Mr Pong I'm glad I've found you, I'm hoping to back UKIP to increase their % in Oldham, what price are you offering?
See my reply last night.
Sorry, what was it?
I've never offered you a bet on UKIP vote share %
I originally suggested a bet on whether UKIP will get more than the 8892 votes they did back in May. If you want to bet on that basis, we can talk odds and stakes.
Ye?
Subject to odds I'll bet on anything - what price they beat 8892?
Mr Pong I'm glad I've found you, I'm hoping to back UKIP to increase their % in Oldham, what price are you offering?
See my reply last night.
Sorry, what was it?
I've never offered you a bet on UKIP vote share %
I originally suggested a bet on whether UKIP will get more than the 8892 votes they did back in May. If you want to bet on that basis, we can talk odds and stakes.
Ye?
Subject to odds I'll bet on anything - what price they beat 8892?
I'll be generous and offer evens, up to £25.
On more serious stakes, I'll go 4/6.
8892 was 20.9%, 43000 votes, 60% turnout. I'd estimate a 40% turnout so around 30000 votes, I'm optimistic that UKIP will poll 30% so yes I'll have £25 at evens please.
We are witnessing the impact of having a leader who has become leader through a non-orthodox route. He's never been in the (shadow) cabinet so has no concept of collective responsibility or indeed of consensus. He's never had to compromise his views to get there so I think it's hot-wired in to his character. We all know someone at work who won't go along with the majority, who's bloody awkward...the miserable old git - that's Corbyn. In a workplace environment he'd have either been sacked or pushed to the sidelines, he'd never be considered for promotion or advancement- the problem for the Labour Party is that he's in charge.
Tristram too posh for Pizza Express. Is about as likely as Cameron being a Nando's regular.
I've heard from people that Dave really does like Nandos. He's been seen in them quite a few times. Nandos is pretty tasty so it wouldn't surprise me, otoh there is no reason to like Pizza Express, there are so many good independent pizzerias all over the country that it doesn't make sense to promote a chain.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
trained in Syria.
or does the West London Shooting School have a hidden chamber?
I would've thought a lot of it is done online
You cannot train online to become a terrorist of the type that we are seeing in Europe.
I don't wish to appear flippant but training to blow yourself up seems odd. I can't begin to imagine the brainwashing that takes place.
This is a very good, if depressing and frustrating (from an SF perspective) read.
To precis, they take a number (say 30) boys and young men, who as you might expect are the most vulnerable, low-level criminality, abandoned to madrassahs, orphans, etc and of those, a dozen do not run away of their own accord nor do their parents come to get them.
Those dozen are then indoctrinated, again as you would expect, and told that the greater good is in giving their life for the cause.
Even though they are scared and continue to question this, they are too caught up in the very slick process and indoctrination that culminates in them carrying out the attacks.
Maybe that's what happens in some cases. But many of those who have chosen to attack the West come from comfortable backgrounds - like the 9/11terrorists, the doctors who tried to attack Glasgow airport, the university students who murdered Lee Rigby.
A free vote was inevitable. If JC had had to appoint a new shadow cabinet, he would have been down to Russell Brand, Jeremy Hardy and Charlotte Church to take on the portfolios. I see a problem for Cameron though. This is no longer a disciplined party of opposition. It is a rabble. It is only Monday. By Wednesday, goodness knows what this lot will have decided to vote. Many of them do not care about the RAF, our allies or whether we hand the barbarians a propaganda coup. They bear the imprint of the last person to sit on them. And that may be the backside of Len McCluskey. Mr Cameron should take care not to rely on promises from the rabble.
Deselected MPs should run as Independent Labour. I'm honestly surprised as to how easy it has been to infect the Labour party with trots and SWPers.
It would be equally easy for moderate Labour people to do the same and completely outvote the Corbynistas. But that depends on (a) there being enough of such people; and (b) them being motivated to join, get involved and stay involved.
And there's your problem right there.
What was it Yeats said?
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...."
Re Corbyn how does support break down by degree types. Is he winning over the sociologists, the English Lit students rther than those with Engineering or Medical degrees.
I'm supposed to be educated but can't stand the guy.
Mr Pong I'm glad I've found you, I'm hoping to back UKIP to increase their % in Oldham, what price are you offering?
See my reply last night.
Sorry, what was it?
I've never offered you a bet on UKIP vote share %
I originally suggested a bet on whether UKIP will get more than the 8892 votes they did back in May. If you want to bet on that basis, we can talk odds and stakes.
Ye?
Subject to odds I'll bet on anything - what price they beat 8892?
I'll be generous and offer evens, up to £25.
On more serious stakes, I'll go 4/6.
