Lets wait till Monday for the weekly update to my average daily tracking poll.
If things continue it will probably show Trump at his best position since July 31st, but most tracking polls stop publishing over the weekend, so lets wait till Monday to be sure.
Mr. G, it's difficult now. Things will likely come to a head in the nearish future. On the plus side, I've got the trilogy lined up (book 1 done, book 2 almost done, about 1/4 into draft 1 of book 3) plus one completed and one roughly half-completed sequel to Sir Edric, so if things are even so-so I can churn out new novels yearly until the next election.
It's tough, though.
I did have work writing something else [don't want to go into detail, it was just boring news stuff] on a part-time basis but that folded for technical reasons. Ironically, the only area I'm exceeding expectations is gambling. My total funds in accounts have roughly tripled since 2009, and that's with the initial deposits long since withdrawn. Small sums, alas, but there we are.
[I might shove together a beginner's guide to F1 betting to self-publish, if I have the time].
Don't be fooled by Mr. T's success. It's very difficult, especially with sci-fi/fantasy (which are still seen as niche genres) to make anything approaching a living.
Anyway, got a story in a fantasy anthology early next year, and one of the other contributors (Adrian Tchaikovsky[sp]) recently won an award, so that (and a few other pretty big names) should help sales, and I'm hoping that, in turn, will help drive readers from that to Kingdom Asunder, which should be out late this year/early next.
Ahem, I apologise for banging on about this. I think a bit of self-promotion is ok, but I don't want to go overboard, so I'll stop rambling about this [and confine my rambling to F1]. The pre-race piece is mostly done, but the markets are still half asleep.
Writing unless you are very lucky is a crap way of earning a living. A very, very small minority of authors make it big time and a small few, like our own Mr. T., make a good living. However, most do not. I did a text book some years ago and according to Oxford University Press, who published the thing it, it sold much better than their expectations - they even came back to me for a second edition. I got paid 50p per copy sold with no minimum sale.
I'd have been financially much better off stacking shelves at Tescos instead of spending those hours researching and writing. The trick I am told is to use the book, especially a non-fiction book, as leverage for paid speaking gigs and the like, but like Mr. D, I hated doing the self-publicity guff. When OUP came to me for a third edition I told them I wasn't interested.
On topic, it's very difficult to read. Is the opposition to Corbyn more widespread than last year or just noisier? The electorate has changed so much and the nature of the campaign is so different that it's very hard to tell.
We know that the CLP nominations ran heavily for
My guess is that Corbyn will win with about 55% of the vote but I wouldn't rule out him losing and I wouldn't rule out a 60%+ share.
hard to believe there can be enough silly people that would give 45% of vote to Smith, he is so dire and has nothing to add to debate, he just says "I agree with Jeremty"
He's a stalking horse. If / when he fails then he can be forced out and someone with a bit of experience can take over, with the far left being kept off the ballot.
If Smith wins it will be narrowly and only because he ran on a Corbynlite platform, having the endorsement of MPs and members Smith would then certainly lead Labour into the next general election regardless of what happens and if Labour lose again that would be the time for Chuka Umunna and Dan Jarvis etc to put their hats into the ring
I haven't seen or heard or read anything that has changed my opinion of a Corbyn victory by a margin of 2-1 over Smith, something that I have held since the beginning.
Smith has done a terrible campaign, really bad debate performances, his own campaign is starting to admit defeat (though they are keeping the line of "it's closer that you think").
The 34% of Labour voters who don't think Corbyn told the truth about Trains and the 29% who say May is a better PM are probably close to what Smith is going to get.
The last poll of 2015 Labour voters by BMG a few weeks ago had Corbyn ahead of Smith by just 51% to 49%, if that is reflected in the membership then it is too close to call
Unrealistic, current Labour voters in that same poll give it 66-34 for Corbyn and members tend to be more left wing than voters.
Smith's own campaign posted that in order for them to win even by the slimmest of margins they would need more than 60% of the registered supporters and trade unionists, it's more likely that Corbyn gets that than Smith.
Where do you get those figures from? In any case Labour members voting will be pre January members many of whom will have campaigned for Blair and Brown in the past and will be more rightwing than many voting for Corbyn led Labour. Turnout of registered supporters may also be lower due to the £25 fee and some will have been signed up by 'Save Labour' to back Smith
Didn't think SeanT could be so wise, this is what he said to nick. If you win re-election but Scotland is lost then you'll be an MP for about a year.
Every single Labour MP or PPC should be in Scotland, campaigning, every week. Shadow ministers should be there passionately persuading the Scots the good reasons to stay, on a daily basis. Labour should be pouring money and energy into defeating the SNP in September, because it is Labour voters that will swing this plebiscite. Yet you don't do this. It is quite bizarre.
If you win or lose the GE in 2015 you can shrug your shoulders and look forward to a rematch in 2020. If you lose Scotland, you are permanently crippled.
Presently Labour is doing even worse in Scotland than the UK as a whole, Scotland only has use for Labour now in terms of a deal with the SNP but even that is not greatly beneficial to them considering it scares voters in England
If they dump Kezia and support Independence they have a great chance of coming back. Whether they have enough brain power to work it out is debatable though.
Surely their opposition to independence is one of the few things that makes them at all relevant? What's the point of a party that mirrors the policy of another one but has far less support?
It's much too late now but they could have carved out a position as THE Devo Max party with a credible position on maximum powers for Scotland within the Union, reflecting the stated views ofp them).
I'd agree with that. But that's why they need to stick as a pro-Union (of some nature) party. With the SNP now camped firmly on the left, and the Greens also as a left-wing pro-independence party, there's no space for Labour to fill. There is, however, space for a pro-Union uestion) and backing the Tories (which makes them disliked).
Scottish Labour dropped to third place on the basis of the List Vote last May , but still held second place on the constituency votes. Labour would probably have performed a bit better had it been a Westminster election - say circa 25% - and the SNP somewhat worse .
The Scottish Tories won more constituency seats though than Scottish Labour
Indeed so - but Labour did manage to win three seats when most commentators had predicted none at all!
Mr. G, it's difficult now. Things will likely come to a head in the nearish future. On the plus side, I've got the trilogy lined up (book 1 done, book 2 almost done, about 1/4 into draft 1 of book 3) plus one completed and one roughly half-completed sequel to Sir Edric, so if things are even so-so I can churn out new novels yearly until the next election.
It's tough, though.
I did have work writing something else [don't want to go into detail, it was just boring news stuff] on a part-time basis but that folded for technical reasons. Ironically, the only area I'm exceeding expectations is gambling. My total funds in accounts have roughly tripled since 2009, and that's with the initial deposits long since withdrawn. Small sums, alas, but there we are.
[I might shove together a beginner's guide to F1 betting to self-publish, if I have the time].
Don't be fooled by Mr. T's success. It's very difficult, especially with sci-fi/fantasy (which are still seen as niche genres) to make anything approaching a living.
Anyway, got a story in a fantasy anthology early next year, and one of the other contributors (Adrian Tchaikovsky[sp]) recently won an award, so that (and a few other pretty big names) should help sales, and I'm hoping that, in turn, will help drive readers from that to Kingdom Asunder, which should be out late this year/early next.
Ahem, I apologise for banging on about this. I think a bit of self-promotion is ok, but I don't want to go overboard, so I'll stop rambling about this [and confine my rambling to F1]. The pre-race piece is mostly done, but the markets are still half asleep.
Writing unless you are very lucky is a crap way of earning a living. A very, very small minority of authors make it big time and a small few, like our own Mr. T., make a good living. However, most do not. I did a text book some years ago and according to Oxford University Press, who published the thing it, it sold much better than their expectations - they even came back to me for a second edition. I got paid 50p per copy sold with no minimum sale.
