Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Impressions from Cumbria: Labour will win if they can turn the

24

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,563
    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    yes, very good article, thank you for taking the time.

    I believe Tories weren't favourites to win 2015 GE, even at midnight. Remain was still favourite at midnight on 23rd June. I think betters have got it wrong. It will be 2 Labour holds. I've been wrong before.

    But for GE2020, it is the swing that counts, not who wins. if Tories can get a swing, however small versus Labour, then that is a success. Swing the other way, and Tories will know 2020 not yet in the bag.

    There will be a swing towards Libs from Lab, no question. There will be a swing towards Lib from Tories. But, it is the Tory/Lab swing that matters, as only thse two can win the 2020 election...unless the world changes fundamentally.

    My hunch is that one of the seats will narrowly change hands, although I'm not sure which one it'll be and which party will be the beneficiary (if it's Stoke).
    You have extensive data and experience, so, as a Tory, I am glad you are saying that. I don't feel it from the party gossip, but hope you are right. As an example, CCHQ have stopped emailing me daily about doing daily calls to Copeland. Now, it could be that they are overwhelmed with supporters, or more likely they have spent their legal budget. Or, they have it in the bag. More likely, it's because they can't win it.

    Anyway, a dream scenario would be a UKIP win in Stoke and swing but loss for the Tories in Copeland...just to keep Jezza in place. Could a Lib win?

    Thanks, Andy, your info and analysis are always welcome.
    Interesting to hear they've stopped asking for support with calls.
    Not facebooking me either, my usual bunch of Tories on Facebook have stopped asking everyone to help in Copeland.

    Unless every element of Tory party have unsubscribed me (possible), I feel it might be over.

    I will send a private message to facebookers and see what they say.
    Interesting. They're giving up because they think they've lost, or because they've hit the spending limit and are saving everything left for Thursday? Mr Meeks' 5/1 spread bet on Lab is looking like very good value.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062

    Sandpit said:

    That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.

    If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
    Democrat sympathisers seems to be masters of falling for the Streisand Effect at the moment.

    I think this is basically the point that Plato has been trying to regale us with, Trump is just £350m writ large. Say something outrageous or at least highly implausible and get the right-on press doing all your publicity for you as they rant about it, weather the initial fall out and reap the long term rewards of all the free publicity. Sure Trump will be very unpopular, like Farage is very unpopular, but Farage got what he wanted...
    That is to misunderstand how advertising works and to accept the old wives tale that 'all publicity is good publicity'. Negative publicity can kill a brand (or an individual) much more quickly that any amount of free publicity can build it or them.
  • CD13 said:

    I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.

    It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.

    You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?

    What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.

    It's alt-right virtue signalling.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,563
    edited February 2017
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    A good article DH, and as I pointed out: Copeland is a local byelection for local issues.

    The problem there is depopulation rather than migration. What do the Tories have to offer the JAMs here? It reminds me of my relatives on the Isle of Wight in the way it struggles with inaccesibility and geography. There are no easy answers to making modern medical services availible in remote, and often poor, populations.
  • CD13 said:

    I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.

    It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.

    You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?

    What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.
    It's the mood of the times. Even auld eejits like to indulge in Milo-like bottom baring nowadays, though withered buttocks are never a good look, even metaphorically.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062

    CD13 said:

    I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.

    It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.

    You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?

    What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.
    Yes a revolting thing to say but an uncharateristic remark from CD13. I suspect it wasn't meant as it was written.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,734

    Sandpit said:

    That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.

    If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
    Democrat sympathisers seems to be masters of falling for the Streisand Effect at the moment.

    I think this is basically the point that Plato has been trying to regale us with, Trump is just £350m writ large. Say something outrageous or at least highly implausible and get the right-on press doing all your publicity for you as they rant about it, weather the initial fall out and reap the long term rewards of all the free publicity. Sure Trump will be very unpopular, like Farage is very unpopular, but Farage got what he wanted...

    So is your long-term forecast that sex between 13 year olds and adults will be legalised in the US?

    I was under the impression that it was the norm in parts of the USA.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,227
    "If" Labour can turn their vote out. That really is the question. Is the enthusiasm of Labour voters diminished? Indeed. Look at the Yougov polling yesterday showing how much of the Labour vote had left since the 2015 election. Will this be reflected in the bye election? If it is Labour are in trouble. If the dynamics of the bye election and the traditional save our hospital campaign encourage erstwhile Labour supporters to turn out then they win.

    I suspect that we will see lower turnout. And it will be very close as a result. The Tories will not gain votes. It is a question if they hold still while Labour falls.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,367
    Dr Fox,

    I see you've missed my point.

    There are always competing elements for charity. Of course you can give your money and or your time to whom you want. I feel the priorities are askew sometimes. Bob Geldorf, for all his faults, had his right in the 1980s.

    I've no intentions pf saying what I do for charity - it's little enough. But this is one area I think deserves greater prominence. Others may prefer to send money to an animal charity. I don't criticise their judgement. But I stand by mine.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited February 2017
    Sandpit said:

    That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.

    If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
    I don't have an opinion of Jake Tapper CNN anchor - but he was straight out of the blocks when this supposedly broke on Sunday evening. He's never bothered to report on paedos before and is now clutching his pearls on Twitter all day about Milo - when he knows he can't respond as he's banned.

    What a coward. From what I've read - all the MSM have decided not to give Milo a right to respond, so he's going to hold his own press conf later today. Frankly, I think the whole hit job is revolting.

    It was apparently opposition research that cost $250k - and guess who's linked to this? Evan McMullin and #NeverTrumpers. It's so obvious as a strategy. Get Milo > Get Brietbart > Get Bannon > Get Trump.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,412
    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.

    If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
    I don't have an opinion of Jake Tapper CNN anchor - but he was straight out of the blocks when this supposedly broke on Sunday evening. He's never bothered to report on paedos before and is now clutching his pearls on Twitter all day about Milo - when he knows he can't respond as he's banned.

    What a coward. From what I've read - all the MSM have decided not to give Milo a right to respond, so he's going to hold his own press conf later today. Frankly, I think the whole hit job is revolting.

    It was apparently opposition research that cost $250k - and guess who's linked to this? Evan McMullin and #NeverTrumpers. It's so obvious as a strategy. Get Milo > Get Brietbart > Get Bannon > Get Trump.
    From I don't have an opinion to a coward in a paragraph.... It sounds like you do have an opinion...
  • No David I wasn't going at you. The analysis is good but the two big towns and the Frizingtons disguise large areas of very Tory villages and farms between. You can see the countryside from the A595 but you can't feel it without stopping off and delivering some leaflets.

    The division of Cumbria into constituencies / divisions / wards has always been a problem. Big towns with a lot of rural land between them. In the 1997 GE there were four Labour and two Con. However the Cons have won both Police and Crime Commissioner votes quite easily.

    With 5 constituencies as there will be on the new boundaries something had to give. The first ultimately abortive effort had Windermere shoved into Copeland. This time Workington and Whitehaven are one but all the rural areas are shaved off. Millom and the south to Barrow. Rural Allerdale off to a new Penrith and Solway constituency giving some of the most Tory parts of Rory Stewart's seat back to Westmorland and Lonsdale. Carlisle got some of Penrith and Border as well. Now the seats are

    Barrow etc - safeish Tory
    Workington and Whitehaven - ultra safe Labour
    Penrith and Solway - very safe Tory
    Carlisle - safeish Tory
    Westmorland and Lonsdale - Con / LD marginal

    Judging from the manning requirements for the small rural polling stations on Thursday a very heavy Con GOTV is already under way.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.

    If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
    Simon & Schuster is not a one book business.