8892 was 20.9%, 43000 votes, 60% turnout. I'd estimate a 40% turnout so around 30000 votes, I'm optimistic that UKIP will poll 30% so yes I'll have £25 at evens please.
ok, excellent.
Just to confirm;
You're betting £25 @ Evens that UKIP get over than 8892 votes.
Mr Pong I'm glad I've found you, I'm hoping to back UKIP to increase their % in Oldham, what price are you offering?
See my reply last night.
Sorry, what was it?
I've never offered you a bet on UKIP vote share %
I originally suggested a bet on whether UKIP will get more than the 8892 votes they did back in May. If you want to bet on that basis, we can talk odds and stakes.
Ye?
Subject to odds I'll bet on anything - what price they beat 8892?
I'll be generous and offer evens, up to £25.
On more serious stakes, I'll go 4/6.
8892 was 20.9%, 43000 votes, 60% turnout. I'd estimate a 40% turnout so around 30000 votes, I'm optimistic that UKIP will poll 30% so yes I'll have £25 at evens please.
ok, excellent.
Just to confirm;
You're betting £25 @ Evens that UKIP get over than 8892 votes.
I was reading about when John Major won the Tory leadership in 1990, when the result came in Francis Maude gave Major a huge hug, then recoiled away in horror when it dawned on him "I'm not just hugging a member of the cabinet any more"
If I was a labour MP I would certainly vote against bombing.
The Corbynistas would leave me alone and my constituents would have forgotten in 4 years time.
What happened to integrity - any vote for or against should not be on the basis of being scared of deselection or voters will have forgotten but one of conscience, either way
@paulwaugh: As we speak, Shadow Cabinet are disputing that Corbyn can have a party position AND a free vote at the same time. This could get messy
It's new and fresh and inclusive.
But it's no way to run a political party, still less HMO.
I think it is possible for a party leader to state that he has a very personal view on a matter such as this but at the same time acknowledging that the rest of the parliamentary party has a range of differing opinions and that he is willing to let them vote according to their own consciences - just as he is doing.
If you view a vote to engage in military action as a moral choice then you can see how a party leader who happened to be a devout Catholic would take a personal stand on an abortion vote whilst leaving the rest of the MPs to make their own decisions.
Personally I don't see Corbyn's position as moral one, rather one of dogma - and so his position is weakened as a result. But in theoretical terms, I can see how a Party leader can be at odds with his or her parliamentary forces and see find a way to allow everyone to make their own decisions based on moral and political considerations.
A single-line whip is a guide to what the party's policy would indicate, and notification of when the vote is expected to take place; this is non-binding for attendance or voting.
A free vote was inevitable. If JC had had to appoint a new shadow cabinet, he would have been down to Russell Brand, Jeremy Hardy and Charlotte Church to take on the portfolios. I see a problem for Cameron though. This is no longer a disciplined party of opposition. It is a rabble. It is only Monday. By Wednesday, goodness knows what this lot will have decided to vote. Many of them do not care about the RAF, our allies or whether we hand the barbarians a propaganda coup. They bear the imprint of the last person to sit on them. And that may be the backside of Len McCluskey. Mr Cameron should take care not to rely on promises from the rabble.
Fresh tensions between the UK’s two rival Brexit referendum campaigns have emerged after the defection of a senior ‘ground campaign’ chief.
Richard Murphy, the Ground Campaign Director of Vote Leave, parted ways with the group in an alleged row over claims the group wanted to focus on digital rather than ‘on the ground’ campaigning and leafleting.
One source claimed that he was now in contact withrival Leave.eu campaign, which is bankrolled by UKIP donor Arron Banks and has a network of UKIP activists nationwide.
Labour has already lost a third of its general election support according to this report:
"Labour is losing touch with public opinion, research suggests YouGov data shows how Jeremy Corbyn’s unpopularity as leader and the changing profile of Labour voters could make the party unelectable"
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
It is the MPs who represent the voters, not the membership
Without the Commons, who is Corbyn actually leading? No-one with any mandate or real authority.
Corbyn has not played this well at all. Not in terms of securing the future of Labour as political force.
He has very probably lit the blue touch paper that will blow it up completely.
Has he personally made the democratic decision to have a free vote without consulting the membership? Whatever next?
As the chart shows, these lost Labour voters have found homes with the Conservatives, Greens, Lib Dems and Ukip, or simply don’t know how they will vote. They have been replaced by former Lib Dems or Greens, many of whom strongly approve of Corbyn (43%) but not of the Labour party (13%).
Labour has already lost a third of its general election support according to this report:
"Labour is losing touch with public opinion, research suggests YouGov data shows how Jeremy Corbyn’s unpopularity as leader and the changing profile of Labour voters could make the party unelectable"
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
But you simply cannot run a meaningful political party run by the membership. Any party like that would be utterly slaughtered at a GE.