I'd have been financially much better off stacking shelves at Tescos instead of spending those hours researching and writing. The trick I am told is to use the book, especially a non-fiction book, as leverage for paid speaking gigs and the like, but like Mr. D, I hated doing the self-publicity guff. When OUP came to me for a third edition I told them I wasn't interested.
I admire writers greatly and kudos for trying MD, however the best way to do it is probably have a full time professional job and write in the evenings and at weekends and on holiday if you have the stamina in the hope of a bestseller to set you on your way
Where do you get those figures from? In any case Labour members voting will be pre January members many of whom will have campaigned for Blair and Brown in the past and will be more rightwing than many voting for Corbyn led Labour. Turnout of registered supporters may also be lower due to the £25 fee and some will have been signed up by 'Save Labour' to back Smith
I got the 66-34 figures from the same BMG poll. And what Smith needs from Saving Labour.
As I said, if Smith needs more than 60% of registered voters and trade unionists to win by the slimmest of margins (according to his own campaign), it's unrealistic that he has a chance.
I self-published a book, "The Littletons of Teddesley Hall", two years ago. It has just cleared a thousand pounds profit. It could have sold more but I can no longer bear posing for the obligatory photo in local newspapers, holding a copy next to my head with a cheesy grin.
I'm reasonably happy with it, but the Wehrlein bet was trickier to try and work out if it made sense or not.
Incidentally, the fastest strategy, according to Pirelli, is 2 soft tyre stints and 1 medium tyre stint.
Verstappen must hope they're wrong.
Edited extra bit: or that it rains, of course.
But a lot of people start on the crappy supersofts, so half the field will probably three-stop. There's loads of strategy options, especially for Lewis at the back, then throw in a safety car or some rain and things are well set up for a great race tomorrow.
Where do you get those figures from? In any case Labour members voting will be pre January members many of whom will have campaigned for Blair and Brown in the past and will be more rightwing than many voting for Corbyn led Labour. Turnout of registered supporters may also be lower due to the £25 fee and some will have been signed up by 'Save Labour' to back Smith
I got the 66-34 figures from the same BMG poll. And what Smith needs from Saving Labour.
As I said, if Smith needs more than 60% of registered voters and trade unionists to win by the slimmest of margins (according to his own campaign), it's unrealistic that he has a chance.
They look a bit suss given 2015 Labour voters are still on the whole voting Labour even if a few have left for the Tories or UKIP.
Smith needs to win members, who following the Court ruling will be longer standing and less pro Corbyn, as well as trade unionists, registered supporters will still most likely vote for Corbyn though Smith might narrow the gap
Who, besides Verstappen? Only the top 10 are locked into a choice. The rest will likely go soft, or, if they want to try something, medium to string out the first stint.
I self-published a book, "The Littletons of Teddesley Hall", two years ago. It has just cleared a thousand pounds profit. It could have sold more but I can no longer bear posing for the obligatory photo in local newspapers, holding a copy next to my head with a cheesy grin.
Apparently Turkey are blocking Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter again.
I wish we would block twitter.....
But what would Scott_P do instead?
Type Scottish Tory surge KLAXON every now and again.
Can't believe that prophecy actually came true.......
Well you can't be everything for everyone forever.
The time for the SNP to choose if it's a left wing or a right wing party is approaching.
I think most people are happy with a manergerial government, as long as you don't take away their freebies and don't raise their taxes the public will vite for you.
Mr. G, it's difficult now. Things will likely come to a head in the nearish future. On the plus side, I've got the trilogy lined up (book 1 done, book 2 almost done, about 1/4 into draft 1 of book 3) plus one completed and one roughly half-completed sequel to Sir Edric, so if things are even so-so I can churn out new novels yearly until the next election.
It's tough, though.
I did have work writing something else [don't want to go into detail, it was just boring news stuff] on a part-time basis but that folded for technical reasons. Ironically, the only area I'm exceeding expectations is gambling. My total funds in accounts have roughly tripled since 2009, and that's with the initial deposits long since withdrawn. Small sums, alas, but there we are.
[I might shove together a beginner's guide to F1 betting to self-publish, if I have the time].
Don't be fooled by Mr. T's success. It's very difficult, especially with sci-fi/fantasy (which are still seen as niche genres) to make anything approaching a living.
Anyway, got a story in a fantasy anthology early next year, and one of the other contributors (Adrian Tchaikovsky[sp]) recently won an award, so that (and a few other pretty big names) should help sales, and I'm hoping that, in turn, will help drive readers from that to Kingdom Asunder, which should be out late this year/early next.
Ahem, I apologise for banging on about this. I think a bit of self-promotion is ok, but I don't want to go overboard, so I'll stop rambling about this [and confine my rambling to F1]. The pre-race piece is mostly done, but the markets are still half asleep.
Writing unless you are very lucky is a crap way of earning a living. A very, very small minority of authors make it big time and a small few, like our own Mr. T., make a good living. However, most do not. I did a text book some years ago and according to Oxford University Press, who published the thing it, it sold much better than their expectations - they even came back to me for a second edition. I got paid 50p per copy sold with no minimum sale.
I'd have been financially much better off stacking shelves at Tescos instead of spending those hours researching and writing. The trick I am told is to use the book, especially a non-fiction book, as leverage for paid speaking gigs and the like, but like Mr. D, I hated doing the self-publicity guff. When OUP came to me for a third edition I told them I wasn't interested.
No one should expect to earn a living from writing, until they've really made a breakthrough. There are lots of good writers who get nowhere, and lots of others who do fairly well, but never well enough to give up the day job. And there are sadly, talentless hacks who strike gold.
No one should expect to earn a living from writing, until they've really made a breakthrough. There are lots of good writers who get nowhere, and lots of others who do fairly well, but never well enough to give up the day job. And there are sadly, talentless hacks who strike gold.
There are also hacks who invent quotes from interviews that never occurred...and get paid handsomely for it....
I did enjoy this line: "No strong opposition has been voiced against this latest move."
No shit, Sherlock. The media's been shut down or taken over if it isn't pro-Erdogan and he's suspended over a third of the judiciary for 'links' with the coup attempt.
I did enjoy this line: "No strong opposition has been voiced against this latest move."
No shit, Sherlock. The media's been shut down or taken over if it isn't pro-Erdogan and he's suspended over a third of the judiciary for 'links' with the coup attempt.
No one should expect to earn a living from writing, until they've really made a breakthrough. There are lots of good writers who get nowhere, and lots of others who do fairly well, but never well enough to give up the day job. And there are sadly, talentless hacks who strike gold.
There are also hacks who invent quotes from interviews that never occurred...and get paid handsomely for it....
No one should expect to earn a living from writing, until they've really made a breakthrough. There are lots of good writers who get nowhere, and lots of others who do fairly well, but never well enough to give up the day job. And there are sadly, talentless hacks who strike gold.
There are also hacks who invent quotes from interviews that never occurred...and get paid handsomely for it....
Met Police rolls out real-time live face-spotting tech
London’s Metropolitan Police will trial an automated facial recognition system to identify people at this weekend's Notting Hill Carnival as the government continues to drag its feet on the use of the technology.
Mr. G, it's difficult now. Things will likely come to a head in the nearish future. On the plus side, I've got the trilogy lined up (book 1 done, book 2 almost done, about 1/4 into draft 1 of book 3) plus one completed and one roughly half-completed sequel to Sir Edric, so if things are even so-so I can churn out new novels yearly until the next election.
snip
[I might shove together a beginner's guide to F1 betting to self-publish, if I have the time].
Don't be fooled by Mr. T's success. It's very difficult, especially with sci-fi/fantasy (which are still seen as niche genres) to make anything approaching a living.