    There's a niche for a Russell Brand for spotty virgin white supremacists, it seems. That doesn't surprise me much, though it is a little sad.
    Clearly the publisher is being 'leaned on' by other authors and protesters, but they're now in a position where they still have people protesting yet they'll be handing the profits to a rival.

    As noted by @AlsoIndigo, it's a classic case of the Streisand Effect. Most people hadn't heard of Milo until Twitter banned him.
    I had no idea he existed on Twitter until just before that happened. And I've been on Twitter since January 2009!
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,367
    Roger,

    Thank you.

    I'm not criticising others for feeling compassion elsewhere too. I'm a fan of keeping our Foreign Aid budget high, but I reserve my right to criticise how it's divided.

    And yes, it's easy for me to complain. I have every respect for those who go and do something, be it Cafod,, MSF or whoever.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Sandpit said:

    That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.

    If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
    Democrat sympathisers seems to be masters of falling for the Streisand Effect at the moment.

    I think this is basically the point that Plato has been trying to regale us with, Trump is just £350m writ large. Say something outrageous or at least highly implausible and get the right-on press doing all your publicity for you as they rant about it, weather the initial fall out and reap the long term rewards of all the free publicity. Sure Trump will be very unpopular, like Farage is very unpopular, but Farage got what he wanted...

    So is your long-term forecast that sex between 13 year olds and adults will be legalised in the US?

    Idiot. My long term forecast is that the alt-right will get what they want in the US because the democrats and their supporters have lost their minds. Milo is a side show that is going to make a lot of money out of people being outraged about him, rather than ignored as he should be. He is going to present himself as a victim to the several million mouthbreathers on 4chan who will go and buy his book.

    What does the alt-right - of which Milo is a part - want?

    How the hell should I know, I am not part of it. Do you think that endless posturing about idiots like Milo is an effective way for the Democrats to oppose Trump, or is it possible Trump people are tossing lots of interesting looking sweeties around for people to get outraged about, will he gets on with doing whatever he wants to do ?
    Team Trump do seem to have an inexhaustible supply of dead cats to throw on the table.

    Where are all these cats coming from? Is this the dark secret that connects Plato to the Donald? Where is investigative journalism when you need it?

    And why is there a national question mark shortage?
    Scott Adams did an interesting video on this

    He's just setting up new studio too - so forgive the wibble beforehand.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE84UaR96JU
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,694
    The Tories are focusing their campaign on Brexit and the nuclear industry but the local candidate is also committed to healthcare funding for West Cumberland hospital and indeed her leaflets mention her children were born there. While activists are visiting Copeland the seat is being heavily phonebanked due to its remoteness. The NHS issue helps Labour but really it is just a matter of stemming flow from Labour to the Tories rather than stopping it altogether and on the ICM poll yesterday the Tories would win Copeland by about 3 to 4%. I expect a close fight but a Tory gain
  • "the decidedly odd 1929 Liverpool Scotland by-election."

    oh you cannot leave us all hanging with that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,694
    Sandpit said:
    Given how low Labour is now going in Copeland they certainly deserve to lose
  • "the decidedly odd 1929 Liverpool Scotland by-election."

    oh you cannot leave us all hanging with that.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Scotland_by-election,_1929
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,969
    Off-topic:

    An initial deal has been signed to investigate a Scottish spaceport:
    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/02/20/mou-signed-study-campbeltown-spaceport/
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    Sandpit said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    yes, very good article, thank you for taking the time.

    I believe Tories weren't favourites to win 2015 GE, even at midnight. Remain was still favourite at midnight on 23rd June. I think betters have got it wrong. It will be 2 Labour holds. I've been wrong before.

    But for GE2020, it is the swing that counts, not who wins. if Tories can get a swing, however small versus Labour, then that is a success. Swing the other way, and Tories will know 2020 not yet in the bag.

    There will be a swing towards Libs from Lab, no question. There will be a swing towards Lib from Tories. But, it is the Tory/Lab swing that matters, as only thse two can win the 2020 election...unless the world changes fundamentally.

    My hunch is that one of the seats will narrowly change hands, although I'm not sure which one it'll be and which party will be the beneficiary (if it's Stoke).
    You have extensive data and experience, so, as a Tory, I am glad you are saying that. I don't feel it from the party gossip, but hope you are right. As an example, CCHQ have stopped emailing me daily about doing daily calls to Copeland. Now, it could be that they are overwhelmed with supporters, or more likely they have spent their legal budget. Or, they have it in the bag. More likely, it's because they can't win it.

    Anyway, a dream scenario would be a UKIP win in Stoke and swing but loss for the Tories in Copeland...just to keep Jezza in place. Could a Lib win?

    Thanks, Andy, your info and analysis are always welcome.
    Interesting to hear they've stopped asking for support with calls.
    Not facebooking me either, my usual bunch of Tories on Facebook have stopped asking everyone to help in Copeland.

    Unless every element of Tory party have unsubscribed me (possible), I feel it might be over.

    I will send a private message to facebookers and see what they say.
    Interesting. They're giving up because they think they've lost, or because they've hit the spending limit and are saving everything left for Thursday? Mr Meeks' 5/1 spread bet on Lab is looking like very good value.
    I'm starting to get the feeling that it is all about spending limits. None of my Tory facebookers are writing gung ho things like, "on the Tory Bus" or having a "Tory drink." It might be that CCHQ have said, "speak out of turn and we will be in court." Reading View_From_Cumbria, perhaps Tories are turning from a media (Air) game to a boots on the ground game. That's probably right because electorate are not media hungry city dwellers and it needs face to face conversations, telling and leafleting to GOTV. It also gives no evidence of overspening.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,264

    No David I wasn't going at you. The analysis is good but the two big towns and the Frizingtons disguise large areas of very Tory villages and farms between. You can see the countryside from the A595 but you can't feel it without stopping off and delivering some leaflets.

    The division of Cumbria into constituencies / divisions / wards has always been a problem. Big towns with a lot of rural land between them. In the 1997 GE there were four Labour and two Con. However the Cons have won both Police and Crime Commissioner votes quite easily.

    With 5 constituencies as there will be on the new boundaries something had to give. The first ultimately abortive effort had Windermere shoved into Copeland. This time Workington and Whitehaven are one but all the rural areas are shaved off. Millom and the south to Barrow. Rural Allerdale off to a new Penrith and Solway constituency giving some of the most Tory parts of Rory Stewart's seat back to Westmorland and Lonsdale. Carlisle got some of Penrith and Border as well. Now the seats are

    Barrow etc - safeish Tory
    Workington and Whitehaven - ultra safe Labour
    Penrith and Solway - very safe Tory
    Carlisle - safeish Tory
    Westmorland and Lonsdale - Con / LD marginal

    Judging from the manning requirements for the small rural polling stations on Thursday a very heavy Con GOTV is already under way.

    Tories have a chance to vote positively, to give a vote of confidence in Theresa May and her handling of Brexit.

    Labour have a chance to sit on their arses and hope Corbyn gets the bullet (and in doing so, they are long-term being loyal Labour and supporting the aims of their outgoing MP in calling the by-election in the first place).

    Tory gain by 1,250, give or take.
  • "the decidedly odd 1929 Liverpool Scotland by-election."

    oh you cannot leave us all hanging with that.

    An unopposed Labour gain from what had been an unopposed Irish Nationalist constituency:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Scotland_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
  • It's fascinating to see the new coalitions forming.

    https://twitter.com/MrKenShabby/status/833958515974758400
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited February 2017
    Sandpit said:
    I can't find any evidence that it's an actual poster.

    To me, it looks like the @LabourCopeland twitter person spent 20 mins on photoshop.
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    yes, very good article, thank you for taking the time.

    I believe Tories weren't favourites to win 2015 GE, even at midnight. Remain was still favourite at midnight on 23rd June. I think betters have got it wrong. It will be 2 Labour holds. I've been wrong before.