Well, if you are a Socialist groupuscule, convinced of the rightness of your cause, of course you can believe that 250,000 people can run a party how they wish, regardless of the wishes of 9 million voters.
It's the very essence of such people to believe that the elect few know better than the ignorant many.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a metropolitan elite running the Corbynistas? Do they know about this?
@Edsbrown: Just spoke to Ken Livingstone - he says the PLP is "completely out of line" 1/
@Edsbrown: He says "they can't come to terms with the fact that the voters rejected New Labour" and activists voted in Corbyn 2/
Livingstone's problem is that he can't come to terms with the fact that the voters rejected Labour. Unlike him, the members of the PLP at least were voted in by actual voters, rather more of them, in fact, than those who voted for Corbyn.
@paulwaugh: As we speak, Shadow Cabinet are disputing that Corbyn can have a party position AND a free vote at the same time. This could get messy
It's new and fresh and inclusive.
But it's no way to run a political party, still less HMO.
I think it is possible for a party leader to state that he has a very personal view on a matter such as this but at the same time acknowledging that the rest of the parliamentary party has a range of differing opinions and that he is willing to let them vote according to their own consciences - just as he is doing.
If you view a vote to engage in military action as a moral choice then you can see how a party leader who happened to be a devout Catholic would take a personal stand on an abortion vote whilst leaving the rest of the MPs to make their own decisions.
Personally I don't see Corbyn's position as moral one, rather one of dogma - and so his position is weakened as a result. But in theoretical terms, I can see how a Party leader can be at odds with his or her parliamentary forces and see find a way to allow everyone to make their own decisions based on moral and political considerations.
couldn't agree more.
And if the message from Day 1 had been a unified response to that effect then I would agree even more than that.
But it wasn't. This episode has allowed us to see the formless, shapeless mass that the Labour Party has become in a matter of weeks. Diane Abbott, John McConnell each saying opposing things didn't give the impression they were voicing their own moral positions within a unified party structure that encouraged such debate.
It gave the impression that Lab are like cats fighting in a sack.
To make this on-topic, Corbyn's Labour reminds me of Munroe's explanation of the first-stage engines of a Saturn V rocket (using only the 1000 most common English words): "This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing towards space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today."
They want to set conditions that are unachievable so that they can say "we couldn't act".
Certainly some want that. I opposed strikes last time, I'm hemming and hawing this time, but there is a lot of the classic requesting the unachievable, or more debate and consultation - which would never be enough if they are honest about what they wAnt - to prevent action while looking morally superior in not ruling it out, while effectively, in the real world, ruling it out.
Is this not a really bad publicity for YouGov? Are they happy with this?
Erm, YouGov have nothing to do with Labour's "consultation" - it was just a bog-standard web form. The YouGov data today (via @election_data) is a proper survey.
Diane Abbott, John McConnell each saying opposing things didn't give the impression they were voicing their own moral positions within a unified party structure that encouraged such debate.
It gave the impression that Lab are like cats fighting in a sack.
I think Abbott and McIRA saying opposing things was quite deliberate and gave Corbyn wiggle room whichever way he went. I'm sure Jeremy will make it up to Diane later.
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
But you simply cannot run a meaningful political party run by the membership. Any party like that would be utterly slaughtered at a GE.
Well, if you are a Socialist groupuscule, convinced of the rightness of your cause, of course you can believe that 250,000 people can run a party how they wish, regardless of the wishes of 9 million voters.
It's the very essence of such people to believe that the elect few know better than the ignorant many.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a metropolitan elite running the Corbynistas? Do they know about this?
Er, I haven't mentioned any sort of "metropolitan elite". But there are a lot of SWP/Respect people (former) around Corbyn and acting as his advisors. I don't think such people have much regard for the views of ordinary voters.
Diane Abbott, John McConnell each saying opposing things didn't give the impression they were voicing their own moral positions within a unified party structure that encouraged such debate.
It gave the impression that Lab are like cats fighting in a sack.
The party would be better off investigating some of those close to Clarke in YBF and CWF, who haven't been adverse to a bit of bullying themselves in the past, who are now trying to portray themselves as Clarke's victims.
Aggressive and nasty behaviour was not confined to Clarke, but these are very litigious people.
I'm puzzled why the Tories would only drop from 19% to 14% in Oldham West when the equivalent figures in Heywood & Middleton were 27% and 12%.
Is not enough being made of the Heywood precedent, and too much being made of the alleged ethnic bloc vote? Miliband > Corbyn for a lot of these voters too.
