) the 5th largest economy in in the world. Because all power springs, in the end, from economic wealth (no matter how many nukes the Soviets had, they still went bust).

On the narrower point of military force, I'm still not sure I agree. The UK is diminished, but this is because other powers are rising, we are not absolutely declining: the UK is, still, about 4th, 5th or 6th in the world in terms of defense spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Which makes us about 5th in the world in military power. i.e. We cannot come close to matching America (and, soon, China) but we are hardly a pygmy either.

What we are doing is spending our money quite badly (far too many generals and admirals). We should also be spending, probably, a little more.

What we REALLY don't need is a war with Russia. Pointless and stupid.

You seem to be making my point for me. Regardless of other considerations, the UK has around the 5th largest military budget in the world but couldn't complete a commission in Helmand, one small province of one small, backward country. Regardless of how much Britain is spending and how large the UK economy is, the only conclusion that can logically be held is that the UK is insignificant militarily.

In addition to the abject failure of Britain's attempts at power projection, it cannot even defend it's own Home interests. There is no operational naval reconnaissance aircraft in home waters allowing Russian vessels to sail merrily up the Clyde, there is no military patrol in Scottish waters AT ALL, there isn't even enough Inshore Naval force to handle customs and territorial matters.

The simple truth of the matter is that no matter how strong the UK's economy is and no matter how much of its budget it spends on materiel and personnel, it has no ability to carry on power projection but pretends that it can. It is both delusional and foolhardy to pretend otherwise.

Not to mention an act of economic madness to contemplate spending your way into such a role.

Pulpstar

More news from our hopeful in Paisley

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/revealed-what-snp-candidate-paisley-5118483#rlabs=1

Sean_F

Dair said:

SeanT said:

fpt for Viewcode (and goodnight from me)

But Dair was trying to claim that the UK is an insignificant power, some kind of drizzly Finland, or mistier Gabon. This is ridiculous, when the UK is (however temporarily) the 5th largest economy in in the world. Because all power springs, in the end, from economic wealth (no matter how many nukes the Soviets had, they still went bust).

On the narrower point of military force, I'm still not sure I agree. The UK is diminished, but this is because other powers are rising, we are not absolutely declining: the UK is, still, about 4th, 5th or 6th in the world in terms of defense spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Which makes us about 5th in the world in military power. i.e. We cannot come close to matching America (and, soon, China) but we are hardly a pygmy either.

What we are doing is spending our money quite badly (far too many generals and admirals). We should also be spending, probably, a little more.

What we REALLY don't need is a war with Russia. Pointless and stupid.

You seem to be making my point for me. Regardless of other considerations, the UK has around the 5th largest military budget in the world but couldn't complete a commission in Helmand, one small province of one small, backward country. Regardless of how much Britain is spending and how large the UK economy is, the only conclusion that can logically be held is that the UK is insignificant militarily.

In addition to the abject failure of Britain's attempts at power projection, it cannot even defend it's own Home interests. There is no operational naval reconnaissance aircraft in home waters allowing Russian vessels to sail merrily up the Clyde, there is no military patrol in Scottish waters AT ALL, there isn't even enough Inshore Naval force to handle customs and territorial matters.

The simple truth of the matter is that no matter how strong the UK's economy is and no matter how much of its budget it spends on materiel and personnel, it has no ability to carry on power projection but pretends that it can. It is both delusional and foolhardy to pretend otherwise.

Not to mention an act of economic madness to contemplate spending your way into such a role.

Given that we were much poorer in the 1950's than today, but had much bigger armed forces, it shouldn't be too difficult to fund adequate an adequate military, if we so choose.

AndyJS

Pulpstar said:

More news from our hopeful in Paisley

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/revealed-what-snp-candidate-paisley-5118483#rlabs=1

I think the more she's attacked the more likely she is to depose Alexander on election day.

Dair

Pulpstar said:

More news from our hopeful in Paisley

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/revealed-what-snp-candidate-paisley-5118483#rlabs=1

They've pretty much burnt their powder three months out. Personally I don't see any reason why the average man in the street would find the actual comments she's made anything out of the ordinary or objectionabble, although the press have tried their best to manipulate it.

She said she controlled herself to not stick the nut on the Labourites. It gets reported as she wanted to assault them. Only concern I actually have is the SNP might cave as they have done on a few issues recently.

scotslass

Pulpstar

Yes it was six years ago ie when she was 14! Think back to what you were doing or saying at that age. How pathetic of The Record to run it since it appeared in The Sun yesterday and how pathetic of you to retweet it on this blog.The laddish attacks on this young women are misogyny pure and simple.

If the Record had any self awareness they would realise it. But they are now a totally lost cause and a paper with no purpose than to promote the Blairite warmonger Murphy. Thankfully they will go down together. As for you then I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Pulpstar

I can't find any tweets like this on her account - I assume the Daily Record is a big Scottish Labour supporting paper trying to do a hatchet job on her to save wee Dougie ?