Anyway, got a story in a fantasy anthology early next year, and one of the other contributors (Adrian Tchaikovsky[sp]) recently won an award, so that (and a few other pretty big names) should help sales, and I'm hoping that, in turn, will help drive readers from that to Kingdom Asunder, which should be out late this year/early next.
Ahem, I apologise for banging on about this. I think a bit of self-promotion is ok, but I don't want to go overboard, so I'll stop rambling about this [and confine my rambling to F1]. The pre-race piece is mostly done, but the markets are still half asleep.
Writing unless you are very lucky is a crap way of earning a living. A very, very small minority of authors make it big time and a small few, like our own Mr. T., make a good living. However, most do not. I did a text book some years ago and according to Oxford University Press, who published the thing it, it sold much better than their expectations - they even came back to me for a second edition. I got paid 50p per copy sold with no minimum sale.
I'd have been financially much better off stacking shelves at Tescos instead of spending those hours researching and writing. The trick I am told is to use the book, especially a non-fiction book, as leverage for paid speaking gigs and the like, but like Mr. D, I hated doing the self-publicity guff. When OUP came to me for a third edition I told them I wasn't interested.
No one should expect to earn a living from writing, until they've really made a breakthrough. There are lots of good writers who get nowhere, and lots of others who do fairly well, but never well enough to give up the day job. And there are sadly, talentless hacks who strike gold.
From Jay obit re Yes, Minister. Sounds like serious dosh 30yrs ago
"Jay said that because the BBC paid just £1,200 for each script, he and Lynn had to keep their day jobs and could not afford to write close to transmission."
On topic, it's very difficult to read. Is the opposition to Corbyn more widespread than last year or just noisier? The electorate has changed so much and the nature of the campaign is so different that it's very hard to tell.
We know that the CLP nominations ran heavily for Corbyn but how representative are they, and have some minds changed even in the few weeks since then? We know that many signed up via the Saving Labour route but how meaningful is that - to what extent is it simply reinforcing pre-existing opposition to Corbyn? How active are the unions that endorsed him in pushing his candidacy and how active are those that oppose him?
My guess is that Corbyn will win with about 55% of the vote but I wouldn't rule out him losing and I wouldn't rule out a 60%+ share.
hard to believe there can be enough silly people that would give 45% of vote to Smith, he is so dire and has nothing to add to debate, he just says "I agree with Jeremty"
He's a stalking horse. If / when he fails then he can be forced out and someone with a bit of experience can take over, with the far left being kept off the ballot.
If Smith wins it will be narrowly and only because he ran on a Corbynlite platform, having the endorsement of MPs and members Smith would then certainly lead Labour into the next general election regardless of what happens and if Labour lose again that would be the time for Chuka Umunna and Dan Jarvis etc to put their hats into the ring
I haven't seen or heard or read anything that has changed my opinion of a Corbyn victory by a margin of 2-1 over Smith, something that I have held since the beginning.
Smith has done a terrible campaign, really bad debate performances, his own campaign is starting to admit defeat (though they are keeping the line of "it's closer that you think").
The 34% of Labour voters who don't think Corbyn told the truth about Trains and the 29% who say May is a better PM are probably close to what Smith is going to get.
Smith isn't Smith. Smith is Not-Corbyn. Smith might well be useless but Corbyn is not only demonstrably useless but is content to risk wrecking his own party into the bargain, in pursuit of his 'ideals'. The worst that Smith offers is a sound defeat in 2020; Corbyn risks Labour's annihilation. It's that which is his appeal to the Labour selectorate.
I also think that Smith is capable or even likely to quit as leader fairly quickly if things go badly. Corbyn is stickier than tar.
From Jay obit re Yes, Minister. Sounds like serious dosh 30yrs ago
"Jay said that because the BBC paid just £1,200 for each script, he and Lynn had to keep their day jobs and could not afford to write close to transmission."
Met Police rolls out real-time live face-spotting tech
London’s Metropolitan Police will trial an automated facial recognition system to identify people at this weekend's Notting Hill Carnival as the government continues to drag its feet on the use of the technology.
I am not sure where you get the idea that HMG is dragging its feet on facial recognition software. When I was there the Home Office was all for it, the problem was nobody could deliver a system that actually worked in operational conditions.
In the late 1990s there was a Canadian system that was developed for casino operators and it was very good indeed. It could identify a person despite them now having gained or having lost facial hair, spectacles, hair lines etc.. It just didn't work under variable lighting conditions, as found out on the streets. There were extensive trials too in advance of and during the 2002 World Cup. Still nobody could make it work.
After that I don't know what has been happening on the technology front but I am sure the Plod and HMG would love to get their hands on a working system.
Met Police rolls out real-time live face-spotting tech
London’s Metropolitan Police will trial an automated facial recognition system to identify people at this weekend's Notting Hill Carnival as the government continues to drag its feet on the use of the technology.
I am not sure where you get the idea that HMG is dragging its feet on facial recognition software. When I was there the Home Office was all for it, the problem was nobody could deliver a system that actually worked in operational conditions.
In the late 1990s there was a Canadian system that was developed for casino operators and it was very good indeed. It could identify a person despite them now having gained or having lost facial hair, spectacles, hair lines etc.. It just didn't work under variable lighting conditions, as found out on the streets. There were extensive trials too in advance of and during the 2002 World Cup. Still nobody could make it work.
After that I don't know what has been happening on the technology front but I am sure the Plod and HMG would love to get their hands on a working system.
I didn't say that...it is a quote from the Register article.
I actually agree...also it is a big problem when you scale these things. Even fingerprints systems (that is supposed to be a more mature technology) can't cope with uniquely identify from whole populations with high levels of accuracy (even when fingerprints are taken in fairly controlled conditions, let alone ones when not ideal ones).
You only can to think about how fussy they are about passport photographs to know how facial recognition is still a far from solved problem.
Mr. G, it's difficult now. Things will likely come to a head in the nearish future. On the plus side, I've got the trilogy lined up (book 1 done, book 2 almost done, about 1/4 into draft 1 of book 3) plus one completed and one roughly half-completed sequel to Sir Edric, so if things are even so-so I can churn out new novels yearly until the next election.
snip
[I might shove together a beginner's guide to F1 betting to self-publish, if I have the time].
Don't be fooled by Mr. T's success. It's very difficult, especially with sci-fi/fantasy (which are still seen as niche genres) to make anything approaching a living.
Anyway, got a story in a fantasy anthology early next year, and one of the other contributors (Adrian Tchaikovsky[sp]) recently won an award, so that (and a few other pretty big names) should help sales, and I'm hoping that, in turn, will help drive readers from that to Kingdom Asunder, which should be out late this year/early next.
Ahem, I apologise for banging on about this. I think a bit of self-promotion is ok, but I don't want to go overboard, so I'll stop rambling about this [and confine my rambling to F1]. The pre-race piece is mostly done, but the markets are still half asleep.
Writing unless you are very lucky is a crap way of earning a living. A very, very small minority of authors make it big time and a small few, like our own Mr. T., make a good living. However, most do not. I did a text book some years ago and according to Oxford University Press, who published the thing it, it sold much better than their expectations - they even came back to me for a second edition. I got paid 50p per copy sold with no minimum sale.
I'd have been financially much better off stacking shelves at Tescos instead of spending those hours researching and writing. The trick I am told is to use the book, especially a non-fiction book, as leverage for paid speaking gigs and the like, but like Mr. D, I hated doing the self-publicity guff. When OUP came to me for a third edition I told them I wasn't interested.
No one should expect to earn a living from writing, until they've really made a breakthrough. There are lots of good writers who get nowhere, and lots of others who do fairly well, but never well enough to give up the day job. And there are sadly, talentless hacks who strike gold.
