All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.
Yes, all parties do believe in equality. The problem is Hattie Harman and her ilk that screamed about the golf clubs and members' clubs that separated men and women - even passing legislation to close them down if they didn't change their ways - seem perfectly happy to tolerate a meeting with the men on one side and the women on the other. In ANY other scenario she would be screaming about it, but because it's people from a certain minority then it's not just ignored but swept under the table. This attitude and double moral standards, as I said before, is what leads to the problems we saw in Rotherham, Rochdale and other cities.
Surely in an all male golf club women would not be allowed in.
Showing your ignorance...there are / were lots of golf clubs which weren't single sex, but the ladies had far less rights built into the rules of the club. They couldn't vote for certain positions on the clubs board, couldn't play at certain times, and were told where they were and weren't allowed in the clubhouse.
And it was official Labour policy to target clubs and organisations who operated in this manner, and get them to stop treating women like second class citizens.
All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.
Certainly the one that had a woman as party leader for fifteen years does. The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression, which if it was in any other circumstance, they wouldnt hesitate getting on their high horse.
If this was a ukip gathering at a golf club which did not allow full female membership, Harmon would be condemning it out of hand. Could you imagine, the women having to sit in a different part of the club house and listen to Nigel Farage because they werent full members?
Im thinking of the twitter campaigns, the hashtags.
Not sure how that photo shows us the oppression of women. Can you explain?
My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.
I'm struggling to see what the problem with a men-only debate is? We have women-only ones don't we?
I *think* the key problem is that you can't be outraged about Laboursegregationgate unless you also condemn a men-only debate tolerated by other parties. Something like that.
Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con
Current price 6.0
Why?
Because Ed is Crap.
I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.
Why is EICIPM odds on?
Because the electoral system favours Labour over the Tories.
I might do another thread on electoral reform to educate/remind PBers.
Not really. It's because the Tories have no plausible allies. The LibDems who they're busy decapitating? The SNP who they're portraying as thieves and who are bound by party policy not to support them? Unless one thinks they could polevault to a majority themselves, it's hard to see any way that Cameron can stay in office.
The people of the UK voting for the Conservatives.
Or have YOU already called the election?
He's so arrogant it is unbelievable.
Further, what does he think he can do to improve the lot of the people of Broxtowe? He prefers Scandinavia to the UK, by his own postings he has no idea how the pension system works, and at one point criticized the DVLA for selling the details of his Great Aunt, when he was part of the government that voted to enable that to happen.
Man is an egotistical idiot, God help the people of Broxtowe.
On a wider point-I am really surprised at the number of Labour MP's -Dismore etc-that had to go in 2010 because of expense scandals and yet they are back in 2015.
Even though the BBC is all over the story these people ........
Th Shadow Cabinet is the same.
Can any party have lost as badly in one election come back 5 years later with so many of the top team in-situ?
I'm surprised that a group like Round Table would invite the canditates to a hustings of their members, they're normally a charity fundraising and community action type group. I'm surprised that they didn't invite a more balanced audience. I'm not surprised that some candidates didn't like the idea of an all-men affair I'm surprised that Hattie didn't find a way to ban Round Table, Lions clubs and other such community action groups during her reign of equlity.
Lab within 7 seats of most seats or 4 more gains from Con
Current price 6.0
Why?
Because Ed is Crap.
I believe it has been mentioned/factored in.
Why is EICIPM odds on?
Because the electoral system favours Labour over the Tories.
I might do another thread on electoral reform to educate/remind PBers.
Not really. It's because the Tories have no plausible allies. The LibDems who they're busy decapitating? The SNP who they're portraying as thieves and who are bound by party policy not to support them? Unless one thinks they could polevault to a majority themselves, it's hard to see any way that Cameron can stay in office.
The people of the UK voting for the Conservatives.
Or have YOU already called the election?
He's so arrogant it is unbelievable.
Further, what does he think he can do to improve the lot of the people of Broxtowe? He prefers Scandinavia to the UK, by his own postings he has no idea how the pension system works, and at one point criticized the DVLA for selling the details of his Great Aunt, when he was part of the government that voted to enable that to happen.