    But for GE2020, it is the swing that counts, not who wins. if Tories can get a swing, however small versus Labour, then that is a success. Swing the other way, and Tories will know 2020 not yet in the bag.

    There will be a swing towards Libs from Lab, no question. There will be a swing towards Lib from Tories. But, it is the Tory/Lab swing that matters, as only thse two can win the 2020 election...unless the world changes fundamentally.

    My hunch is that one of the seats will narrowly change hands, although I'm not sure which one it'll be and which party will be the beneficiary (if it's Stoke).
    You have extensive data and experience, so, as a Tory, I am glad you are saying that. I don't feel it from the party gossip, but hope you are right. As an example, CCHQ have stopped emailing me daily about doing daily calls to Copeland. Now, it could be that they are overwhelmed with supporters, or more likely they have spent their legal budget. Or, they have it in the bag. More likely, it's because they can't win it.

    Anyway, a dream scenario would be a UKIP win in Stoke and swing but loss for the Tories in Copeland...just to keep Jezza in place. Could a Lib win?

    Thanks, Andy, your info and analysis are always welcome.
    Interesting to hear they've stopped asking for support with calls.
    starting to believe it is a spend limit thing. I presume even calls from CCHQ are counted in spending limits. Boots on ground now I believe.
  • PlatoSaid said:



    Scott Adams did an interesting video on this

    He's just setting up new studio too - so forgive the wibble beforehand.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE84UaR96JU

    I've watched about half. He is curiously reluctant to use the word "Lie"
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited February 2017
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:
    Given how low Labour is now going in Copeland they certainly deserve to lose
    The basic problem is;

    The tory right promised "A new hospital every week"

    Then the country voted for it.

    Now they're in power and they're closing hospitals.

    It's an open goal for the opposition.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Sandpit said:

    That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.

    If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
    Democrat sympathisers seems to be masters of falling for the Streisand Effect at the moment.

    I think this is basically the point that Plato has been trying to regale us with, Trump is just £350m writ large. Say something outrageous or at least highly implausible and get the right-on press doing all your publicity for you as they rant about it, weather the initial fall out and reap the long term rewards of all the free publicity. Sure Trump will be very unpopular, like Farage is very unpopular, but Farage got what he wanted...

    So is your long-term forecast that sex between 13 year olds and adults will be legalised in the US?

    Idiot. My long term forecast is that the alt-right will get what they want in the US because the democrats and their supporters have lost their minds. Milo is a side show that is going to make a lot of money out of people being outraged about him, rather than ignored as he should be. He is going to present himself as a victim to the several million mouthbreathers on 4chan who will go and buy his book.

    What does the alt-right - of which Milo is a part - want?

    How the hell should I know, I am not part of it. Do you think that endless posturing about idiots like Milo is an effective way for the Democrats to oppose Trump, or is it possible Trump people are tossing lots of interesting looking sweeties around for people to get outraged about, will he gets on with doing whatever he wants to do ?

    You are the one predicting they'll get what they want.

    What did for Milo and his book was not the liberal left, but the market. Paedophilia is not a great look for an author targeting conservative readers. Capitalism works.

    So you are predicting he is not going to get massive sales on his book ?
    Mike Cernovich whose income is based on self publishing reckons Milo could do $500k from his book - I was going to buy it out of curosity as I like autobiogs.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    What a great header - David's preferences are in no way disguised, but he's giving an honest opinion and doing it in an informed, witty and engaging style. He'd make an interesting MP.

    On the content, I don't have much to offer, except to say that Labour's organisational effort is huge and that I have the impression that the weight has shifted from Stoke to Copeland in the belief that Stoke is probably in the bag. But there's still a lot going on in Stoke - the total number of Labour volunteers involved in the two by-elections I believe exceeds 1000, including quite a few of the much-derided new members.

    That said, having five volunteers call on you to urge you to vote doesn't help if you don't want to. So I genuinely have little idea on whether we can get our vote out or not. A toss-up?
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    PlatoSaid said:



    Scott Adams did an interesting video on this

    He's just setting up new studio too - so forgive the wibble beforehand.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE84UaR96JU

    I've watched about half. He is curiously reluctant to use the word "Lie"
    "Alternate Facts"
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited February 2017
    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:
    Given how low Labour is now going in Copeland they certainly deserve to lose
    The basic problem is;

    The tory right promised "A new hospital every week"

    Then country voted for it.

    Now they're in power and they're closing hospitals.
    The tory right promised "A new hospital every week" when we leave the EU, mean while Labour and the LDs try their hardest to stop that from happening.

    (For those not paying attention if the health spending continues to grow at the current rate, by 2020 we will be spending 350m more per week with no extra commitments compared to when the promise was made)
  • Miss Plato, although an entirely kettle of fish, my first thought was that he should just self-publish. He's got a media profile sufficient to guarantee success.

    Excepting blockbuster authors, self-publishing's usually better financially, because there's only author and retailer, with no agent/publisher taking a cut. The downside is that writers tend to make peanuts (Mr. T's own success is, sadly, well outside the normal range of sales).
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    rkrkrk said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.

    If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
    I don't have an opinion of Jake Tapper CNN anchor - but he was straight out of the blocks when this supposedly broke on Sunday evening. He's never bothered to report on paedos before and is now clutching his pearls on Twitter all day about Milo - when he knows he can't respond as he's banned.

    What a coward. From what I've read - all the MSM have decided not to give Milo a right to respond, so he's going to hold his own press conf later today. Frankly, I think the whole hit job is revolting.

    It was apparently opposition research that cost $250k - and guess who's linked to this? Evan McMullin and #NeverTrumpers. It's so obvious as a strategy. Get Milo > Get Brietbart > Get Bannon > Get Trump.
    From I don't have an opinion to a coward in a paragraph.... It sounds like you do have an opinion...
    It's cowardly to condemn someone you know can't respond - isn't it?
  • PlatoSaid said:

    rkrkrk said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.

    If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
    I don't have an opinion of Jake Tapper CNN anchor - but he was straight out of the blocks when this supposedly broke on Sunday evening. He's never bothered to report on paedos before and is now clutching his pearls on Twitter all day about Milo - when he knows he can't respond as he's banned.

    What a coward. From what I've read - all the MSM have decided not to give Milo a right to respond, so he's going to hold his own press conf later today. Frankly, I think the whole hit job is revolting.

    It was apparently opposition research that cost $250k - and guess who's linked to this? Evan McMullin and #NeverTrumpers. It's so obvious as a strategy. Get Milo > Get Brietbart > Get Bannon > Get Trump.
    From I don't have an opinion to a coward in a paragraph.... It sounds like you do have an opinion...
    It's cowardly to condemn someone you know can't respond - isn't it?
    Alt facts and alt neutrality from the alt right.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,969
    PlatoSaid said:

    rkrkrk said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    That's insane, it had thousands of pre-orders. He'll just find another publisher (or do it himself) and milk yet more publicity for his 'banned' book.

    If everyone ignored Milo he'd go away, he's only successful because he makes a certain group of liberals go completely nuts every time he opens his mouth!
    I don't have an opinion of Jake Tapper CNN anchor - but he was straight out of the blocks when this supposedly broke on Sunday evening. He's never bothered to report on paedos before and is now clutching his pearls on Twitter all day about Milo - when he knows he can't respond as he's banned.

    What a coward. From what I've read - all the MSM have decided not to give Milo a right to respond, so he's going to hold his own press conf later today. Frankly, I think the whole hit job is revolting.

    It was apparently opposition research that cost $250k - and guess who's linked to this? Evan McMullin and #NeverTrumpers. It's so obvious as a strategy. Get Milo > Get Brietbart > Get Bannon > Get Trump.
    From I don't have an opinion to a coward in a paragraph.... It sounds like you do have an opinion...
    It's cowardly to condemn someone you know can't respond - isn't it?
    I'm sure the Milobots will be responding on his behalf.
  • From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.