From Jay obit re Yes, Minister. Sounds like serious dosh 30yrs ago
"Jay said that because the BBC paid just £1,200 for each script, he and Lynn had to keep their day jobs and could not afford to write close to transmission."
Talking of facial recognition, I read an interesting paper the other day where they had taken photos of individuals from social media posts, built a 3d face model from them and defeated various "state of the art" recognition systems with them.
Didn't think SeanT could be so wise, this is what he said to nick. If you win re-election but Scotland is lost then you'll be an MP for about a year.
If you win or lose the GE in 2015 you can shrug your shoulders and look forward to a rematch in 2020. If you lose Scotland, you are permanently crippled.
Presently Labour is doing even worse in Scotland than the UK as a whole, Scotland only has use for Labour now in terms of a deal with the SNP but even that is not greatly beneficial to them considering it scares voters in England
If they dump Kezia and support Independence they have a great chance of coming back. Whether they have enough brain power to work it out is debatable though.
Surely their opposition to independence is one of the few things that makes them at all relevant? What's the point of a party that mirrors the policy of another one but has far less support?
It's much too late now but they could have carved out a position as THE Devo Max party with a credible position on maximum powers for Scotland within the Union, reflecting the stated views of Gordon 'Federalism' Brown. As things stand, in the post referendum more powers dickering SLab were arguing for substantially less powers than the SCons. If SLab did an about turn now they'd just look like convictionless headless chickens (not that that would necessarily stop them).
I'd agree with that. But that's why they need to stick as a pro-Union (of some nature) party. With the SNP now camped firmly on the left, and the Greens also as a left-wing pro-independence party, there's no space for Labour to fill. There is, however, space for a pro-Union left-of-centre party.
Scottish Labour's long-term problem (leaving aside their personnel and UK party troubles), is that having dropped to third, they're now stuck between backing the SNP (which makes them largely irrelevant, apart from on the independence question) and backing the Tories (which makes them disliked).
Scottish Labour dropped to third place on the basis of the List Vote last May , but still held second place on the constituency votes. Labour would probably have performed a bit better had it been a Westminster election - say circa 25% - and the SNP somewhat worse .
I appreciate that it's an unweighted subsample of 150 but YouGov's poll yesterday had the Scottish share for Westminster as
SNP 50 Con 25 Lab 12 Grn 5 LD 4 UKIP 2
Yes - but crossbreaks are unreliable and not intended to be representative. They also fluctuate widely.
Where do you get those figures from? In any case Labour members voting will be pre January members many of whom will have campaigned for Blair and Brown in the past and will be more rightwing than many voting for Corbyn led Labour. Turnout of registered supporters may also be lower due to the £25 fee and some will have been signed up by 'Save Labour' to back Smith
Best odds on Smith are now 5/1. Two weeks ago you could get 7/1. 5/1 still seems far too long. Maybe 5/1 would be right if we had a string of opinion polls out tomorrow all showing around 55%-45% to Corbyn, but given that we've been in a polling vacuum in August there isn't enough certainty to warrant odds that long.
Talking of facial recognition, I read an interesting paper the other day where they had taken photos of individuals from social media posts, built a 3d face model from them and defeated various "state of the art" recognition systems with them.
Talking of facial recognition, I read an interesting paper the other day where they had taken photos of individuals from social media posts, built a 3d face model from them and defeated various "state of the art" recognition systems with them.
On topic, it's very difficult to read. Is the opposition to Corbyn more widespread than last year or just noisier? The electorate has changed so much and the nature of the campaign is so different that it's very hard to tell.
We know that the CLP nominations ran heavily for Corbyn but ions that endorsed him in pushing his candidacy and how active are those that oppose him?
My guess is that Corbyn will win with about 55% of the vote but I wouldn't rule out him losing and I wouldn't rule out a 60%+ share.
hard to believe there can be enough silly people that would give 45% of vote to Smith, he is so dire and has nothing to add to debate, he just says "I agree with Jeremty"
He's a stalking horse. If / when he fails then he can be forced out and someone with a bit of experience can take over, with the far left being kept off the ballot.
If Smith wins it will be narrowly and only because he ran on a Corbynlite platform, having the endorsement of MPs and members Smith would then certainly lead Labour into the next general election regardless of what happens and if Labour lose again that would be the time for Chuka Umunna and Dan Jarvis etc to put their hats into the ring
Possibly so but Smith is no heavyweight - an MP of six years with badly, there'll be calls for him to go and for someone with more experience to take over.
Compared to Corbyn a mouldy cabbage would be heavyweight and Labour is not exactly full of heavyweight alternatives to Smith either which was why he was the candidate in the first place. If Smith wins he hasthe MPs vote and Brown never won the membership) Smith would be in a very powerful position.
Umunna and Jarvis would be insane to take the Labour leadership and lose to May in 2020 which is why they will let Smith do it instead. They would aim to be Cameron to Smith's Howard, having got rid of Corbyn, their IDS
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Mr. G, it's difficult now. Things will likely come to a head in the nearish future. On the plus side, I've got the trilogy lined up (book 1 done, book 2 almost done, about 1/4 into draft 1 of book 3) plus one completed and one roughly half-completed sequel to Sir Edric, so if things are even so-so I can churn out new novels yearly until the next election.
snip
[I might shove together a beginner's guide to F1 betting to self-publish, if I have the time].
Don't be fooled by Mr. T's success. It's very difficult, especially with sci-fi/fantasy (which are still seen as niche genres) to make anything approaching a living.
Anyway, got a story in a fantasy anthology early next year, and one of the other contributors (Adrian Tchaikovsky[sp]) recently won an award, so that (and a few other pretty big names) should help sales, and I'm hoping that, in turn, will help drive readers from that to Kingdom Asunder, which should be out late this year/early next.
Ahem, I apologise for banging on about this. I think a bit of self-promotion is ok, but I don't want to go overboard, so I'll stop rambling about this [and confine my rambling to F1]. The pre-race piece is mostly done, but the markets are still half asleep.
Writing unless you are very lucky is I'd have been financially much better off stacking shelves at Tescos instead of spending those hours researching and writing. The trick I am told is to use the book, especially a non-fiction book, as leverage for paid speaking gigs and the like, but like Mr. D, I hated doing the self-publicity guff. When OUP came to me for a third edition I told them I wasn't interested.
No one should expect to earn a living from writing, until they've really made a breakthrough. There are lots of good writers who get nowhere, and lots of others who do fairly well, but never well enough to give up the day job. And there are sadly, talentless hacks who strike gold.
From Jay obit re Yes, Minister. Sounds like serious dosh 30yrs ago
"Jay said that because the BBC paid just £1,200 for each script, he and Lynn had to keep their day jobs and could not afford to write close to transmission."
But how many scripts were they doing, a dozen a year? That's only seven grand each, not a lot of cash.
It bears out my point. £7k a year would have been a handy sum, thirty years ago, but not enough to live on. Hopefully, they did well from the book sales. There are undoubtedly fairly successful writers whose income from writing equates to the hourly minimum wage.
Since it's the end of August I did a tally of where the Presidential nominees have held rallies and spent on advertising, to see where their campaigns are focusing.
You can see Hillary is more focused, spends less time in public and a lot more on TV adverts, it's an old style campaign but it works. Her priority is clearly Pennsylvania.
Trump is a mile wide and an inch deep, and Florida seems to be his priority.
Since it's the end of August I did a tally of where the Presidential nominees have held rallies and spent on advertising, to see where their campaigns are focusing.
You can see Hillary is more focused, spends less time in public and a lot more on TV adverts, it's an old style campaign but it works. Her priority is clearly Pennsylvania.