Pulpstar

scotslass said:

Pulpstar

Yes it was six years ago ie when she was 14! Think back to what you were doing or saying at that age. How pathetic of The Record to run it since it appeared in The Sun yesterday and how pathetic of you to retweet it on this blog.The laddish attacks on this young women are misogyny pure and simple.

If the Record had any self awareness they would realise it. But they are now a totally lost cause and a paper with no purpose than to promote the Blairite warmonger Murphy. Thankfully they will go down together. As for you then I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm backing her and hope she wins !

viewcode

SeanT said:

fpt for Viewcode (and goodnight from me)

But Dair was trying to claim that the UK is an insignificant power, some kind of drizzly Finland, or mistier Gabon. This is ridiculous, when the UK is (however temporarily) the 5th largest economy in in the world. Because all power springs, in the end, from economic wealth (no matter how many nukes the Soviets had, they still went bust).

Economic wealth is usually a necessary precondition for military power, but it's not sufficient. And come to think of it, sometimes it's not even necessary: I'm sure we can both think of examples.

SeanT said:

On the narrower point of military force, I'm still not sure I agree. The UK is diminished, but this is because other powers are rising, we are not absolutely declining: the UK is, still, about 4th, 5th or 6th in the world in terms of defense spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures.

Again, this is a mercantile point. Men with guns are not frightened by bank statements.

SeanT said:

Which makes us about 5th in the world in military power. i.e. We cannot come close to matching America (and, soon, China) but we are hardly a pygmy either. What we are doing is spending our money quite badly (far too many generals and admirals). We should also be spending, probably, a little more.

Agreed.

SeanT said:

What we REALLY don't need is a war with Russia. Pointless and stupid.

I agree that we do not need a war with Russia, I agree that it would be pointless and stupid. Unfortunately, I think Putin does not agree with us...

Dair

Sean_F said:

Dair said:

SeanT said:

fpt for Viewcode (and goodnight from me)

But Dair was trying to claim that the UK is an insignificant power, some kind of drizzly Finland, or mistier Gabon. This is ridiculous, when the UK is (however temporarily) the 5th largest economy in in the world. Because all power springs, in the end, from economic wealth (no matter how many nukes the Soviets had, they still went bust).

On the narrower point of military force, I'm still not sure I agree. The UK is diminished, but this is because other powers are rising, we are not absolutely declining: the UK is, still, about 4th, 5th or 6th in the world in terms of defense spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Which makes us about 5th in the world in military power. i.e. We cannot come close to matching America (and, soon, China) but we are hardly a pygmy either.

What we are doing is spending our money quite badly (far too many generals and admirals). We should also be spending, probably, a little more.

What we REALLY don't need is a war with Russia. Pointless and stupid.

You seem to be making my point for me. Regardless of other considerations, the UK has around the 5th largest military budget in the world but couldn't complete a commission in Helmand, one small province of one small, backward country. Regardless of how much Britain is spending and how large the UK economy is, the only conclusion that can logically be held is that the UK is insignificant militarily.

In addition to the abject failure of Britain's attempts at power projection, it cannot even defend it's own Home interests. There is no operational naval reconnaissance aircraft in home waters allowing Russian vessels to sail merrily up the Clyde, there is no military patrol in Scottish waters AT ALL, there isn't even enough Inshore Naval force to handle customs and territorial matters.

The simple truth of the matter is that no matter how strong the UK's economy is and no matter how much of its budget it spends on materiel and personnel, it has no ability to carry on power projection but pretends that it can. It is both delusional and foolhardy to pretend otherwise.

Not to mention an act of economic madness to contemplate spending your way into such a role.

Given that we were much poorer in the 1950's than today, but had much bigger armed forces, it shouldn't be too difficult to fund adequate an adequate military, if we so choose.

We were also spending considerably more as a percentage of GDP. Remember those figures that showed One Half to Two Thirds of Scotland's GDP was being extracted annually, I would suspect this was primarily to fund the Armed Forces, likely similar wealth was being stolen from other parts of the country.

Dair

Pulpstar said:

scotslass said:

Pulpstar

Yes it was six years ago ie when she was 14! Think back to what you were doing or saying at that age. How pathetic of The Record to run it since it appeared in The Sun yesterday and how pathetic of you to retweet it on this blog.The laddish attacks on this young women are misogyny pure and simple.

If the Record had any self awareness they would realise it. But they are now a totally lost cause and a paper with no purpose than to promote the Blairite warmonger Murphy. Thankfully they will go down together. As for you then I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm backing her and hope she wins !

I wonder how the Independent Press Standards Organisation would view using comments made when under the age of 16 without consent?

