politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election and Northern Ireland Election Previews : Mar

SystemSystem Posts: 12,263
edited March 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election and Northern Ireland Election Previews : March 2nd 2017

Mudeford and Friars Cliffe on Christchurch (Con defence, resignation of sitting member) Result of council at last election (2015): Conservatives 19, Independents 2, United Kingdom Independence Party 1 (Conservative majority of 16) Result of ward at last election (2015): Emboldened denotes elected Conservatives 1,900, 1,897, 1,437 (56%) United Kingdom Independence Party 945 (28%) Labour 558, 515 (16%) EU Referendum Result: REMAIN 12,782 (41%) LEAVE 18,268 (59%) on a turnout of 79% Candidates duly nominated: Fiona Cownie (Green), Sheila Gray (Ind), Paul Hilliard (Con), Julian Spurr (Lab), Lawrence Wilson (UKIP) Weather at close of polls: Cloudy, but dry, 9°C Estimate: Conservative HOLD (Con 47%, Lab 17%, Ind 17%, UKIP 14%, Green 5%) Redcar and Cleveland – 2 by-elections Result of council at last election (2015): Labour 29, Liberal Democrats 11, Conservatives 10, Independents 6, East Cleveland Independent 1, Easton Independent 1, United Kingdom Independence Party 1 (No Overall Control, Labour short by 1) EU Referendum Result: REMAIN 24,586 (34%) LEAVE 48,128 (66%) on a turnout of 70%

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    1
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/reuters/status/837396811425939456
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,373
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/reuters/status/837396811425939456

    Lock him up!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,301
    1st, after transfer of preferences.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    dr_spyn said:

    1st, after transfer of preferences.

    I already bagged alternative first
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,301
    edited March 2017
    Scott_P said:

    dr_spyn said:

    1st, after transfer of preferences.

    I already bagged alternative first
    There was recount...of postal votes.
  • RestharrowRestharrow Posts: 233
    Thank you Harry. This is a great public service. Long may it continue.

    I wonder if UKIP might cause an upset in Kersal?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Top 10.

    According to SeanT, this is important.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883
    edited March 2017
    MarkHopkins said:


    Top 10.

    According to SeanT, this is important.

    But are you number 1 on politischewetten.de?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    There was a later by election in Redcar Hutton ward in March 2015 result was

    Con 879 LDem 536 Lab 368 UKIP 116 Ind 56
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    FPT
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Danny565 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    rottenborough said:

    The difficulty for Kier is he is not a woman. I detect a definite feeling that next time it must be a woman.

    That's what Atul Hatwal said in the Labour-Uncut piece linked earlier. I'm interested to hear where this feeling is showing itself. Even at the last Labour leadership election, it was looking to me as though a majority of Labour members found voting for a woman unthinkable.

    Good evening, everyone.
    Not finding any of the particular women on offer good enough =/= finding voting for any woman unthinkable
    No female candidate for Labour leader has ever beaten any male candidate.
    But two women have been elected as Deputy Leader.

    I can't really understand the thought process that Labour members would be so virulently sexist that they would refuse to have a female leader, yet somehow at the same time that sexism doesn't stop them from being happy to have a female Deputy.
    The other thing is, who exactly are the Labour women that people think were passed over for the leadership because of sexism.

    Is anyone (whatever their political views) really going to argue that Labour members were sexist in 1994 because they didn't think Margaret Beckett was a more impressive politician than Tony Blair?!?!
    I think the one time where Labour really should have had its first female leader was in 2015. Yvette Cooper really should have won that contest, and I thought so at the time. She was the best option by far. Kendall was far too close ideologically to the government. Burnham struggled to commit to certain positions on issues at times. Corbyn was obviously unelectable.
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    edited March 2017
    Trapped by thread update.