    There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.

    I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?

    If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
  • Thanks for the report DH.

    Its curious that almost everyone here believes the betting value is with Labour in Copeland yet their odds have steadily lengthened.

    There's obviously plenty of money going on the Conservatives from non PBers.
  • AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    yes, very good article, thank you for taking the time.

    I believe Tories weren't favourites to win 2015 GE, even at midnight. Remain was still favourite at midnight on 23rd June. I think betters have got it wrong. It will be 2 Labour holds. I've been wrong before.

    But for GE2020, it is the swing that counts, not who wins. if Tories can get a swing, however small versus Labour, then that is a success. Swing the other way, and Tories will know 2020 not yet in the bag.

    There will be a swing towards Libs from Lab, no question. There will be a swing towards Lib from Tories. But, it is the Tory/Lab swing that matters, as only thse two can win the 2020 election...unless the world changes fundamentally.

    My hunch is that one of the seats will narrowly change hands, although I'm not sure which one it'll be and which party will be the beneficiary (if it's Stoke).
    You have extensive data and experience, so, as a Tory, I am glad you are saying that. I don't feel it from the party gossip, but hope you are right. As an example, CCHQ have stopped emailing me daily about doing daily calls to Copeland. Now, it could be that they are overwhelmed with supporters, or more likely they have spent their legal budget. Or, they have it in the bag. More likely, it's because they can't win it.

    Anyway, a dream scenario would be a UKIP win in Stoke and swing but loss for the Tories in Copeland...just to keep Jezza in place. Could a Lib win?

    Thanks, Andy, your info and analysis are always welcome.
    Interesting to hear they've stopped asking for support with calls.
    FWIW, I was asked by e-mail yesterday for help with on-the-day ground support. I'd guess that that's because I went in person and so am on a contact list. Even so, it doesn't sound like a scaling back to me so if CCHQ's no longer asking for people to help by phone, that's probably because they've got all they need and the work that people making contact with the election office for that purpose now would cause more trouble than it'd be worth.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,969

    From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.

    There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.

    I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?

    If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
    It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.

    I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654

    From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.

    There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.

    I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?

    Those by-elections won't win themselves. If its what gets Labour over the line in both then thats the license fee covered for a good while.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,563
    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:
    I can't find any evidence that it's an actual poster.

    To me, it looks like the @LabourCopeland twitter person spent 20 mins on photoshop.
    It definitely came from their official Twitter account though, suggests it was approved by the candidate's agent.

    Anyone care to defend saying that "babies will die" unless one votes a certain way in a by-election? Seeing this now makes me think the Tories could well win, such hyperbolic slogans are more likely to turn people off than engage them towards Labour's arguments.
  • On topic, I agree with David.
  • Mr. Eagles, was Crewe the seat where Labour attacked Cameron's Conservatives as being for toffs who drive Bentleys [which are built in the constituency]?

    Mr. Jessop, I agree on the NHS.

    Anyway, I must be off for a bit.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Miss Plato, although an entirely kettle of fish, my first thought was that he should just self-publish. He's got a media profile sufficient to guarantee success.

    Excepting blockbuster authors, self-publishing's usually better financially, because there's only author and retailer, with no agent/publisher taking a cut. The downside is that writers tend to make peanuts (Mr. T's own success is, sadly, well outside the normal range of sales).

    What I find so sad and revolting about this whole saga is that Milo was raped as a kid by a Catholic priest - and his attention seeking/provocative charmer behaviour/dad figure first boyfriend relationship lasted a decade.

    And he's outed paedos for years - and he's now being accused of being a paedo just for political agendas. How vile is that? Now he has to spill his guts out to claw his life back to satisfy the Outrage Circus knitters. The victim gets to be the victimised again.
  • I've been inspired to do a thread comparing Brexit to Milo.

    Titus Annius Milo that is.
  • From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.

    There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.

    I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?

    If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
    It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.

    I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
    Birmingham Children's Hospital is officially "outstanding" -- it is not all NHS doom and gloom from the BBC.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39009683

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,264
    Sandpit said:

    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:
    I can't find any evidence that it's an actual poster.

    To me, it looks like the @LabourCopeland twitter person spent 20 mins on photoshop.
    It definitely came from their official Twitter account though, suggests it was approved by the candidate's agent.

    Anyone care to defend saying that "babies will die" unless one votes a certain way in a by-election? Seeing this now makes me think the Tories could well win, such hyperbolic slogans are more likely to turn people off than engage them towards Labour's arguments.
    It certainly shrieks DESPERATE.....
  • Mr. Eagles, was Crewe the seat where Labour attacked Cameron's Conservatives as being for toffs who drive Bentleys [which are built in the constituency]?

    Mr. Jessop, I agree on the NHS.

    Anyway, I must be off for a bit.

    That's very same Crewe and Nantwich by election.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Not surprised to see those who wouldn't stop talking about Harriet Harman and the PIE in the 70s aren't going after Milo in the 2010s. Never was about principles was it?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Sandpit said:

    Pong said:

    Sandpit said:
    I can't find any evidence that it's an actual poster.

    To me, it looks like the @LabourCopeland twitter person spent 20 mins on photoshop.
    It definitely came from their official Twitter account though, suggests it was approved by the candidate's agent.

    Anyone care to defend saying that "babies will die" unless one votes a certain way in a by-election? Seeing this now makes me think the Tories could well win, such hyperbolic slogans are more likely to turn people off than engage them towards Labour's arguments.
    Which is worse babies dying or going to Hell if you don't vote Labour?

    My hyperbole meter broke
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,734

    From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.

    There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.

    I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?

    If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
    It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.

    I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
    Last night, PM devoted most of their news programme to the last diaries of a man dying from cancer. It was utterly depressing.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    edited February 2017

    Mr. Eagles, was Crewe the seat where Labour attacked Cameron's Conservatives as being for toffs who drive Bentleys [which are built in the constituency]?

    Mr. Jessop, I agree on the NHS.

    Anyway, I must be off for a bit.

    That's very same Crewe and Nantwich by election.
    The former Labour candidate had that rarest of things, an actual personal vote. Alot of politicians think they might have it, 95+% don't.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.

    There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.

    I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?

    If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
    It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.

    I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
    Birmingham Children's Hospital is officially "outstanding" -- it is not all NHS doom and gloom from the BBC.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39009683

    Having had children involved in the national liver unit at BCH I can indeed confirm it is an outstanding hospital.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    theakes said:

    There was Bromsgrove in 1971 where it nearly happened, a Labour majority in 1970 of over 10, 000 cut to under 2,000

    Leading to predictions of the imminent demise of Labour as a political force. It is virtually a genre. If you want a particularly good example, even Eric Hobsbaum was at it http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/78_09_hobsbawm.pdf
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Roger said:

    CD13 said:

    I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.

    It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.

    You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?

    What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.
    Yes a revolting thing to say but an uncharateristic remark from CD13. I suspect it wasn't meant as it was written.

    The luvvie brigade going to Calais hides the truth - and the Dubs amendment, short sighted from the start as it focuses on those already in Europe, probably gave the regulars at the usual Covent Garden haunts a warm glow of pride. Surprise surprise, they are good at emoting. They are not good at policy.

    Just because you cannot handle the truth does not make it revolting.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Freggles said:

    Not surprised to see those who wouldn't stop talking about Harriet Harman and the PIE in the 70s aren't going after Milo in the 2010s. Never was about principles was it?

    Are you aware that Milo agrees with the current age of consent in the US and that bit wasn't included in the smear video?

    Or that one of the paedos he outed is in court next month for rape? and two others were arrested?
  • This still makes me chuckle, I never knew Breitbart employed so many snowflakes.