Man is an egotistical idiot, God help the people of Broxtowe.
On a wider point-I am really surprised at the number of Labour MP's -Dismore etc-that had to go in 2010 because of expense scandals and yet they are back in 2015.
Even though the BBC is all over the story these people ........
Th Shadow Cabinet is the same.
Can any party have lost as badly in one election come back 5 years later with so many of the top team in-situ?
Interesting question. Here's some info on Hague's shadow cabinet for comparison.
Thing is, it's hard to compare like with like because frequently in the post-war era a defeated government loses a shedload of seats because the opposition comes through to win a majority. So by definition the shadow cabinet is pretty different simply by virtue of only including the survivors. The surprising resilience of Brown/crapness of Cameron means that there's a slighly different dynamic this time.
The Round Table? You're avin a laff. As a former round tabler myself in my youth I object to the RT getting involved in political hustings. Its a charity. You will be smearing the Womens Institute next.
I'm struggling to see what the problem with a men-only debate is? We have women-only ones don't we?
I *think* the key problem is that you can't be outraged about Laboursegregationgate unless you also condemn a men-only debate tolerated by other parties. Something like that.
Any such thing should be unacceptable to anyone who is not broken as a human being.
Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk) 03/05/2015 16:09 Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE
What's frustrating is that if it weren't for the largely unforeseen SNP surge (hat tip to Antifrank and others) we would be headed for a small Labour majority, or at worst a Lab-Lib coalition.The wisdom of a lot of commentators who have said Ed can't win would be seriously called into question. But the fact is in the fight against the Tories he's doing much better than they all said.
"Largely unforeseen"?
*cough*
As I said on this site, four days BEFORE the indyref - "following a narrow NO vote the SNP will benefit from a huge sympathy vote at the next GE, as patriotic Scots voters say a guilty sorry for voting NO"
It was quite foreseeable. I foresaw it. Apparently DavidL did, too.
You also foresaw a Yes win.
and a No win and a Yes win and a No win ........................
Greek GDP, Mark, Greek GDP.
You forgot Mark assuring us there would be no recession.
Not just assuring us. He lost a gold sovereign on that.
Possibly the most mis-judged bet in pb.com history?
I think Neil may have ended our little debate. Ho, ho.
I first read about that incident when MikeK reported here that the Green party had boycotted that hustings because all the *candidates* were male! It didnt sound right..
All Elbows point to a swing to the Tories - bearing in mind that with Yougov they were about to enter the lead when the methodology changed.
It is pretty incredible that after 5 years 'austerity' (which there wasn't) the Tories are polling (after losses to UKIP) so close to the 2010 levels.
However they need 3% more: 1.5% from Labour and 1.5% from Blue Kippers for coalition 2 to run smoothly. I think they are fully capable of getting it in the quiet of the polling booth, with the voters running scared.
Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk) 03/05/2015 16:09 Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE
You think Danczuk can win the necessary by-election?
Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk) 03/05/2015 16:09 Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE
Diverse? They are all Asian men except for Mr Danczuk!
All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.
Certainly the one that had a woman as party leader for fifteen years does. The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression, which if it was in any other circumstance, they wouldnt hesitate getting on their high horse.
If this was a ukip gathering at a golf club which did not allow full female membership, Harmon would be condemning it out of hand. Could you imagine, the women having to sit in a different part of the club house and listen to Nigel Farage because they werent full members?
Im thinking of the twitter campaigns, the hashtags.
Not sure how that photo shows us the oppression of women. Can you explain?
My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.
Did you just say that....how about whites at the front of the bus, blacks at the back..oppression?
Although not a tory I would deplore any meetings that were segregated so that men or women or whites (or coloured) were excluded solely because of that criteria.
Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk) 03/05/2015 16:09 Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE
Diverse? They are all Asian men except for Mr Danczuk!
I'm struggling to see what the problem with a men-only debate is? We have women-only ones don't we?
I *think* the key problem is that you can't be outraged about Laboursegregationgate unless you also condemn a men-only debate tolerated by other parties. Something like that.
Any such thing should be unacceptable to anyone who is not broken as a human being.