Trump is a mile wide and an inch deep, and Florida seems to be his priority.
Trump can win without Pennsylvania - but not Florida.
TBH I would have thought that later advertising, concentrating on the opponent's gaffs during the campaign will be much more effective. Clinton is doing the usual socialist meme - spending other people's money until she runs out.
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Well I think that the campaign proved that Smith is worse than Corbyn on almost every front.
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Well I think that the campaign proved that Smith is worse than Corbyn on almost every front.
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do agree, though, that Corbyn will win - there is still a lot of anger aimed at the PLP and that will see him through. But his inability to do the job has been exposed to all but his most fanatical hard left supporters.
Smith's odds have come in from around 7 to 5.9 just today on Betfair. Maybe TSE isn't the only one to think these thoughts.
I think it is TSE.
The market is so light that any extra betting caused by TSE's article is enough to shift the odds.
The odds shifted well before my piece, and I'm not sure a market with nearly a million pounds matched can be called light.
It's been only a few thousand a day for weeks now, some days much less than a thousand. People seem to have lost interest in an outcome they feel is absolutely certain.
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Well I think that the campaign proved that Smith is worse than Corbyn on almost every front.
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do agree, though, that Corbyn will win - there is still a lot of anger aimed at the PLP and that will see him through. But his inability to do the job has been exposed to all but his most fanatical hard left supporters.
I don't disagree on that, since the reason I switched my support to Corbyn last year was that although he is not stellar he is definitely the least worse option from all those running.
And since he is still less worse than Smith, I still support Corbyn.
I'm asking you is Smith a better candidate that Burnham, Cooper or even Liz Kendall who lost to Corbyn last year ?
Looking at Owen Smith the answer is no. Even Kendall was better at it, even though her policies where unacceptable she did manage to present them in a manner more coherent than Smith.
Find me a candidate who in my eyes (not TSE's or OGH's) is better, not worse than Corbyn.
Since it's the end of August I did a tally of where the Presidential nominees have held rallies and spent on advertising, to see where their campaigns are focusing.
You can see Hillary is more focused, spends less time in public and a lot more on TV adverts, it's an old style campaign but it works. Her priority is clearly Pennsylvania.
Trump is a mile wide and an inch deep, and Florida seems to be his priority.
Their respective choices of where to hold rallies, though, seem to be similar and also, contrary to what some have said about Trump's campaigning, fairly standard, covering the states that the Democrats won by small percentages last election. The main conclusion I'd draw from your data is that Trump hasn't placed many ads on the TV yet. Which maybe isn't surprising given how much coverage he's had in the news programmes. As fraudster Conrad Black (no fool when it comes to the political use of the media) said,
"Trump will carpet-bomb the country in September and October with a billion dollars of reminders of Benghazi [...], the televised apology to the world’s Muslims, the FBI director’s non-indictment indictment; the malodorous conflicts of the Clinton Foundation entwined with the Clinton State Department. Even Whitewater is due for a rerun."
And that picture of Clinton being helped up the steps will lose her votes, even if, as could well be the case, it's a trick of the camera and is misleading. Certainly if enough photos are taken of someone it's usually easy to make them look trustworthy, confident, smarmy or a miserable git, according to what's desired. Seeming to need help to walk up steps is to her disadvantage, and it will be capitalised upon by an opponent who routinely calls her a "LIAR" and a "CROOK" etc. I don't have any sympathy for those who say they will vote for Trump primarily because they want to stop Clinton, but there seem to be lots of them about.
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Well I think that the campaign proved that Smith is worse than Corbyn on almost every front.
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do agree, though, that Corbyn will win - there is still a lot of anger aimed at the PLP and that will see him through. But his inability to do the job has been exposed to all but his most fanatical hard left supporters.
I don't disagree on that, since the reason I switched my support to Corbyn last year was that although he is not stellar he is definitely the least worse option from all those running.
And since he is still less worse than Smith, I still support Corbyn.
I'm asking you is Smith a better candidate that Burnham, Cooper or even Liz Kendall who lost to Corbyn last year ?
Looking at Owen Smith the answer is no. Even Kendall was better at it, even though her policies where unacceptable she did manage to present them in a manner more coherent than Smith.
Find me a candidate who in my eyes (not TSE's or OGH's) is better, not worse than Corbyn.
Where do you get those figures from? In any case Labour members voting will be pre January members many of whom will have campaigned for Blair and Brown in the past and will be more rightwing than many voting for Corbyn led Labour. Turnout of registered supporters may also be lower due to the £25 fee and some will have been signed up by 'Save Labour' to back Smith
Best odds on Smith are now 5/1. Two weeks ago you could get 7/1. 5/1 still seems far too long. Maybe 5/1 would be right if we had a string of opinion polls out tomorrow all showing around 55%-45% to Corbyn, but given that we've been in a polling vacuum in August there isn't enough certainty to warrant odds that long.
I am certainly tempted to put some money on Smith but am waiting for a members' vote first
On topic, it's very difficult to read. Is the opposition to Corbyn more widespread than last year or just noisier? The electorate has changed so much and the nature wouldn't rule out him losing and I wouldn't rule out a 60%+ share.
hard to believe there can be enough silly people that would give 45% of vote to Smith, he is so dire and has nothing to add to debate, he just says "I agree with Jeremty"
He's a stalking horse. If / when he fails then he can be forced out and someone with a bit of experience can take over, with the far left being kept off the ballot.
If Smith wins it will be narrowlto the ring
Possibly so but Smith is no heavyweight - an MP of six years with badly, there'll be calls for him to go and for someone with more experience to take over.
Compared to Corbyn a mouldy cabbage would be heavyweight and Labour is not exactly full of heavyweight alternatives to Smith either which was why he was the candidate in the first place. If Smith wins he hasthe MPs vote and Brown never won the membership) Smith would be in a very powerful position.
Umunna and Jarvis would be insane to take the Labour leadership and lose to May in 2020 which is why they will let Smith do it instead. They would aim to be Cameron to Smith's Howard, having got rid of Corbyn, their IDS
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Indeed Smith has done a fair job considering he was one of only 2 with the balls to take on Corbyn, I think it will be close but need a poll to confirm
Their respective choices of where to hold rallies, though, seem to be similar and also, contrary to what some have said about Trump's campaigning, fairly standard, covering the states that the Democrats won by small percentages last election. The main conclusion I'd draw from your data is that Trump hasn't placed many ads on the TV yet. Which maybe isn't surprising given how much coverage he's had in the news programmes. As fraudster Conrad Black (no fool when it comes to the political use of the media) said,
"Trump will carpet-bomb the country in September and October with a billion dollars of reminders of Benghazi [...], the televised apology to the world’s Muslims, the FBI director’s non-indictment indictment; the malodorous conflicts of the Clinton Foundation entwined with the Clinton State Department. Even Whitewater is due for a rerun."
And that picture of Clinton being helped up the steps will lose her votes, even if, as could well be the case, it's a trick of the camera and is misleading. Certainly if enough photos are taken of someone it's usually easy to make them look trustworthy, confident, smarmy or a miserable git, according to what's desired. Seeming to need help to walk up steps is to her disadvantage, and it will be capitalised upon by an opponent who routinely calls her a "LIAR" and a "CROOK" etc. I don't have any sympathy for those who say they will vote for Trump primarily because they want to stop Clinton, but there seem to be lots of them about.
No, I believe Trump's strategy of ignoring TV advertising is wrong, by estimation from Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group, 95% of journalists in america hate Trump.
If 95% of journalists hate your guts you are going to get 95% hostile and negative coverage from the media, the only way to counter that is A. Rallies B. Your own TV advertising message.