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/833794651937181701
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,969
    PlatoSaid said:

    Miss Plato, although an entirely kettle of fish, my first thought was that he should just self-publish. He's got a media profile sufficient to guarantee success.

    Excepting blockbuster authors, self-publishing's usually better financially, because there's only author and retailer, with no agent/publisher taking a cut. The downside is that writers tend to make peanuts (Mr. T's own success is, sadly, well outside the normal range of sales).

    What I find so sad and revolting about this whole saga is that Milo was raped as a kid by a Catholic priest - and his attention seeking/provocative charmer behaviour/dad figure first boyfriend relationship lasted a decade.

    And he's outed paedos for years - and he's now being accused of being a paedo just for political agendas. How vile is that? Now he has to spill his guts out to claw his life back to satisfy the Outrage Circus knitters. The victim gets to be the victimised again.
    Milo has created his bed, and now he has to lie in it. He courts controversy, and he was just silly enough to go too far. You cannot believe or trust anything he says.

    As for 'victims': I might suggest some of the people Milo has targeted over the years: black actresses being one, or any woman brave enough to work in the gaming industry. If he was truly a 'victim' he might consider how the 'victims' of his own hate might feel.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,969
    PlatoSaid said:

    Freggles said:

    Not surprised to see those who wouldn't stop talking about Harriet Harman and the PIE in the 70s aren't going after Milo in the 2010s. Never was about principles was it?

    Are you aware that Milo agrees with the current age of consent in the US and that bit wasn't included in the smear video?

    Or that one of the paedos he outed is in court next month for rape? and two others were arrested?
    DO you have a reputable link to the details of this 'outing'? You keep on mentioning it.
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    yes, very good article, thank you for taking the time.

    I believe Tories weren't favourites to win 2015 GE, even at midnight. Remain was still favourite at midnight on 23rd June. I think betters have got it wrong. It will be 2 Labour holds. I've been wrong before.

    But for GE2020, it is the swing that counts, not who wins. if Tories can get a swing, however small versus Labour, then that is a success. Swing the other way, and Tories will know 2020 not yet in the bag.

    There will be a swing towards Libs from Lab, no question. There will be a swing towards Lib from Tories. But, it is the Tory/Lab swing that matters, as only thse two can win the 2020 election...unless the world changes fundamentally.

    My hunch is that one of the seats will narrowly change hands, although I'm not sure which one it'll be and which party will be the beneficiary (if it's Stoke).
    You have extensive data and experience, so, as a Tory, I am glad you are saying that. I don't feel it from the party gossip, but hope you are right. As an example, CCHQ have stopped emailing me daily about doing daily calls to Copeland. Now, it could be that they are overwhelmed with supporters, or more likely they have spent their legal budget. Or, they have it in the bag. More likely, it's because they can't win it.

    Anyway, a dream scenario would be a UKIP win in Stoke and swing but loss for the Tories in Copeland...just to keep Jezza in place. Could a Lib win?

    Thanks, Andy, your info and analysis are always welcome.
    Interesting to hear they've stopped asking for support with calls.
    FWIW, I was asked by e-mail yesterday for help with on-the-day ground support. I'd guess that that's because I went in person and so am on a contact list. Even so, it doesn't sound like a scaling back to me so if CCHQ's no longer asking for people to help by phone, that's probably because they've got all they need and the work that people making contact with the election office for that purpose now would cause more trouble than it'd be worth.
    That may well be the case. I think a ground game at this stage is correct. Frankly, calls from we London nobs to oop norf to say vote Tory won't be as useful as boots on the ground. Govt ministers in Copeland today, Fallon et al. So, not lost cause. It could be an exciting Thursday evening!
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Trying to think outside the box here.

    In rural areas there will always be long travel times to get to hospitals. The answer isn't to build more as the catchment area would still be large and the population served not high enough to justify.

    Would it be possible to have more fully equipped ambulances that could perform the majority of A&E functions on site? I understand the challenges of the availability of medically trained staff etc but paramedics could perform first aid plus and with communication with the nearest A&E, be talked through primary treatment options.

    I'm sure that would save lives but not sure of the practicality of it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,264

    Mr. Eagles, was Crewe the seat where Labour attacked Cameron's Conservatives as being for toffs who drive Bentleys [which are built in the constituency]?

    Mr. Jessop, I agree on the NHS.

    Anyway, I must be off for a bit.

    That's very same Crewe and Nantwich by election.
    Damn, that was NINE years ago. Where did they go???
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,694
    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:
    Given how low Labour is now going in Copeland they certainly deserve to lose
    The basic problem is;

    The tory right promised "A new hospital every week"

    Then the country voted for it.

    Now they're in power and they're closing hospitals.

    It's an open goal for the opposition.
    Vote Leave promised that not May and no hospital has closed in Copeland and May's plan for Brexit goes down well in Copeland
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    yes, very good article, thank you for taking the time.

    I believe Tories weren't favourites to win 2015 GE, even at midnight. Remain was still favourite at midnight on 23rd June. I think betters have got it wrong. It will be 2 Labour holds. I've been wrong before.

    But for GE2020, it is the swing that counts, not who wins. if Tories can get a swing, however small versus Labour, then that is a success. Swing the other way, and Tories will know 2020 not yet in the bag.

    There will be a swing towards Libs from Lab, no question. There will be a swing towards Lib from Tories. But, it is the Tory/Lab swing that matters, as only thse two can win the 2020 election...unless the world changes fundamentally.

    My hunch is that one of the seats will narrowly change hands, although I'm not sure which one it'll be and which party will be the beneficiary (if it's Stoke).
    You have extensive data and experience, so, as a Tory, I am glad you are saying that. I don't feel it from the party gossip, but hope you are right. As an example, CCHQ have stopped emailing me daily about doing daily calls to Copeland. Now, it could be that they are overwhelmed with supporters, or more likely they have spent their legal budget. Or, they have it in the bag. More likely, it's because they can't win it.

    Anyway, a dream scenario would be a UKIP win in Stoke and swing but loss for the Tories in Copeland...just to keep Jezza in place. Could a Lib win?

    Thanks, Andy, your info and analysis are always welcome.
    Interesting to hear they've stopped asking for support with calls.
    FWIW, I was asked by e-mail yesterday for help with on-the-day ground support. I'd guess that that's because I went in person and so am on a contact list. Even so, it doesn't sound like a scaling back to me so if CCHQ's no longer asking for people to help by phone, that's probably because they've got all they need and the work that people making contact with the election office for that purpose now would cause more trouble than it'd be worth.
    That may well be the case. I think a ground game at this stage is correct. Frankly, calls from we London nobs to oop norf to say vote Tory won't be as useful as boots on the ground. Govt ministers in Copeland today, Fallon et al. So, not lost cause. It could be an exciting Thursday evening!
    Fallon sounds like the right man to get the Tory vote out in Copeland. Emphasises the nuclear aspect.
    Probably best if Jeremy Hunt doesn't go there mind.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,969
    Blue_rog said:

    Trying to think outside the box here.

    In rural areas there will always be long travel times to get to hospitals. The answer isn't to build more as the catchment area would still be large and the population served not high enough to justify.

    Would it be possible to have more fully equipped ambulances that could perform the majority of A&E functions on site? I understand the challenges of the availability of medically trained staff etc but paramedics could perform first aid plus and with communication with the nearest A&E, be talked through primary treatment options.

    I'm sure that would save lives but not sure of the practicality of it.

    AIUI many ambulances and paramedics can do some fairly complex things. As an example, when I was ill a year ago the ambulance crew and paramedic stayed in the bedroom for (I think) over an hour as they stabilised me, rather than just rush me off to hospital.

    However that also meant that an ambulance and paramedic were tied up for a couple of hours in total.