Dair, you seem very certain about these ethical principles - impressively so. I mean I'm a member of a religion that believes in divine revelation and I'm stll confused as fuck about how you manage the interaction of different moral imperatives.
I'm interested to know where you get these principles and certainties from. For example, you can derive equalities principles from the Christianity underlying a lot of British law, but contained within that strand of Christianity would be a strong respect for the views and practice of others that wouldn't make it a slam dunk to find other opinions "unacceptable" and "broken".
Or you could go the the UN declaration (which kind of flows from Rousseau et al and has more in common with continental secularism). Thing is, there's a massive tension there between Article 1 and Article 18, which between them protect gender equality and also public manifestation of relgious belief in practice and observance.
I reckon most of us roughly buy into both of those principles, but then it gets difficult to work out exactly what you do when they conflict. I don't find it straightforward to condemn anyone who gives some weight to article 18 as "broken as a human being". What's the framework that you're using that makes you so comfortable doing so?
Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk) 03/05/2015 16:09 Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE
Diverse? They are all Asian men except for Mr Danczuk!
All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.
Certainly the one that had a woman as party leader for fifteen years does. The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression, which if it was in any other circumstance, they wouldnt hesitate getting on their high horse.
If this was a ukip gathering at a golf club which did not allow full female membership, Harmon would be condemning it out of hand. Could you imagine, the women having to sit in a different part of the club house and listen to Nigel Farage because they werent full members?
Im thinking of the twitter campaigns, the hashtags.
Not sure how that photo shows us the oppression of women. Can you explain?
My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.
Did you just say that....how about whites at the front of the bus, blacks at the back..oppression?
Yes, that's oppression. In segregationist America and apartheid South Africa blacks were also denied the vote and other basic rights. I am not a fan of dividing on grounds of gender, but in the UK women enjoy the same rights as men. If they choose to sit on one side of a room it's up to them. They are there though. Unlike the Round Table event in South Thanet.
All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.
Certainly the one that had a woman as party leader for fifteen years does. The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression, which if it was in any other circumstance, they wouldnt hesitate getting on their high horse.
If this was a ukip gathering at a golf club which did not allow full female membership, Harmon would be condemning it out of hand. Could you imagine, the women having to sit in a different part of the club house and listen to Nigel Farage because they werent full members?
Im thinking of the twitter campaigns, the hashtags.
Not sure how that photo shows us the oppression of women. Can you explain?
My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.
Did you just say that....how about whites at the front of the bus, blacks at the back..oppression?
Yes, that's oppression. In segregationist America and apartheid South Africa blacks were also denied the vote and other basic rights. I am not a fan of dividing on grounds of gender, but in the UK women enjoy the same rights as men. If they choose to sit on one side of a room it's up to them. They are there though. Unlike the Round Table event in South Thanet.
If anyone wonders why I hate tribal politics please read that utter shit above.
Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk) 03/05/2015 16:09 Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE
You think Danczuk can win the necessary by-election?
So to respond to Neil and BJO I do condemn a hustings where women are banned,
All have the vote. All are entitled to hear the candidates. And all are entitled to make up their own minds as to how to vote without any fear or favour or pressure from anyone.
And in response to Surbiton, Foxnsox expressed my views perfectly.
You'd have thought they'd have managed to get that message across to the candidates involved!
As I've managed to go a whole 24 hours without expressing any outrage on the internet I wont start now.
Apologies!! Typo
It was not MEN only!!
Point is they had a women only event days later so even if this event had been a men only event it was hardly an outrage.
This type of faux outrage does no good to anyone and Scobie and Driver were booed on the night by both men and women as it came across as sanctimonious rubbish
I think Neil may have ended our little debate. Ho, ho.
I first read about that incident when MikeK reported here that the Green party had boycotted that hustings because all the *candidates* were male! It didnt sound right..
There really is nothing like exposing a bit of synthetic outrage. I salute you!
Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk) 03/05/2015 16:09 Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE
You think Danczuk can win the necessary by-election?
That man is a complete and utter bellend.
Please explain why, you were going to tell us some time ago but don't think you ever did.
All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.