By doing rallies though he is exposing himself to danger through gaffes and going off message, you need discipline. By doing TV ads he can control his message by remote.
And the later he waits the more expensive it gets to get your ads on TV.
Hillary who has fought elections every 4 years since 1964 knows how to do it:
Avoid the media as much as possible. Avoid the public as much as possible. Get as many journalists, editors and producers on her payroll as possible, to make the TV shows fawn about her. Spend massively on TV ads as early as possible.
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Well I think that the campaign proved that Smith is worse than Corbyn on almost every front.
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do agree, though, that Corbyn will win - there is still a lot of anger aimed at the PLP and that will see him through. But his inability to do the job has been exposed to all but his most fanatical hard left supporters.
I don't disagree on that, since the reason I switched my support to Corbyn last year was that although he is not stellar he is definitely the least worse option from all those running.
And since he is still less worse than Smith, I still support Corbyn.
I'm asking you is Smith a better candidate that Burnham, Cooper or even Liz Kendall who lost to Corbyn last year ?
Looking at Owen Smith the answer is no. Even Kendall was better at it, even though her policies where unacceptable she did manage to present them in a manner more coherent than Smith.
Find me a candidate who in my eyes (not TSE's or OGH's) is better, not worse than Corbyn.
Kendall got just 5%, Burnham and Cooper were tainted by the Blair and Brown governments, Smith is a better candidate than all of them as he was not part of the old regimes, first entering the Labour frontbench under Ed Miliband and is not a Blairite unlike Kendall. I expect a much closer result
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Well I think that the campaign proved that Smith is worse than Corbyn on almost every front.
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do agree, though, that Corbyn will win - there is still a lot of anger aimed at the PLP and that will see him through. But his inability to do the job has been exposed to all but his most fanatical hard left supporters.
I don't disagree on that, since the reason I switched my support to Corbyn last year was that although he is not stellar he is definitely the least worse option from all those running.
And since he is still less worse than Smith, I still support Corbyn.
I'm asking you is Smith a better candidate that Burnham, Cooper or even Liz Kendall who lost to Corbyn last year ?
Looking at Owen Smith the answer is no. Even Kendall was better at it, even though her policies where unacceptable she did manage to present them in a manner more coherent than Smith.
Find me a candidate who in my eyes (not TSE's or OGH's) is better, not worse than Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper.
Switched from Cooper to Corbyn last year, try someone else.
Their respective choices of where to hold rallies, though, seem to be similar and also, contrary to what some have said about Trump's campaigning, fairly standard, covering the states that the Democrats won by small percentages last election. The main conclusion I'd draw from your data is that Trump hasn't placed many ads on the TV yet. Which maybe isn't surprising given how much coverage he's had in the news programmes. As fraudster Conrad Black (no fool when it comes to the political use of the media) said,
"Trump will carpet-bomb the country in September and October with a billion dollars of reminders of Benghazi [...], the televised apology to the world’s Muslims, the FBI director’s non-indictment indictment; the malodorous conflicts of the Clinton Foundation entwined with the Clinton State Department. Even Whitewater is due for a rerun."
And that picture of Clinton being helped up the steps will lose her votes, even if, as could well be the case, it's a trick of the camera and is misleading. Certainly if enough photos are taken of someone it's usually easy to make them look trustworthy, confident, smarmy or a miserable git, according to what's desired. Seeming to need help to walk up steps is to her disadvantage, and it will be capitalised upon by an opponent who routinely calls her a "LIAR" and a "CROOK" etc. I don't have any sympathy for those who say they will vote for Trump primarily because they want to stop Clinton, but there seem to be lots of them about.
No, I believe Trump's strategy of ignoring TV advertising is wrong, by estimation from Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group, 95% of journalists in america hate Trump.
If 95% of journalists hate your guts you are going to get 95% hostile and negative coverage from the media, the only way to counter that is A. Rallies B. Your own TV advertising message.
By doing rallies though he is exposing himself to danger through gaffes and going off message, you need discipline. By doing TV ads he can control his message by remote.
And the later he waits the more expensive it gets to get your ads on TV.
Hillary who has fought elections every 4 years since 1964 knows how to do it:
Avoid the media as much as possible. Avoid the public as much as possible. Get as many journalists, editors and producers on her payroll as possible, to make the TV shows fawn about her. Spend massively on TV ads as early as possible.
Trump will pour money into ads after labor day and then aim to beat Hillary in the debates when she will be in the full glare of the media
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Well I think that the campaign proved that Smith is worse than Corbyn on almost every front.
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do agree, though, that Corbyn will win - there is still a lot of anger aimed at the PLP and that will see him through. But his inability to do the job has been exposed to all but his most fanatical hard left supporters.
I don't disagree on that, since the reason I switched my support to Corbyn last year was that although he is not stellar he is definitely the least worse option from all those running.
And since he is still less worse than Smith, I still support Corbyn.
I'm asking you is Smith a better candidate that Burnham, Cooper or even Liz Kendall who lost to Corbyn last year ?
Looking at Owen Smith the answer is no. Even Kendall was better at it, even though her policies where unacceptable she did manage to present them in a manner more coherent than Smith.
Find me a candidate who in my eyes (not TSE's or OGH's) is better, not worse than Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper.
Switched from Cooper to Corbyn last year, try someone else.
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Well I think that the campaign proved that Smith is worse than Corbyn on almost every front.
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do agree, though, that Corbyn will win - there is still a lot of anger aimed at the PLP and that will see him through. But his inability to do the job has been exposed to all but his most fanatical hard left supporters.
I don't disagree on that, since the reason I switched my support to Corbyn last year was that although he is not stellar he is definitely the least worse option from all those running.
And since he is still less worse than Smith, I still support Corbyn.
I'm asking you is Smith a better candidate that Burnham, Cooper or even Liz Kendall who lost to Corbyn last year ?
Looking at Owen Smith the answer is no. Even Kendall was better at it, even though her policies where unacceptable she did manage to present them in a manner more coherent than Smith.
Find me a candidate who in my eyes (not TSE's or OGH's) is better, not worse than Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper.
Switched from Cooper to Corbyn last year, try someone else.
Virtually anyone on the Labour benches, including Dennis Skinner
Cooper was talking about the need to elect her because of her gender not because of her merits. Corbyn made a more persuasive case.
I believe that women and men, whites and blacks, christians or muslims should be judged equally, and not by their gender, their skin colour or their religion.
That's why although Cooper was a woman I rated Corbyn higher as a person. And that's also why I believe Chuka Umunna is as bad as Tristram Hunt, despite the fact that they have different skin colour.
And Smith is still worse than Corbyn by any metric you can apply.
...It bears out my point. £7k a year would have been a handy sum, thirty years ago, but not enough to live on...
(I need to preface this reply by saying this is not a crack at you Sean_F, or the people you were talking to: damn nearly everybody exhibits this behavior, and it's driving me crazy)
I am constantly taken aback by people's inability to grasp or handle money or how it changes. Let's pick a date of, say, 1985. It's before the Lawson boom and after the miner's strike and the Brighton bomb, so things are reasonably settled. A two-bed terrace in a large town in England outside Greater London would have gone for around £20-25K. £7K would have been a good graduate salary. Today's equivalents would be around £30K for the same salary and £150-200K for the same house.
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Well I think that the campaign proved that Smith is worse than Corbyn on almost every front.
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do agree, though, that Corbyn will win - there is still a lot of anger aimed at the PLP and that will see him through. But his inability to do the job has been exposed to all but his most fanatical hard left supporters.
I don't disagree on that, since the reason I switched my support to Corbyn last year was that although he is not stellar he is definitely the least worse option from all those running.
And since he is still less worse than Smith, I still support Corbyn.