    There were posts from me for @Danny565 and @HYUFD on the previous thread.
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    Another response for @CornishBlue OPT
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    Been busy all day...Missed much? Innocent face.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    The_Apocalypse said:

    FPT

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Danny565 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    rottenborough said:

    The difficulty for Kier is he is not a woman. I detect a definite feeling that next time it must be a woman.

    That's what Atul Hatwal said in the Labour-Uncut piece linked earlier. I'm interested to hear where this feeling is showing itself. Even at the last Labour leadership election, it was looking to me as though a majority of Labour members found voting for a woman unthinkable.

    Good evening, everyone.
    Not finding any of the particular women on offer good enough =/= finding voting for any woman unthinkable
    No female candidate for Labour leader has ever beaten any male candidate.
    But two women have been elected as Deputy Leader.

    I can't really understand the thought process that Labour members would be so virulently sexist that they would refuse to have a female leader, yet somehow at the same time that sexism doesn't stop them from being happy to have a female Deputy.
    The other thing is, who exactly are the Labour women that people think were passed over for the leadership because of sexism.

    Is anyone (whatever their political views) really going to argue that Labour members were sexist in 1994 because they didn't think Margaret Beckett was a more impressive politician than Tony Blair?!?!
    Burnham struggled to commit to certain positions on issues at times.
    Understatement of the year.
  • FormerToryOrangeFormerToryOrange Posts: 112
    Something dodgy about the remain and leave percentages for NI, they add up to 102%. At least it wasn't the turnout!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Thanks Harry.

    The christchurch council is devoid of the pothole party, I see! Long may it continue :)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    Total and utter twats...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    I laid David Milliband at 12/1, what is the world coming to??!
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Total and utter twats...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

    Person alive!

    Shrewdies of the future will be the ones who didn't go

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,122
    Scott_P said:

    @Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns

    Seems sensible and also he must be confident of his position
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,147
    isam said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Total and utter twats...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

    Person alive!

    Shrewdies of the future will be the ones who didn't go

    Next word on the chopping board.. human... it's now huperson.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,010
    edited March 2017
    RobD said:

    isam said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Total and utter twats...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

    Person alive!

    Shrewdies of the future will be the ones who didn't go

    Next word on the chopping board.. human... it's now huperson.
    huperson

    Literally Hitler!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said
    ' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

    If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

    Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Total and utter twats...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

    Beyond Newspeak. Big Brother is doubleplusunacceptable. Big Sibling ?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Person is very gendered. Perkin and huperkin are more acceptable. Though speciesist.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Total and utter twats...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

    So have all of these words been put on a blacklist?
  • danielmawbsdanielmawbs Posts: 96
    OT but I see Farage has been having a pop at carswell again

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/farage-says-carswell-has-never-really-let-the-hate-flow-through-him-20170301123099
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,319
    SandyRentool said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Total and utter twats...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

    So have all of these words been put on a blacklist?
    That's racist. Literally Hitler.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said
    ' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

    If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

    Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

    Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,387
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Person is very gendered. Perkin and huperkin are more acceptable. Though speciesist.

    So is it Harriet Harperkin from now on then?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    Bojabob said:

    Trapped by thread update.

    There were posts from me for @Danny565 and @HYUFD on the previous thread.

    Until polls start to show Corbyn losing the support of the membership he will go at a time of his choosing
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883
    MaxPB said:

    SandyRentool said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Total and utter twats...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

    So have all of these words been put on a blacklist?
    That's racist. Literally Hitler.
    Do they still have signs in your part of the world promising to prosecute Schwarzfahrer on public transport?
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    HYUFD said:

    Bojabob said:

    Trapped by thread update.

    There were posts from me for @Danny565 and @HYUFD on the previous thread.

    Until polls start to show Corbyn losing the support of the membership he will go at a time of his choosing
    The key word in that sentence being 'until'!
  • glwglw Posts: 10,010
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Total and utter twats...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

    Beyond Newspeak. Big Brother is doubleplusunacceptable. Big Sibling ?
    I particularly liked this bit, "adding that students should not allow their “cultural background” to affect their choice of words."