    As an aside, the ambulace had come from Thetford. Their first job had to be take a patient from King's Lynn to Papworth hospital, after which they went to my house to the west of Cambridge, and then on to Addenbrokes.

    That's quite some mileage.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited February 2017
    Stephen Pollard
    On 9.30 to Bristol: "The research is secret. Top secret. We can't even tell people we are researching." Apart from everyone in the carriage?

    "They're willing to pay £10K just to see the brief. I've opened a new account for it." Now I'm seriously intrigued

    "Who is communicating with TJ on it? He can't know. Nor can anyone else in Jaipur". Blimey. Hope TJ isn't following me

    "They always take a 5-10% cut. But they're not satisfied. I'm more than happy to stay back and persuade them. For a fee."
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    Pulpstar said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    yes, very good article, thank you for taking the time.

    I believe Tories weren't favourites to win 2015 GE, even at midnight. Remain was still favourite at midnight on 23rd June. I think betters have got it wrong. It will be 2 Labour holds. I've been wrong before.

    But for GE2020, it is the swing that counts, not who wins. if Tories can get a swing, however small versus Labour, then that is a success. Swing the other way, and Tories will know 2020 not yet in the bag.

    There will be a swing towards Libs from Lab, no question. There will be a swing towards Lib from Tories. But, it is the Tory/Lab swing that matters, as only thse two can win the 2020 election...unless the world changes fundamentally.

    My hunch is that one of the seats will narrowly change hands, although I'm not sure which one it'll be and which party will be the beneficiary (if it's Stoke).
    You have extensive data and experience, so, as a Tory, I am glad you are saying that. I don't feel it from the party gossip, but hope you are right. As an example, CCHQ have stopped emailing me daily about doing daily calls to Copeland. Now, it could be that they are overwhelmed with supporters, or more likely they have spent their legal budget. Or, they have it in the bag. More likely, it's because they can't win it.

    Anyway, a dream scenario would be a UKIP win in Stoke and swing but loss for the Tories in Copeland...just to keep Jezza in place. Could a Lib win?

    Thanks, Andy, your info and analysis are always welcome.
    Interesting to hear they've stopped asking for support with calls.
    FWIW, I was asked by e-mail yesterday for help with on-the-day ground support. I'd guess that that's because I went in person and so am on a contact list. Even so, it doesn't sound like a scaling back to me so if CCHQ's no longer asking for people to help by phone, that's probably because they've got all they need and the work that people making contact with the election office for that purpose now would cause more trouble than it'd be worth.
    That may well be the case. I think a ground game at this stage is correct. Frankly, calls from we London nobs to oop norf to say vote Tory won't be as useful as boots on the ground. Govt ministers in Copeland today, Fallon et al. So, not lost cause. It could be an exciting Thursday evening!
    Fallon sounds like the right man to get the Tory vote out in Copeland. Emphasises the nuclear aspect.
    Probably best if Jeremy Hunt doesn't go there mind.
    Ha! Hunt with a 'C' as our opponents say! Yes, Fallon, good targeting.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,376
    edited February 2017
    Not what you should be doing three days before a crucial by election you're standing in.

    https://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/833970751577419777
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    This still makes me chuckle, I never knew Breitbart employed so many snowflakes.

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/833794651937181701

    You have been laughing a long time then since you posted that same tweet about 18hrs ago ;)
  • Mortimer said:

    Roger said:

    CD13 said:

    I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.

    It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.

    You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?

    What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.
    Yes a revolting thing to say but an uncharateristic remark from CD13. I suspect it wasn't meant as it was written.

    The luvvie brigade going to Calais hides the truth - and the Dubs amendment, short sighted from the start as it focuses on those already in Europe, probably gave the regulars at the usual Covent Garden haunts a warm glow of pride. Surprise surprise, they are good at emoting. They are not good at policy.

    Just because you cannot handle the truth does not make it revolting.

    Yaaawwwwnnnn - more virtue signalling.

  • This still makes me chuckle, I never knew Breitbart employed so many snowflakes.

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/833794651937181701

    You have been laughing a long time then since you posted that same tweet about 18hrs ago ;)
    I said still, and it was less than 12 hours ago, not 18 hours ago.

    That was a very poor man's Pro Milone from you :lol:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654
    Blue_rog said:

    Trying to think outside the box here.

    In rural areas there will always be long travel times to get to hospitals. The answer isn't to build more as the catchment area would still be large and the population served not high enough to justify.

    Would it be possible to have more fully equipped ambulances that could perform the majority of A&E functions on site? I understand the challenges of the availability of medically trained staff etc but paramedics could perform first aid plus and with communication with the nearest A&E, be talked through primary treatment options.

    I'm sure that would save lives but not sure of the practicality of it.

    I'd have thought in rural areas you'd want to keep small hospitals that comprise of

    1) A & E
    2) Maternity.

    Those are the services people really can't wait for.

    Dialysis, planned surgery, MRI, opthalmology, colo-rectal, heart, brain etc etc can all be put into the larger regional hospital in Barrow or wherever.
  • Just when I thought Paris couldn't get any more appealing

    https://twitter.com/AUParis/status/833967595070115840
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221

    This still makes me chuckle, I never knew Breitbart employed so many snowflakes.

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/833794651937181701

    Of course, what the Left misunderstand is that the right wing diatribes are not about directly bringing in a uber nationalist world, but just about getting focus in the areas that matter. By turning attention to the right, they get the message out that ISIS must be dealt with and the Church is full of buggers and the Left are an undemocratic, self serving elite. I'm loving Trump, not because of his policies, but he shines a light on the all the wrongs in this world. Certain elites, certain religions, certain nations and colours have protection and can do what they want. Equality needs to be applied. Women must be freed from domination in some religion. Gays must have equal rights in others. Democracy must be restored from teh EU and Blair/Clegg etc. The alt-right are doing this. Long live Le Pen, Trump, Wildeers etc.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    AndyJS said:

    Dixie said:

    yes, very good article, thank you for taking the time.

    But for GE2020, it is the swing that counts, not who wins. if Tories can get a swing, however small versus Labour, then that is a success. Swing the other way, and Tories will know 2020 not yet in the bag.

    There will be a swing towards Libs from Lab, no question. There will be a swing towards Lib from Tories. But, it is the Tory/Lab swing that matters, as only thse two can win the 2020 election...unless the world changes fundamentally.

    My hunch is that one of the seats will narrowly change hands, although I'm not sure which one it'll be and which party will be the beneficiary (if it's Stoke).
    You have extensive data and experience, so, as a Tory, I am glad you are saying that. I don't feel it from the party gossip, but hope you are right. As an example, CCHQ have stopped emailing me daily about doing daily calls to Copeland. Now, it could be that they are overwhelmed with supporters, or more likely they have spent their legal budget. Or, they have it in the bag. More likely, it's because they can't win it.

    Anyway, a dream scenario would be a UKIP win in Stoke and swing but loss for the Tories in Copeland...just to keep Jezza in place. Could a Lib win?

    Thanks, Andy, your info and analysis are always welcome.
    Interesting to hear they've stopped asking for support with calls.
    FWIW, I was asked by e-mail yesterday for help with on-the-day ground support. I'd guess that that's because I went in person and so am on a contact list. Even so, it doesn't sound like a scaling back to me so if CCHQ's no longer asking for people to help by phone, that's probably because they've got all they need and the work that people making contact with the election office for that purpose now would cause more trouble than it'd be worth.
    That may well be the case. I think a ground game at this stage is correct. Frankly, calls from we London nobs to oop norf to say vote Tory won't be as useful as boots on the ground. Govt ministers in Copeland today, Fallon et al. So, not lost cause. It could be an exciting Thursday evening!
    Fallon sounds like the right man to get the Tory vote out in Copeland. Emphasises the nuclear aspect.
    Probably best if Jeremy Hunt doesn't go there mind.
    That would depend on what Hunt had to say. He could win the by-election in three words: "it stays open". That both he and May have been big enough to not descend to those kind of electoral bribes (even if as a decision it could be fully justified), is a credit to them.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    This still makes me chuckle, I never knew Breitbart employed so many snowflakes.