I'm asking you is Smith a better candidate that Burnham, Cooper or even Liz Kendall who lost to Corbyn last year ?
Looking at Owen Smith the answer is no. Even Kendall was better at it, even though her policies where unacceptable she did manage to present them in a manner more coherent than Smith.
Find me a candidate who in my eyes (not TSE's or OGH's) is better, not worse than Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper.
Switched from Cooper to Corbyn last year, try someone else.
Virtually anyone on the Labour benches, including Dennis Skinner
Give me a name not an abstract, Skinner is 84 years old, probably too old to serve a term as leader.
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely
Well I think that the campaign proved that Smith is worse than Corbyn on almost every front.
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do agree, though, that Corbyn will win - there is still a lot of anger aimed at the PLP and that will see him through. But his inability to do the job has been exposed to all but his most fanatical hard left supporters.
I don't disagree on that, since the reason I switched my support to Corbyn last year was that although he is not stellar he is definitely the least worse option from all those running.
And since he is still less worse than Smith, I still support Corbyn.
I'm asking you is Smith a better candidate that Burnham, Cooper or even Liz Kendall who lost to Corbyn last year ?
Looking at Owen Smith the answer is no. Even Kendall was better at it, even though her policies where unacceptable she did manage to present them in a manner more coherent than Smith.
Find me a candidate who in my eyes (not TSE's or OGH's) is better, not worse than Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper.
Switched from Cooper to Corbyn last year, try someone else.
Virtually anyone on the Labour benches, including Dennis Skinner
Give me a name not an abstract, Skinner is 84 years old, probably too old to serve a term as leader.
Umunna and Jarvis obviously, Smith, Field abd Hoey even McDonnell, virtually anyone really
No-one with a pro-Iraq vote on their Cv could possibly have run against Corbyn, neither could anyone even vaguely on the right of the party. Smith was really just about the only viable candidate. Obviously, that changes if by some miracle Corbyn loses.
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
(snipped)
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I do agree, though, that Corbyn will win - there is still a lot of anger aimed at the PLP and that will see him through. But his inability to do the job has been exposed to all but his most fanatical hard left supporters.
I don't disagree on that, since the reason I switched my support to Corbyn last year was that although he is not stellar he is definitely the least worse option from all those running.
And since he is still less worse than Smith, I still support Corbyn.
I'm asking you is Smith a better candidate that Burnham, Cooper or even Liz Kendall who lost to Corbyn last year ?
Looking at Owen Smith the answer is no. Even Kendall was better at it, even though her policies where unacceptable she did manage to present them in a manner more coherent than Smith.
Find me a candidate who in my eyes (not TSE's or OGH's) is better, not worse than Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper.
Switched from Cooper to Corbyn last year, try someone else.
Virtually anyone on the Labour benches, including Dennis Skinner
Give me a name not an abstract, Skinner is 84 years old, probably too old to serve a term as leader.
Kendall got just 5%, Burnham and Cooper were tainted by the Blair and Brown governments, Smith is a better candidate than all of them as he was not part of the old regimes, first entering the Labour frontbench under Ed Miliband and is not a Blairite unlike Kendall. I expect a much closer result
Yes Kendall got 5%, but if Smith was running last year he might have come last instead.
I seriously believe than Angela Eagle would have been a better campaigner than Smith although she would still have lost because of her policies.
...It bears out my point. £7k a year would have been a handy sum, thirty years ago, but not enough to live on...
(I need to preface this reply by saying this is not a crack at you Sean_F, or the people you were talking to: damn nearly everybody exhibits this behavior, and it's driving me crazy)
I am constantly taken aback by people's inability to grasp or handle money or how it changes. Let's pick a date of, say, 1985. It's before the Lawson boom and after the miner's strike and the Brighton bomb, so things are reasonably settled. A two-bed terrace in a large town in England outside Greater London would have gone for around £20-25K. £7K would have been a good graduate salary. Today's equivalents would be around £30K for the same salary and £150-200K for the same house.
So yes, £7K would have been enough to live on.
Fair enough, I would have assumed the equivalent would be about £18k today. It's easy to forget just how prices and wages change.
Edit: and of course, plenty of people live on £18k today, but it's unlikely an author would view it as enough to live on.
...It bears out my point. £7k a year would have been a handy sum, thirty years ago, but not enough to live on...
(I need to preface this reply by saying this is not a crack at you Sean_F, or the people you were talking to: damn nearly everybody exhibits this behavior, and it's driving me crazy)
I am constantly taken aback by people's inability to grasp or handle money or how it changes. Let's pick a date of, say, 1985. It's before the Lawson boom and after the miner's strike and the Brighton bomb, so things are reasonably settled. A two-bed terrace in a large town in England outside Greater London would have gone for around £20-25K. £7K would have been a good graduate salary. Today's equivalents would be around £30K for the same salary and £150-200K for the same house.
So yes, £7K would have been enough to live on.
Fair enough, I would have assumed the equivalent would be about £18k today. It's easy to forget just how prices and wages change.
1985 £7k -> £20300.00 to be exact. But around then significant inflation, so you only have to go back 3-4 years and £7k then, is £30k today.
Kendall got just 5%, Burnham and Cooper were tainted by the Blair and Brown governments, Smith is a better candidate than all of them as he was not part of the old regimes, first entering the Labour frontbench under Ed Miliband and is not a Blairite unlike Kendall. I expect a much closer result
Yes Kendall got 5%, but if Smith was running last year he might have come last instead.
I seriously believe than Angela Eagle would have been a better campaigner than Smith although she would still have lost because of her policies.
No, Kendall was a Blairite, Smith is a Kinnockite. Eagle is decent but crashingly dull, Smith at least has some energy, Eagle's backing for the Iraq War would have doomed her anyway
Umunna and Jarvis obviously, Smith, even McDonnell, virtually anyone really
Umunna and Jarvis are unacceptable. McDonnell perhaps, he has been tested as shadow chancellor and he is not a backstabber.
You see the pool of acceptable candidates is small, they should not be backstabbers, they need to be competent enough, their policies palatable, and to be good campaigners.
Smith strikes only one or none ( some policies perhaps ?) of the above 4.
Comments
The time for the SNP to choose if it's a left wing or a right wing party is approaching.
If things continue it will probably show Trump at his best position since July 31st, but most tracking polls stop publishing over the weekend, so lets wait till Monday to be sure.
I'm reasonably happy with it, but the Wehrlein bet was trickier to try and work out if it made sense or not.
Incidentally, the fastest strategy, according to Pirelli, is 2 soft tyre stints and 1 medium tyre stint.
Verstappen must hope they're wrong.
Edited extra bit: or that it rains, of course.
I'd have been financially much better off stacking shelves at Tescos instead of spending those hours researching and writing. The trick I am told is to use the book, especially a non-fiction book, as leverage for paid speaking gigs and the like, but like Mr. D, I hated doing the self-publicity guff. When OUP came to me for a third edition I told them I wasn't interested.
Of course you are going to be laughed at a TV debate if you say that.
And what Smith needs from Saving Labour.
As I said, if Smith needs more than 60% of registered voters and trade unionists to win by the slimmest of margins (according to his own campaign), it's unrealistic that he has a chance.
Smith needs to win members, who following the Court ruling will be longer standing and less pro Corbyn, as well as trade unionists, registered supporters will still most likely vote for Corbyn though Smith might narrow the gap
Hornby
OUT NOW - Virgin East Coast Train Pack. Complete with two Mk4 coaches with many empty seats. https://t.co/W1RFFZ8vlN https://t.co/sYbxt144Yu
Who, besides Verstappen? Only the top 10 are locked into a choice. The rest will likely go soft, or, if they want to try something, medium to string out the first stint.