    Change "words" to almost anything else and the university would be under fire.


  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    Seems the blame can be laid at the sister’s door and her ‘gofundme’ overhyped begging letter. Doesn’t exonerate Buzzfeed however, as no attempt at corroboration was attempted.
  • HarryHayfieldHarryHayfield Posts: 55
    FormerToryOrange said:

    Something dodgy about the remain and leave percentages for NI, they add up to 102%. At least it wasn't the turnout!

    The figures I have for Northern Ireland are REMAIN 440,707 votes (55.7%), LEAVE 349,442 votes (44.2%) on a turnout of 62.7% and come from the Electoral Commission, so therefore I must have pressed a 6 when I meant to press a 4

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited March 2017
    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    The reporting by some of this case reminds me a little bit of ferguson "hands up" stuff. Certain parts of the media wanted it to be true they weren't interested in finding out the truth. Incredibly I remember the press conference for the investigation where some journos were still arguing and unwilling to believe the evidence despite being told here are all the witness statements and there are a lot of them, feel free to check them out.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    SeanT said:

    SimonStClare said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    Seems the blame can be laid at the sister’s door and her ‘gofundme’ overhyped begging letter. Doesn’t exonerate Buzzfeed however, as no attempt at corroboration was attempted.
    Or Channel 4 News, or the Indy, who ran the same "lived in the UK for 30 years" bullshit.

    And an honest woman would surely have rushed to correct the many enormous lies in the GoFundMe letter, Irene Clennell did not.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/02/irene-clennell-deported-uk-terrorist
  • glwglw Posts: 10,010
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    SeanT said:

    SimonStClare said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    Seems the blame can be laid at the sister’s door and her ‘gofundme’ overhyped begging letter. Doesn’t exonerate Buzzfeed however, as no attempt at corroboration was attempted.
    Or Channel 4 News, or the Indy, who ran the same "lived in the UK for 30 years" bullshit.

    And an honest woman would surely have rushed to correct the many enormous lies in the GoFundMe letter, Irene Clennell did not.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/02/irene-clennell-deported-uk-terrorist
    Over 900 comments, and from a quick look at them they are mostly foaming at the mouth and entirely ignorant of the facts.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    The_Apocalypse said:

    FPT

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Danny565 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    rottenborough said:

    The difficulty for Kier is he is not a woman. I detect a definite feeling that next time it must be a woman.

    That's what Atul Hatwal said in the Labour-Uncut piece linked earlier. I'm interested to hear where this feeling is showing itself. Even at the last Labour leadership election, it was looking to me as though a majority of Labour members found voting for a woman unthinkable.

    Good evening, everyone.
    Not finding any of the particular women on offer good enough =/= finding voting for any woman unthinkable
    No female candidate for Labour leader has ever beaten any male candidate.
    But two women have been elected as Deputy Leader.

    I can't really understand the thought process that Labour members would be so virulently sexist that they would refuse to have a female leader, yet somehow at the same time that sexism doesn't stop them from being happy to have a female Deputy.
    The other thing is, who exactly are the Labour women that people think were passed over for the leadership because of sexism.

    Is anyone (whatever their political views) really going to argue that Labour members were sexist in 1994 because they didn't think Margaret Beckett was a more impressive politician than Tony Blair?!?!
    I think the one time where Labour really should have had its first female leader was in 2015. Yvette Cooper really should have won that contest, and I thought so at the time. She was the best option by far. Kendall was far too close ideologically to the government. Burnham struggled to commit to certain positions on issues at times. Corbyn was obviously unelectable.
    Correct.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    SeanT said:

    SimonStClare said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    Seems the blame can be laid at the sister’s door and her ‘gofundme’ overhyped begging letter. Doesn’t exonerate Buzzfeed however, as no attempt at corroboration was attempted.
    Or Channel 4 News, or the Indy, who ran the same "lived in the UK for 30 years" bullshit.