Certainly the one that had a woman as party leader for fifteen years does. The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression, which if it was in any other circumstance, they wouldnt hesitate getting on their high horse.
If this was a ukip gathering at a golf club which did not allow full female membership, Harmon would be condemning it out of hand. Could you imagine, the women having to sit in a different part of the club house and listen to Nigel Farage because they werent full members?
Im thinking of the twitter campaigns, the hashtags.
Not sure how that photo shows us the oppression of women. Can you explain?
My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.
Did you just say that....how about whites at the front of the bus, blacks at the back..oppression?
Yes, that's oppression. In segregationist America and apartheid South Africa blacks were also denied the vote and other basic rights. I am not a fan of dividing on grounds of gender, but in the UK women enjoy the same rights as men. If they choose to sit on one side of a room it's up to them. They are there though. Unlike the Round Table event in South Thanet.
How about the Women's Institute event in the same town - anyone complaining about the lack of men there? Thought not.
Which would probably lead to a minority Tory government, with the Labour frontbench getting to veto as much Tory legislation as they want.
Interesting. The speculation would be that Cameron would win his first election by 6 and his second by 4 (having increased his vote share!). Thatcher won her first by 7. Then of course we had Michael Foot (but her vote share still went down!). Back in 1979 the SNP did not do terribly well did they. But at least they had 71 seats to stand in.
All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.
Certainly the one that had a woman as party leader for fifteen years does. The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression, which if it was in any other circumstance, they wouldnt hesitate getting on their high horse.
If this was a ukip gathering at a golf club which did not allow full female membership, Harmon would be condemning it out of hand. Could you imagine, the women having to sit in a different part of the club house and listen to Nigel Farage because they werent full members?
Im thinking of the twitter campaigns, the hashtags.
Not sure how that photo shows us the oppression of women. Can you explain?
My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.
Did you just say that....how about whites at the front of the bus, blacks at the back..oppression?
Yes, that's oppression. In segregationist America and apartheid South Africa blacks were also denied the vote and other basic rights. I am not a fan of dividing on grounds of gender, but in the UK women enjoy the same rights as men. If they choose to sit on one side of a room it's up to them. They are there though. Unlike the Round Table event in South Thanet.
If anyone wonders why I hate tribal politics please read that utter shit above.
Your non-tribal hatred of the left is an example to us all. Thank-you.
All our parties believe in equality of the sexes, don't they? Surely it's not just a Labour thing.
Certainly the one that had a woman as party leader for fifteen years does. The issue here, is the unwillingness to challenge female oppression, which if it was in any other circumstance, they wouldnt hesitate getting on their high horse.
If this was a ukip gathering at a golf club which did not allow full female membership, Harmon would be condemning it out of hand. Could you imagine, the women having to sit in a different part of the club house and listen to Nigel Farage because they werent full members?
Im thinking of the twitter campaigns, the hashtags.
Not sure how that photo shows us the oppression of women. Can you explain?
My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.
Did you just say that....how about whites at the front of the bus, blacks at the back..oppression?
Yes, that's oppression. In segregationist America and apartheid South Africa blacks were also denied the vote and other basic rights. I am not a fan of dividing on grounds of gender, but in the UK women enjoy the same rights as men. If they choose to sit on one side of a room it's up to them. They are there though. Unlike the Round Table event in South Thanet.
If anyone wonders why I hate tribal politics please read that utter shit above.
Your non-tribal hatred of the left is an example to us all. Thank-you.
That will be the Left I voted for until I grew up.
I don't hate them, and I bet I have engaged in more trade union activity than you have ever done, but it is the hypocrisy that gets me.
Throw a few Labour policies at me and I will point out a Glaring contradiction on each one.
Dair, you seem very certain about these ethical principles - impressively so. I mean I'm a member of a religion that believes in divine revelation and I'm stll confused as fuck about how you manage the interaction of different moral imperatives.
There is no basic difference to any moral imperative. It is a belief system much as any religion is. My belief system is based on equality and freedom. Your's isn't.
The comedy (and thanks for your ridiculousness) is where you try and embody your religious hate into law. Article 18 is a fundamentally broken basis for law. Law based on religion has no basis. It is without rigour or challenge and as such it is not law.