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/833794651937181701

    You have been laughing a long time then since you posted that same tweet about 18hrs ago ;)
    I said still, and it was less than 12 hours ago, not 18 hours ago.

    That was a very poor man's Pro Milone from you :lol:
    I think you have me confused with @Cicero :smiley:
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited February 2017
    ONS
    Public sector net borrowing (PSNB Ex) was £9.4bn in surplus in Jan 17, biggest surplus since Jan 2000 https://t.co/jsR95JHjLa

    Public sector net debt (PSND Ex) £1,682.8bn at end-Jan 2017, equivalent to 85.3% of GDP https://t.co/jsR95JHjLa
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158

    Mortimer said:

    Roger said:

    CD13 said:

    I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.

    It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.

    You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?

    What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.
    Yes a revolting thing to say but an uncharateristic remark from CD13. I suspect it wasn't meant as it was written.

    The luvvie brigade going to Calais hides the truth - and the Dubs amendment, short sighted from the start as it focuses on those already in Europe, probably gave the regulars at the usual Covent Garden haunts a warm glow of pride. Surprise surprise, they are good at emoting. They are not good at policy.

    Just because you cannot handle the truth does not make it revolting.

    Yaaawwwwnnnn - more virtue signalling.

    No - calling out hypocrisy.

    I'm not signalling a single virtue in that.

    FAKE NEWS FROM EeyoreObserver.
  • Christ on a bike, Paul Nuttall really is thick as pig shit

    @dermotbryers: Paul Nuttall absolutely 'condones' Aron Banks's comments. Turns out he meant 'condemns' after @NickyAACampbell kindly stepped in.
  • For the 'young people prefer X (Labour, SINDY, the EU) so if we wait long enough they (Tories, Unionists, Leavers) will die out, some bad news:

    http://www.sciencealert.com/you-re-a-completely-different-person-at-14-and-77-years-old-personality-study-suggests
  • This still makes me chuckle, I never knew Breitbart employed so many snowflakes.

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/833794651937181701

    You have been laughing a long time then since you posted that same tweet about 18hrs ago ;)
    I said still, and it was less than 12 hours ago, not 18 hours ago.

    That was a very poor man's Pro Milone from you :lol:
    I think you have me confused with @Cicero :smiley:
    That's what I love about PB, that we have so many people with a deep understanding of Classical History, and Morris Dancer too
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654

    Christ on a bike, Paul Nuttall really is thick as pig shit

    @dermotbryers: Paul Nuttall absolutely 'condones' Aron Banks's comments. Turns out he meant 'condemns' after @NickyAACampbell kindly stepped in.

    He seemed to be digging himself into all sorts of holes when I was listening.
  • Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Roger said:

    CD13 said:

    I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.

    It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.

    You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?

    What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.
    Yes a revolting thing to say but an uncharateristic remark from CD13. I suspect it wasn't meant as it was written.

    The luvvie brigade going to Calais hides the truth - and the Dubs amendment, short sighted from the start as it focuses on those already in Europe, probably gave the regulars at the usual Covent Garden haunts a warm glow of pride. Surprise surprise, they are good at emoting. They are not good at policy.

    Just because you cannot handle the truth does not make it revolting.

    Yaaawwwwnnnn - more virtue signalling.

    No - calling out hypocrisy.

    I'm not signalling a single virtue in that.

    FAKE NEWS FROM EeyoreObserver.

    Yes, you are. You are signalling to us that you see yourself as a hard-headed, no-nonsense kind of guy who is not afraid to call a spade a spade; as opposed to appalling liberal left metropolitan hypocrites who are all mouth. You like the virtues you associate yourself with and you like people to know it.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    CD13 said:

    Dr Fox,

    I see you've missed my point.

    There are always competing elements for charity. Of course you can give your money and or your time to whom you want. I feel the priorities are askew sometimes. Bob Geldorf, for all his faults, had his right in the 1980s.

    I've no intentions pf saying what I do for charity - it's little enough. But this is one area I think deserves greater prominence. Others may prefer to send money to an animal charity. I don't criticise their judgement. But I stand by mine.

    Where public figures are getting involved in good works, I tend towards scepticism. Clearly there are those - Angela Jolie on war rape, for example - who work hard in a non-glamorous cause. There are others - and I suspect that many in Calais fall into this category - are more interested in the resultant publicity than in actually making a real difference
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 73,003

    From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.

    There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.

    I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?

    If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
    It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.

    I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
    I disagree. There is a major re-organisation of the NHS underway, and while the local implementations have had a great deal of coverage (arguably excessive, even), the systemic change has not been as well debated.
    There are good arguments for centres of excellence, efficiencies etc, but the point about overall reduction in bed numbers, and resultant increase of treatment in the community without a concomitant increase in funding for that deserves an airing - and at least goes beyond the emotional save our local A&E/maternity ward etc stuff.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,969
    Pulpstar said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Trying to think outside the box here.

    In rural areas there will always be long travel times to get to hospitals. The answer isn't to build more as the catchment area would still be large and the population served not high enough to justify.

    Would it be possible to have more fully equipped ambulances that could perform the majority of A&E functions on site? I understand the challenges of the availability of medically trained staff etc but paramedics could perform first aid plus and with communication with the nearest A&E, be talked through primary treatment options.

    I'm sure that would save lives but not sure of the practicality of it.

    I'd have thought in rural areas you'd want to keep small hospitals that comprise of

    1) A & E
    2) Maternity.

    Those are the services people really can't wait for.

    Dialysis, planned surgery, MRI, opthalmology, colo-rectal, heart, brain etc etc can all be put into the larger regional hospital in Barrow or wherever.
    An issue is specialisms. If it's an 'ordinary' A&E trip; say a broken arm; a small unit can be fine. If it's a normal pregnancy then a small unit should be able to cope as well as a larger one.

    However if complications arise, as they can do during childbirth or A&E, then the patient may need to be moved to where work can be done. This is less likely to happen if the specialisms are available on site.

    Worse, if someone does a task rarely, they may not do it as competently as if they do it regularly, as will happen in a larger unit. I *think* this was an issue in the Bristol and Furness scandals.

    I'm unsure there's a simple solution.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Trying to think outside the box here.

    In rural areas there will always be long travel times to get to hospitals. The answer isn't to build more as the catchment area would still be large and the population served not high enough to justify.

    Would it be possible to have more fully equipped ambulances that could perform the majority of A&E functions on site? I understand the challenges of the availability of medically trained staff etc but paramedics could perform first aid plus and with communication with the nearest A&E, be talked through primary treatment options.

    I'm sure that would save lives but not sure of the practicality of it.

    I'd have thought in rural areas you'd want to keep small hospitals that comprise of

    1) A & E
    2) Maternity.

    Those are the services people really can't wait for.
    AIUI one of the issues with sparsely populated areas is that medical services can't develop the critical mass so they have the expertise/experience of dealing with difficult cases - so counter intuitively, the argument can be made that 'babies will die' if local services are kept open......
  • Nigelb said:

    From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.

    There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.

    I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?

    If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
    It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.

    I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
    I disagree. There is a major re-organisation of the NHS underway, and while the local implementations have had a great deal of coverage (arguably excessive, even), the systemic change has not been as well debated.
    There are good arguments for centres of excellence, efficiencies etc, but the point about overall reduction in bed numbers, and resultant increase of treatment in the community without a concomitant increase in funding for that deserves an airing - and at least goes beyond the emotional save our local A&E/maternity ward etc stuff.