Floater

POEWAS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11396969/Fifteen-of-Tony-Blairs-business-backers-go-cool-on-Ed-Miliband.html

Pulpstar

Dair said:

Pulpstar said:

scotslass said:

Pulpstar

Yes it was six years ago ie when she was 14! Think back to what you were doing or saying at that age. How pathetic of The Record to run it since it appeared in The Sun yesterday and how pathetic of you to retweet it on this blog.The laddish attacks on this young women are misogyny pure and simple.

If the Record had any self awareness they would realise it. But they are now a totally lost cause and a paper with no purpose than to promote the Blairite warmonger Murphy. Thankfully they will go down together. As for you then I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm backing her and hope she wins !

I wonder how the Independent Press Standards Organisation would view using comments made when under the age of 16 without consent?

I think two hatchet articles in two days will be seen for what they are tbh, Dougie at evens doesn't tempt me one bit.

Pulpstar

Candidate yet to be selected for Coatbridge.

Smarmeron

@SeanT
Nuclear weapons are a great leveller though?....literally.

AndyJS

SeanT said:

MP_SE said:

SeanT said:

Don't think I will ever forget the moment, on pb, when antifrank patiently and logically produced his rough reckoning of the number of Rotherham-like rape and grooming victims, in the UK, in the last decade.

Two Hundred Thousand.

That was pb at its best. A clever commenter doing what no journalist has been brave or smart enough to do. Sit down, work it out, then make a cautious, informed yet astonishing estimate.

200,000

And with that, good night.

The 1,400 number was sickening enough. 200,000 is simply beyond comprehension.

I think a journalist floated a number in the tens of thousands which seemed insane. But 200,000 is something else. Then once you factor in those who committed the abuse, those who covered it up, those who chose to ignore it you are looking at a huge number of people.

I wonder if other supposedly civilised countries have had industrial scale child abuse on the scale which we potentially face here. The Roman Catholic abuse scandal had around 100,000 victims.

Indeed. To get some scale for the estimated 200,000 potential victims of Rotherham-style gang rape/grooming in the last decade, it's interesting to look at other, similar atrocities: during the Red Army's orgy of rape, as the Soviets advanced on Berlin, it is estimated that maybe 2 million German women suffered. Ten times as many as in Britain's Rotherdammerung.

However, another war notorious for sexual violence, the Bosnian war, produced "just" 20,000-50,000 rapes. At most a quarter as many victims as in the UK.

So what happened in Britain in the last decade, in terms of sexual crime, is somewhere between the Bosnian civil war, and the apocalypse that was the end of Nazi Germany.

And what have the elite been doing during this time? Holding a lot of navel-gazing public inquiries, some of which have gone on so long the members have died before they've been completed.

Smarmeron

@AndyJS

Lessons will be learned, and mistakes will be corrected.
Same as they were when this was written
http://www.nickdavies.net/1998/04/01/the-sheer-scale-of-child-sexual-abuse-in-britain/
1998.

Alistair

Sean_F said:

Dair said:

SeanT said:

fpt for Viewcode (and goodnight from me)

But Dair was trying to claim that the UK is an insignificant power, some kind of drizzly Finland, or mistier Gabon. This is ridiculous, when the UK is (however temporarily) the 5th largest economy in in the world. Because all power springs, in the end, from economic wealth (no matter how many nukes the Soviets had, they still went bust).

On the narrower point of military force, I'm still not sure I agree. The UK is diminished, but this is because other powers are rising, we are not absolutely declining: the UK is, still, about 4th, 5th or 6th in the world in terms of defense spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Which makes us about 5th in the world in military power. i.e. We cannot come close to matching America (and, soon, China) but we are hardly a pygmy either.

What we are doing is spending our money quite badly (far too many generals and admirals). We should also be spending, probably, a little more.

What we REALLY don't need is a war with Russia. Pointless and stupid.

You seem to be making my point for me. Regardless of other considerations, the UK has around the 5th largest military budget in the world but couldn't complete a commission in Helmand, one small province of one small, backward country. Regardless of how much Britain is spending and how large the UK economy is, the only conclusion that can logically be held is that the UK is insignificant militarily.

In addition to the abject failure of Britain's attempts at power projection, it cannot even defend it's own Home interests. There is no operational naval reconnaissance aircraft in home waters allowing Russian vessels to sail merrily up the Clyde, there is no military patrol in Scottish waters AT ALL, there isn't even enough Inshore Naval force to handle customs and territorial matters.

The simple truth of the matter is that no matter how strong the UK's economy is and no matter how much of its budget it spends on materiel and personnel, it has no ability to carry on power projection but pretends that it can. It is both delusional and foolhardy to pretend otherwise.

Not to mention an act of economic madness to contemplate spending your way into such a role.

Given that we were much poorer in the 1950's than today, but had much bigger armed forces, it shouldn't be too difficult to fund adequate an adequate military, if we so choose.

We bankrupted ourselves trying to have that force in the 1950s