Currently, there's > £2,000 available to back Labour most seats with Betfair at 6.0 (or 5/1), whereas the Tories are priced at 1.20 (or 1/4) to be tops. On the basis of this huge disparity between the odds for the two parties, Betfair punters at least clearly think the Tories are set to win by a country mile ..... I would say by around 30 or more seats. Anything less than 20 seats and the inevitable uncertainty/moe, call it what you will, would force the odds to be very much closer together. Of course Betfair punters could be proved very wrong!
Currently, there's > £2,000 available to back Labour most seats with Betfair at 6.0 (or 5/1), whereas the Tories are priced at 1.20 (or 1/4) to be tops. On the basis of this huge disparity between the odds for the two parties, Betfair punters at least clearly think the Tories are set to win by a country mile ..... I would say by around 30 or more seats. Anything less than 20 seats and the inevitable uncertainty/moe, call it what you will, would force the odds to be very much closer together. Of course Betfair punters could be proved very wrong!
The other day Con Maj crashed without Con Most Seats changing. Today the reverse happened - though Con Maj is catching up a little now.
Currently, there's > £2,000 available to back Labour most seats with Betfair at 6.0 (or 5/1), whereas the Tories are priced at 1.20 (or 1/4) to be tops. On the basis of this huge disparity between the odds for the two parties, Betfair punters at least clearly think the Tories are set to win by a country mile ..... I would say by around 30 or more seats. Anything less than 20 seats and the inevitable uncertainty/moe, call it what you will, would force the odds to be very much closer together. Of course Betfair punters could be proved very wrong!
If your fractional odds were right it would be biggest bet in the history of betting
Dair, you seem very certain about these ethical principles - impressively so. I mean I'm a member of a religion that believes in divine revelation and I'm stll confused as fuck about how you manage the interaction of different moral imperatives.
There is no basic difference to any moral imperative. It is a belief system much as any religion is. My belief system is based on equality and freedom. Your's isn't.
The comedy (and thanks for your ridiculousness) is where you try and embody your religious hate into law. Article 18 is a fundamentally broken basis for law. Law based on religion has no basis. It is without rigour or challenge and as such it is not law.
OK, fair enough, so essentially you prioritise gender equality and reject freedom of religion. You seem to have gone long on the insults and short on reasons for that choice, but I'm happy to respect your beliefs. I don't quite get the bit where you throw around accusations of ridiculousness or the assertion that law cannot be based on religion (given that it has been for much of the last two millennia).
As a genuine question, do you think that law based on your belief system, i.e. equality and freedom, has any basis? It seems that you probably wouldn't based on your later comments, but I guess I find that quite surprising.
As a genuine question, do you think that law based on your belief system, i.e. equality and freedom, has any basis?
Yes.
More than any of yours.
Right. So what baseless belief system for lawmaking are you attributing to me personally? And having said, I think, that your moral imperatives are a belief system much as any religion is [I agree with this] and that law based on religion (i.e. a belief system) has no basis, where does the authority for law based on your particular belief system come from? Because on the face of it it would seem as baseless as a law developed off the back of Islam, Christianity, Jedi... or whatever.
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk) 03/05/2015 16:09 Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE
You think Danczuk can win the necessary by-election?
That man is a complete and utter bellend.
Please explain why, you were going to tell us some time ago but don't think you ever did.
It will all come out in the papers eventually. You could write a book about him and his minions in Rochdale. I have a few friends in Rochdale who are actually Labour party members who say they wouldn't urinate on him (you know the rest). Some of the stuff that has happened is mind boggling. I'll leave it at that.
The Round Table? You're avin a laff. As a former round tabler myself in my youth I object to the RT getting involved in political hustings. Its a charity. You will be smearing the Womens Institute next.
As a current Tabler I don't see the problem. Another club I belong to also facilitates open political meetings like this. The venue and the administration effort is provided equally and neutrally to all political parties as part of our efforts in the community. Seems like a very public spirited gesture rather than one to be sneered at. Its the Big Society in action.