Assuming it's dry, of course.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37205850
I did enjoy this line:
"No strong opposition has been voiced against this latest move."
No shit, Sherlock. The media's been shut down or taken over if it isn't pro-Erdogan and he's suspended over a third of the judiciary for 'links' with the coup attempt.
London’s Metropolitan Police will trial an automated facial recognition system to identify people at this weekend's Notting Hill Carnival as the government continues to drag its feet on the use of the technology.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/26/notting_hill_carnival_police_surveillance_cameras_automated_face_recognition/
"Jay said that because the BBC paid just £1,200 for each script, he and Lynn had to keep their day jobs and could not afford to write close to transmission."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/register/sir-antony-jay-g9m5rr2jc
In the late 1990s there was a Canadian system that was developed for casino operators and it was very good indeed. It could identify a person despite them now having gained or having lost facial hair, spectacles, hair lines etc.. It just didn't work under variable lighting conditions, as found out on the streets. There were extensive trials too in advance of and during the 2002 World Cup. Still nobody could make it work.
After that I don't know what has been happening on the technology front but I am sure the Plod and HMG would love to get their hands on a working system.
I actually agree...also it is a big problem when you scale these things. Even fingerprints systems (that is supposed to be a more mature technology) can't cope with uniquely identify from whole populations with high levels of accuracy (even when fingerprints are taken in fairly controlled conditions, let alone ones when not ideal ones).
You only can to think about how fussy they are about passport photographs to know how facial recognition is still a far from solved problem.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/27/prime-minister-theresa-may-spotted-watching-england-vs-pakistan/
The PM watching the cricket, hopeful in itself as long as she doesn't follow the fate of another recent cricket-fan PM.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horrific-abuse-scandal-town-dubbed-8718139#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Apparently "logged incorrectly"....
Contrary to Speedy I don't think Smith has done badly at all. He has served his principle purpose, which was to expose Corbyn's manifest, manifold flaws and inability to reach beyond his comgort zone; and Smith has done that. I expect Corbyn to win by around 60% to 40%. I don't expect him to be Labour leader in 2020, though.
Hillary
Rallies:
Pennsylvania 5
Ohio 3
Nevada 3
Florida 2
Michigan 2
Colorado 1
Nebraska 1
Iowa 1
Wisconsin 1
N.Hampshire 1
Virginia 1
N.Carolina 1
Total 22
Present TV Adverts in:
Nevada
Nebraska
Iowa
Ohio
Pennsylvania
N.Hampshire
N.Carolina
Florida
Trump
Rallies:
Florida 7
Virginia 6
N.Carolina 5
Pennsylvania 4
Ohio 3
N.Hampshire 3
Iowa 3
Texas 3
Colorado 2
Arizona 2
Maine 1
Connecticut 1
N.Jersey 1
Washington 1
Nevada 1
Mississippi 1
Total 44
Present TV Adverts in:
Florida
You can see Hillary is more focused, spends less time in public and a lot more on TV adverts, it's an old style campaign but it works.
Her priority is clearly Pennsylvania.
Trump is a mile wide and an inch deep, and Florida seems to be his priority.
Update - Kent Police: Bridge on #M20 was brought down after it was struck by a digger on the back of a lorry - the motorway remains closed
TBH I would have thought that later advertising, concentrating on the opponent's gaffs during the campaign will be much more effective. Clinton is doing the usual socialist meme - spending other people's money until she runs out.
"I'm forever blowing Villas"
On TV he comes out as someone completely out of focus like watching paint dry, and he has been a gaffe machine on the TV debates.
On his campaign trail he can only get an audience if he promises free ice cream.
He is painfully trying to be on the left of Corbyn (threatening physical violence against the PM, proposing peace talks with ISIS ect), but he manages to present them in a worse manner and unconvincingly at the same time.
Smith has done a very good job in proving that he is much worse than Corbyn.
Just like last time there hasn't been someone running that has proven that he/she could be a better leader than Corbyn, so Corbyn wins by default as the least worse option like last year.
People seem to have lost interest in an outcome they feel is absolutely certain.
(Good evening, everyone.)
And since he is still less worse than Smith, I still support Corbyn.
I'm asking you is Smith a better candidate that Burnham, Cooper or even Liz Kendall who lost to Corbyn last year ?
Looking at Owen Smith the answer is no.
Even Kendall was better at it, even though her policies where unacceptable she did manage to present them in a manner more coherent than Smith.
Find me a candidate who in my eyes (not TSE's or OGH's) is better, not worse than Corbyn.
"Trump will carpet-bomb the country in September and October with a billion dollars of reminders of Benghazi [...], the televised apology to the world’s Muslims, the FBI director’s non-indictment indictment; the malodorous conflicts of the Clinton Foundation entwined with the Clinton State Department. Even Whitewater is due for a rerun."
And that picture of Clinton being helped up the steps will lose her votes, even if, as could well be the case, it's a trick of the camera and is misleading. Certainly if enough photos are taken of someone it's usually easy to make them look trustworthy, confident, smarmy or a miserable git, according to what's desired. Seeming to need help to walk up steps is to her disadvantage, and it will be capitalised upon by an opponent who routinely calls her a "LIAR" and a "CROOK" etc. I don't have any sympathy for those who say they will vote for Trump primarily because they want to stop Clinton, but there seem to be lots of them about.
From the photos I've seen of the digger and trailer, I wouldn't have said it'd hit anything. But what do I know?
I wonder what side point loadings (i.e. impacts from traffic) the bridge had been designed for.
Thanks for the Billions tip - it is tremendous telly.
And I've just seen the RS book - sadly looks like a retrospective on the architect....
@NFL: Tony Romo has a broken bone in his back: https://t.co/Ey20Pr5cDC https://t.co/gXmrrf6OK7
If 95% of journalists hate your guts you are going to get 95% hostile and negative coverage from the media, the only way to counter that is A. Rallies B. Your own TV advertising message.
By doing rallies though he is exposing himself to danger through gaffes and going off message, you need discipline.
By doing TV ads he can control his message by remote.
And the later he waits the more expensive it gets to get your ads on TV.
Hillary who has fought elections every 4 years since 1964 knows how to do it:
Avoid the media as much as possible.
Avoid the public as much as possible.
Get as many journalists, editors and producers on her payroll as possible, to make the TV shows fawn about her.
Spend massively on TV ads as early as possible.
Corbyn made a more persuasive case.
I believe that women and men, whites and blacks, christians or muslims should be judged equally, and not by their gender, their skin colour or their religion.
That's why although Cooper was a woman I rated Corbyn higher as a person.
And that's also why I believe Chuka Umunna is as bad as Tristram Hunt, despite the fact that they have different skin colour.
And Smith is still worse than Corbyn by any metric you can apply.
I am constantly taken aback by people's inability to grasp or handle money or how it changes. Let's pick a date of, say, 1985. It's before the Lawson boom and after the miner's strike and the Brighton bomb, so things are reasonably settled. A two-bed terrace in a large town in England outside Greater London would have gone for around £20-25K. £7K would have been a good graduate salary. Today's equivalents would be around £30K for the same salary and £150-200K for the same house.
So yes, £7K would have been enough to live on.
I seriously believe than Angela Eagle would have been a better campaigner than Smith although she would still have lost because of her policies.
Edit: and of course, plenty of people live on £18k today, but it's unlikely an author would view it as enough to live on.
McDonnell perhaps, he has been tested as shadow chancellor and he is not a backstabber.
You see the pool of acceptable candidates is small, they should not be backstabbers, they need to be competent enough, their policies palatable, and to be good campaigners.
Smith strikes only one or none ( some policies perhaps ?) of the above 4.