A free vote was inevitable. If JC had had to appoint a new shadow cabinet, he would have been down to Russell Brand, Jeremy Hardy and Charlotte Church to take on the portfolios. I see a problem for Cameron though. This is no longer a disciplined party of opposition. It is a rabble. It is only Monday. By Wednesday, goodness knows what this lot will have decided to vote. Many of them do not care about the RAF, our allies or whether we hand the barbarians a propaganda coup. They bear the imprint of the last person to sit on them. And that may be the backside of Len McCluskey. Mr Cameron should take care not to rely on promises from the rabble.
I think that those likely to vote with Cameron come from the more sensible wing of the Labour party. Cameron will be able to tell if it's a genuine slam dunk on offer.
@bbclaurak: Inside shad cab meeting I m told Corbyn is sticking to free vote but others arguing that can't work if party's policy is to be anti-strikes
@faisalislam: More intriguingly: talk of some restrictions on the ability of relevant senior shad cabinet members to argue for, if not vote for airstrikes
Comments
On more serious stakes, I'll go 4/6.
Lab 41%
UKIP 38%
Con 14%
LD 5%
twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/671262191765594113
Dough Balls sums up most of the Labour party at the moment.
tories on 14. Why on earth vote tory in this election?
@shadsy - if you're lurking, how about a u/o line on this?
I want to bet a decent amount on unders.
What a fucking shower of shit Labour has become in a few short months.
@Edsbrown: He says "they can't come to terms with the fact that the voters rejected New Labour" and activists voted in Corbyn 2/
And there's your problem right there.
What was it Yeats said?
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...."
I'm supposed to be educated but can't stand the guy.
The Corbynistas would leave me alone and my constituents would have forgotten in 4 years time.
Dear David? It should be Dear Prime Minister.
@DPJHodges: Arch Blairite George Galloway attacks Jeremy Corbyn over Syria climb-down.
EDIT: @TSE - snap
Just to confirm;
You're betting £25 @ Evens that UKIP get over than 8892 votes.
I'm betting £25 @ Evens that they don't.
Please reply to this post to confirm.
Does anyone know if PTP still lodges bets?
But it's no way to run a political party, still less HMO.
As we speak, Shadow Cabinet are disputing that Corbyn can have a party position AND a free vote at the same time. This could get messy
Uh-oh
If you view a vote to engage in military action as a moral choice then you can see how a party leader who happened to be a devout Catholic would take a personal stand on an abortion vote whilst leaving the rest of the MPs to make their own decisions.
Personally I don't see Corbyn's position as moral one, rather one of dogma - and so his position is weakened as a result. But in theoretical terms, I can see how a Party leader can be at odds with his or her parliamentary forces and see find a way to allow everyone to make their own decisions based on moral and political considerations.
For anyone wanting Christmas presents for geeks, Randall Munroe of XKCD fame has a new book out:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thing-Explainer-Complicated-Stuff-Simple/dp/1473620910
Richard Murphy, the Ground Campaign Director of Vote Leave, parted ways with the group in an alleged row over claims the group wanted to focus on digital rather than ‘on the ground’ campaigning and leafleting.
One source claimed that he was now in contact withrival Leave.eu campaign, which is bankrolled by UKIP donor Arron Banks and has a network of UKIP activists nationwide.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8680648?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK
"Labour is losing touch with public opinion, research suggests
YouGov data shows how Jeremy Corbyn’s unpopularity as leader and the changing profile of Labour voters could make the party unelectable"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2015/nov/30/labour-losing-touch-public-opinion-research-suggests?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
Even Ed Miliband was better advised.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/30/tory-mps-co-ordinated-defence-of-feldman/
And if the message from Day 1 had been a unified response to that effect then I would agree even more than that.
But it wasn't. This episode has allowed us to see the formless, shapeless mass that the Labour Party has become in a matter of weeks. Diane Abbott, John McConnell each saying opposing things didn't give the impression they were voicing their own moral positions within a unified party structure that encouraged such debate.
It gave the impression that Lab are like cats fighting in a sack.
Aggressive and nasty behaviour was not confined to Clarke, but these are very litigious people.
Brimstone missile is so advanced it can actually understand what the f**k is the Labour Party's defence policy
#BrimstoneFacts
@paulwaugh: Corbyn's new politics not working on Nicola https://t.co/BSVnHVuFl9
Come on Oldham Tories, do your stuff and Stuff Corbyn down the drain.
https://twitter.com/LeeWatersUKIP/status/671224822052032512
https://twitter.com/donnaariner/status/671334735336075264
Has the Chairman determined the Party's position yet?
To be fair, Mark Clarke has done his best to put voters off the tory brand....