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
Simon Danczuk (@SimonDanczuk) 03/05/2015 16:09 Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE
You think Danczuk can win the necessary by-election?
That man is a complete and utter bellend.
Please explain why, you were going to tell us some time ago but don't think you ever did.
It will all come out in the papers eventually. You could write a book about him and his minions in Rochdale. I have a few friends in Rochdale who are actually Labour party members who say they wouldn't urinate on him (you know the rest). Some of the stuff that has happened is mind boggling. I'll leave it at that.
You said all this a few months ago and nothing has come out, which with an imminent GE surely it would have done by now?
Currently, there's > £2,000 available to back Labour most seats with Betfair at 6.0 (or 5/1), whereas the Tories are priced at 1.20 (or 1/4) to be tops. On the basis of this huge disparity between the odds for the two parties, Betfair punters at least clearly think the Tories are set to win by a country mile ..... I would say by around 30 or more seats. Anything less than 20 seats and the inevitable uncertainty/moe, call it what you will, would force the odds to be very much closer together. Of course Betfair punters could be proved very wrong!
Given that the most seats is a two horse race, how can it be priced at 5/1 and 1/4. Doesn't that mean you could arb it ?
Currently, there's > £2,000 available to back Labour most seats with Betfair at 6.0 (or 5/1), whereas the Tories are priced at 1.20 (or 1/4) to be tops. On the basis of this huge disparity between the odds for the two parties, Betfair punters at least clearly think the Tories are set to win by a country mile ..... I would say by around 30 or more seats. Anything less than 20 seats and the inevitable uncertainty/moe, call it what you will, would force the odds to be very much closer together. Of course Betfair punters could be proved very wrong!
Given that the most seats is a two horse race, how can it be priced at 5/1 and 1/4. Doesn't that mean you could arb it ?
Currently, there's > £2,000 available to back Labour most seats with Betfair at 6.0 (or 5/1), whereas the Tories are priced at 1.20 (or 1/4) to be tops. On the basis of this huge disparity between the odds for the two parties, Betfair punters at least clearly think the Tories are set to win by a country mile ..... I would say by around 30 or more seats. Anything less than 20 seats and the inevitable uncertainty/moe, call it what you will, would force the odds to be very much closer together. Of course Betfair punters could be proved very wrong!
If your fractional odds were right it would be biggest bet in the history of betting
!.20 is 1/5 not 1/4 that would be 1.25 All regular users of Betfair will know that 1.01 shots get beaten quite regularly and that 1000 shots sometimes come in.
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for Gibraltarian weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted Gibraltarians in guest houses and so on.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
Tough. Religion is subservient to the law not superior to it. That's why I said you should be free within reason to act on your own principles. Breaking the law is outside of those limits. If you want to discriminate illegally then don't run a company that isn't allowed to.
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
There was a case recently in Indiana, where a pizza joint run by very Christian folks said that while they had no objection serving gays in their store, which is a simple commercial transaction, catering a gay wedding involves them directly as a facilitator of something with which they disagree vehemently.
The place closed with all the resulting outrage, but I believe has subsequently re-opened.
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
Tough. Religion is subservient to the law not superior to it. That's why I said you should be free within reason to act on your own principles. Breaking the law is outside of those limits. If you want to discriminate illegally then don't run a company that isn't allowed to.
Does that mean that a mosque should be obliged to hold a gay wedding?
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
There was a case recently in Indiana, where a pizza joint run by very Christian folks said that while they had no objection serving gays in their store, which is a simple commercial transaction, catering a gay wedding involves them directly as a facilitator of something with which they disagree vehemently.
The place closed with all the resulting outrage, but I believe has subsequently re-opened.
Frankly the happy couple should have had their gay cards revoked for asking a pizza joint to cater their wedding in the first place.
Currently, there's > £2,000 available to back Labour most seats with Betfair at 6.0 (or 5/1), whereas the Tories are priced at 1.20 (or 1/4) to be tops. On the basis of this huge disparity between the odds for the two parties, Betfair punters at least clearly think the Tories are set to win by a country mile ..... I would say by around 30 or more seats. Anything less than 20 seats and the inevitable uncertainty/moe, call it what you will, would force the odds to be very much closer together. Of course Betfair punters could be proved very wrong!