    Sky had a week long NHS news focus last week, I believe. Ran big NHS stories every day.

  • theakestheakes Posts: 941
    David: I suppose you could say "if the Conservatives get their vote out they will win"
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    Charles said:

    CD13 said:

    Dr Fox,

    I see you've missed my point.

    There are always competing elements for charity. Of course you can give your money and or your time to whom you want. I feel the priorities are askew sometimes. Bob Geldorf, for all his faults, had his right in the 1980s.

    I've no intentions pf saying what I do for charity - it's little enough. But this is one area I think deserves greater prominence. Others may prefer to send money to an animal charity. I don't criticise their judgement. But I stand by mine.

    Where public figures are getting involved in good works, I tend towards scepticism. Clearly there are those - Angela Jolie on war rape, for example - who work hard in a non-glamorous cause. There are others - and I suspect that many in Calais fall into this category - are more interested in the resultant publicity than in actually making a real difference
    The key question is usually would they do the same as they are doing anonymously and out of the public gaze with no cameras around. Same applies to lots of corporate charitable giving, its about managing their image as much as anything else, no way it would happen in most cases if they were not able to publicise it.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    edited February 2017

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Roger said:

    CD13 said:

    I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.

    It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.

    You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?

    What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.
    Yes a revolting thing to say but an uncharateristic remark from CD13. I suspect it wasn't meant as it was written.

    The luvvie brigade going to Calais hides the truth - and the Dubs amendment, short sighted from the start as it focuses on those already in Europe, probably gave the regulars at the usual Covent Garden haunts a warm glow of pride. Surprise surprise, they are good at emoting. They are not good at policy.

    Just because you cannot handle the truth does not make it revolting.

    Yaaawwwwnnnn - more virtue signalling.

    No - calling out hypocrisy.

    I'm not signalling a single virtue in that.

    FAKE NEWS FROM EeyoreObserver.

    Yes, you are. You are signalling to us that you see yourself as a hard-headed, no-nonsense kind of guy who is not afraid to call a spade a spade; as opposed to appalling liberal left metropolitan hypocrites who are all mouth. You like the virtues you associate yourself with and you like people to know it.

    It must be very handy, in an Eeyoreish way, that your very personal definition of virtue signalling prevents observers from calling out virtue signalling.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Pulpstar said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Trying to think outside the box here.

    In rural areas there will always be long travel times to get to hospitals. The answer isn't to build more as the catchment area would still be large and the population served not high enough to justify.

    Would it be possible to have more fully equipped ambulances that could perform the majority of A&E functions on site? I understand the challenges of the availability of medically trained staff etc but paramedics could perform first aid plus and with communication with the nearest A&E, be talked through primary treatment options.

    I'm sure that would save lives but not sure of the practicality of it.

    I'd have thought in rural areas you'd want to keep small hospitals that comprise of

    1) A & E
    2) Maternity.

    Those are the services people really can't wait for.

    Dialysis, planned surgery, MRI, opthalmology, colo-rectal, heart, brain etc etc can all be put into the larger regional hospital in Barrow or wherever.
    I can see that working as well. I've also been thinking about the role of small cottage hospitals with say about 20 beds to serve as half way houses between larger hospitals and the social care sector. I really think we need a root and branch, non political review of what we want from Health Care and how to provide it
  • Labour should be very worried by the reported absence of window posters.
  • Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Roger said:

    CD13 said:

    I see South Sudan is now officially having a famine. Children are starving to death daily in a war-zone. The UN is appealing for funds but is getting not a lot.

    It's unfortunate, but it's not fashionable. If only the kids with their protruding stomach and sores had the energy to travel the few thousand miles to Calais and demonstrate.

    You can't expect the luvvies to go all the way to Africa to virtue-signal, surely? Not when the cameras are just across the Channel. Don't these dead and dying children know anything?

    What a revolting thing to say. You should ashamed of yourself.
    Yes a revolting thing to say but an uncharateristic remark from CD13. I suspect it wasn't meant as it was written.

    The luvvie brigade going to Calais hides the truth - and the Dubs amendment, short sighted from the start as it focuses on those already in Europe, probably gave the regulars at the usual Covent Garden haunts a warm glow of pride. Surprise surprise, they are good at emoting. They are not good at policy.

    Just because you cannot handle the truth does not make it revolting.

    Yaaawwwwnnnn - more virtue signalling.

    No - calling out hypocrisy.

    I'm not signalling a single virtue in that.

    FAKE NEWS FROM EeyoreObserver.

    Yes, you are. You are signalling to us that you see yourself as a hard-headed, no-nonsense kind of guy who is not afraid to call a spade a spade; as opposed to appalling liberal left metropolitan hypocrites who are all mouth. You like the virtues you associate yourself with and you like people to know it.

    It must be very handy, in an Eeyoreish way, that your very personal definition of virtue signalling prevents observers from calling out virtue signalling.

    If you can do it, why can't I? Don't be such a snowflake.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Dixie said:

    This still makes me chuckle, I never knew Breitbart employed so many snowflakes.

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/833794651937181701

    Of course, what the Left misunderstand is that the right wing diatribes are not about directly bringing in a uber nationalist world, but just about getting focus in the areas that matter. By turning attention to the right, they get the message out that ISIS must be dealt with and the Church is full of buggers and the Left are an undemocratic, self serving elite. I'm loving Trump, not because of his policies, but he shines a light on the all the wrongs in this world. Certain elites, certain religions, certain nations and colours have protection and can do what they want. Equality needs to be applied. Women must be freed from domination in some religion. Gays must have equal rights in others. Democracy must be restored from teh EU and Blair/Clegg etc. The alt-right are doing this. Long live Le Pen, Trump, Wildeers etc.
    I find the scoffing at Scott Adams most amusing - he doesn't vote. He lives in California and lost all his speaking engagements for simply saying he thought Trump would win the persuasion game.

    The Swamp and Dems are publicly crucifying Milo despite being the actual victim of abuse. It's very unattractive behaviour. And it's all so predictable in terms of character attacks. You're Stupid>Bigot>Anti-Semite>Crazy>White Supremacist>Nazi>Paedo
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,264

    Nigelb said:

    From the BBC News online headlines, it seems the BBC is becoming the NBC: The NHS Broadcasting Corporation.

    There has been headline after headline about the suspected and projected woes of the NHS. Today's is the result of a BBC 'analysis'.

    I like the BBC. I get value from the licence fee. But this is getting faintly ridiculous. Is there really no other news going on in the country?

    If it is any comfort, Sky News has a Brexit warning over HSBC's profits slump, HMG ballsing up business rates and "worsening teacher shortages, particularly in key subjects including physics and maths". Of course, it is always possible Rupert Murdoch is a closet Corbynite.
    It sounds as though Sky are doing their job well then, or at least better than the BBC.

    I've no problem with stories about the NHS appearing on the BBC. It's just the deluge of them seems rather out of proportion.
    I disagree. There is a major re-organisation of the NHS underway, and while the local implementations have had a great deal of coverage (arguably excessive, even), the systemic change has not been as well debated.
    There are good arguments for centres of excellence, efficiencies etc, but the point about overall reduction in bed numbers, and resultant increase of treatment in the community without a concomitant increase in funding for that deserves an airing - and at least goes beyond the emotional save our local A&E/maternity ward etc stuff.

    Sky had a week long NHS news focus last week, I believe. Ran big NHS stories every day.

    Funny they don't run a week of stories holding the last Labour Govt. to account for massively increasing the population whilst making no acknowledgment that we would require equivalent massive provision in health, in education, in housing, in road and rail infrastructure. That is the hospital pass subsequent Govternments are having to deal with.

    For that alone, Labour should be debarred from power for ever.
This discussion has been closed.