Given that the most seats is a two horse race, how can it be priced at 5/1 and 1/4. Doesn't that mean you could arb it ?
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
Tough. Religion is subservient to the law not superior to it. That's why I said you should be free within reason to act on your own principles. Breaking the law is outside of those limits. If you want to discriminate illegally then don't run a company that isn't allowed to.
Does that mean that a mosque should be obliged to hold a gay wedding?
Should the Catholic church be obliged to ordain female priests?
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
Tough. Religion is subservient to the law not superior to it. That's why I said you should be free within reason to act on your own principles. Breaking the law is outside of those limits. If you want to discriminate illegally then don't run a company that isn't allowed to.
Does that mean that a mosque should be obliged to hold a gay wedding?
I fail to see why not. But religions are allowed to discriminate on this. Should guest houses be allowed to say no blacks? Should churches or mosques be allowed to ban interracial weddings?
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
There was a case recently in Indiana, where a pizza joint run by very Christian folks said that while they had no objection serving gays in their store, which is a simple commercial transaction, catering a gay wedding involves them directly as a facilitator of something with which they disagree vehemently.
The place closed with all the resulting outrage, but I believe has subsequently re-opened.
Frankly the happy couple should have had their gay cards revoked for asking a pizza joint to cater their wedding in the first place.
It was the legal point rather than the tastes of the hypothetical couple which was at issue.
This was not really a statement by the pizza joint owners, but they were essentially trapped by a series of hypothetical questions from a reporter. They just wanted to be left alone to run their business.
Comments
And it was official Labour policy to target clubs and organisations who operated in this manner, and get them to stop treating women like second class citizens.
Tory win by 4% on Thursday.
My guess is that politicians from all major parties have addressed similar meetings. And that's probably why no-one is screaming blue murder.
Even though the BBC is all over the story these people ........
Th Shadow Cabinet is the same.
Can any party have lost as badly in one election come back 5 years later with so many of the top team in-situ?
I'm surprised that they didn't invite a more balanced audience.
I'm not surprised that some candidates didn't like the idea of an all-men affair
I'm surprised that Hattie didn't find a way to ban Round Table, Lions clubs and other such community action groups during her reign of equlity.
Night all. Don't forget, it's countdown to EICIPM probably a few days after the GE.
The Tories won't be averse to EV4EL/FFA if the detail is right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Cabinet_of_William_Hague
Thing is, it's hard to compare like with like because frequently in the post-war era a defeated government loses a shedload of seats because the opposition comes through to win a majority. So by definition the shadow cabinet is pretty different simply by virtue of only including the survivors. The surprising resilience of Brown/crapness of Cameron means that there's a slighly different dynamic this time.
He intended to go anyway, and it might be wise if another election is due soon?
As a former round tabler myself in my youth I object to the RT getting involved in political hustings. Its a charity. You will be smearing the Womens Institute next.
03/05/2015 16:09
Such a diverse political culture in #Rochdale - does make elections fun as this rally today shows! pic.twitter.com/Mcrwbx0BUE
Possibly the most mis-judged bet in pb.com history?
It is pretty incredible that after 5 years 'austerity' (which there wasn't) the Tories are polling (after losses to UKIP) so close to the 2010 levels.
However they need 3% more: 1.5% from Labour and 1.5% from Blue Kippers for coalition 2 to run smoothly. I think they are fully capable of getting it in the quiet of the polling booth, with the voters running scared.
Out of interest how is the canvassing going?
i had a day off today and took my youngest to The Wing-the newly opened battle of Britain visitor centre at Capel-le Ferne near Dover.
(Amazing-so if you are heading to the Continent in the summer come an hour or two earlier and visit!)
Back out tomorrow for a bit.
Still cant tell if Farage will be my MP on Friday-heart says we are catching up but head says we had too much to make up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3051977/Anger-anti-racism-rally-banned-white-people-attending.html
Not sure what the Round Table are getting involved in this in the first place, but hustings should be open to all.
It was NOT women only.
As Mackinlay pointed out they were all due to appear at a WI event the week after.
Feel free to express your outrage here:_
Is an odd election, the public really don't seem engaged in the way they have been in the past.
Very few posters up for any party is a prime example.
https://twitter.com/CJTerry/status/594995904869957632
I'm interested to know where you get these principles and certainties from. For example, you can derive equalities principles from the Christianity underlying a lot of British law, but contained within that strand of Christianity would be a strong respect for the views and practice of others that wouldn't make it a slam dunk to find other opinions "unacceptable" and "broken".
Or you could go the the UN declaration (which kind of flows from Rousseau et al and has more in common with continental secularism). Thing is, there's a massive tension there between Article 1 and Article 18, which between them protect gender equality and also public manifestation of relgious belief in practice and observance.
I reckon most of us roughly buy into both of those principles, but then it gets difficult to work out exactly what you do when they conflict. I don't find it straightforward to condemn anyone who gives some weight to article 18 as "broken as a human being". What's the framework that you're using that makes you so comfortable doing so?
You'd have thought they'd have managed to get that message across to the candidates involved!
As I've managed to go a whole 24 hours without expressing any outrage on the internet I wont start now.
All my profit from now sold EICIPM is now on Lab most seats so its B/E at worst massive gain (in my terms) if LAB most seats
What a mug.
03/05/2015 23:32
Fresh voting fraud in scandal-hit borough of Tower Hamlets tgr.ph/1bT2kmr
So to respond to Neil and BJO I do condemn a hustings where women are banned,
All have the vote. All are entitled to hear the candidates. And all are entitled to make up their own minds as to how to vote without any fear or favour or pressure from anyone.
And in response to Surbiton, Foxnsox expressed my views perfectly.
Good night all.
It was not MEN only!!
Point is they had a women only event days later so even if this event had been a men only event it was hardly an outrage.
This type of faux outrage does no good to anyone and Scobie and Driver were booed on the night by both men and women as it came across as sanctimonious rubbish
Thatcher won her first by 7. Then of course we had Michael Foot (but her vote share still went down!).
Back in 1979 the SNP did not do terribly well did they. But at least they had 71 seats to stand in.
I don't hate them, and I bet I have engaged in more trade union activity than you have ever done, but it is the hypocrisy that gets me.
Throw a few Labour policies at me and I will point out a Glaring contradiction on each one.
The comedy (and thanks for your ridiculousness) is where you try and embody your religious hate into law. Article 18 is a fundamentally broken basis for law. Law based on religion has no basis. It is without rigour or challenge and as such it is not law.
Can`t blame the online polls for that!
On the basis of this huge disparity between the odds for the two parties, Betfair punters at least clearly think the Tories are set to win by a country mile ..... I would say by around 30 or more seats. Anything less than 20 seats and the inevitable uncertainty/moe, call it what you will, would force the odds to be very much closer together.
Of course Betfair punters could be proved very wrong!
All very curious.
As a genuine question, do you think that law based on your belief system, i.e. equality and freedom, has any basis? It seems that you probably wouldn't based on your later comments, but I guess I find that quite surprising.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
But you are leaving yourselves open to widespread ridicule if it all goes horribly wrong.
Anyway, I have sleeping to do. Thanks for the enlightening discussion.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
'Tories and UKIP, I am not surprised. But the Lib Dems under Clegg have now become Tory pr0stitutes. Pathetic !'
Any particular reason why as the day has progressed your posts have become more & more frantic and every sentence needs an exclamation mark?
Is it Ed's Duffy / Elvis moment courtesy of his ridiculed tombstone?
All regular users of Betfair will know that 1.01 shots get beaten quite regularly and that 1000 shots sometimes come in.
'You said all this a few months ago and nothing has come out, which with an imminent GE surely it would have done by now?'
Yes, but it makes him feel important.
Dave and Ed both saying "after you, Sir" on Friday could be a sight to behold!
The place closed with all the resulting outrage, but I believe has subsequently re-opened.
This was not really a statement by the pizza joint owners, but they were essentially trapped by a series of hypothetical questions from a reporter. They just wanted to be left alone to run their business.