    And an honest woman would surely have rushed to correct the many enormous lies in the GoFundMe letter, Irene Clennell did not.
    Channel 4 and the Indy belong is the recently categorized realm of Very Fake News. Nobody takes them seriously.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,912
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Scott_P said:

    @Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns

    Seems sensible and also he must be confident of his position
    BigG, did you watch the clip that Indigo posted? He basically said that he hasn't spoken to the Russians, and that simply wasn't true. What's more absurd is that the question was not one which required the denial he gave it. He could easily have side stepped the issue.
  • BojabobBojabob Posts: 642
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said
    ' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

    If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

    Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

    Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then
    Er no. He got a fractionally higher share in a massively reduced field
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    glw said:

    TwistedFireStopper said:

    SeanT said:

    SimonStClare said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    Seems the blame can be laid at the sister’s door and her ‘gofundme’ overhyped begging letter. Doesn’t exonerate Buzzfeed however, as no attempt at corroboration was attempted.
    Or Channel 4 News, or the Indy, who ran the same "lived in the UK for 30 years" bullshit.

    And an honest woman would surely have rushed to correct the many enormous lies in the GoFundMe letter, Irene Clennell did not.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/02/irene-clennell-deported-uk-terrorist
    Over 900 comments, and from a quick look at them they are mostly foaming at the mouth and entirely ignorant of the facts.
    My Facebook feed has been rammed with it over the past few days.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said
    ' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

    If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

    Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

    Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then
    Er no. He got a fractionally higher share in a massively reduced field
    If there had really been a shift against Corbyn then Smith would have beaten him head to head
  • glwglw Posts: 10,010
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    The reporting by some of this case reminds me a little bit of ferguson "hands up" stuff. Certain parts of the media wanted it to be true they weren't interested in finding out the truth. Incredibly I remember the press conference for the investigation where some journos were still arguing and unwilling to believe the evidence despite being told here are all the witness statements and there are a lot of them, feel free to check them out.
    It doesn't matter what the facts are when people are picking sides immediately, going on little more than a headline. The shooting of Trayvon Martin was similarly polarised.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "European Parliament President Antonio Tajani has called for the EU to set up refugee reception centers in Libya and to implement a “Marshall Plan” for Africa in order to curb migration to the bloc, Die Zeit reported Monday. We either act now or 20 million Africans will come to Europe in the coming years,” Tajani said."

    http://www.politico.eu/article/antonio-tajani-calls-for-eu-to-open-refugee-reception-centers-in-libya/
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said
    ' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

    If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

    Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

    Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then
    Not really. If the preferences of other candidates had been transferred in 2015 to leave just two candidates , Corbyn's margin of victory would have been a fair bit bigger than in 2016. He would have defeated Burnham by circa 65% to 35% and Cooper by at least 67% to 33%. Because he received over 50% of first preference votes there was no need to do that , but in order to make a like for like comparison, we would need to know what the final figures would have been from the transfer process. I believe my estimates to be sound.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Are the Lib Dems winning here ?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Bojabob said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said
    ' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

    If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

    Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

    Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then
    Er no. He got a fractionally higher share in a massively reduced field
    And if the preferences had been fully resolved in 2015 he'd probably have beaten Burnham something like 65-35 anyway. (Or possibly Cooper by more).
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    Can't spell Farage - bad journalism
    Farage NEVER promised £350m to NHS - fake news
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said
    ' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

    If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

    Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

    Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then
    Not really. If the preferences of other candidates had been transferred in 2015 to leave just two candidates , Corbyn's margin of victory would have been a fair bit bigger than in 2016. He would have defeated Burnham by circa 65% to 35% and Cooper by at least 67% to 33%. Because he received over 50% of first preference votes there was no need to do that , but in order to make a like for like comparison, we would need to know what the final figures would have been from the transfer process. I believe my estimates to be sound.
    Cooper's votes would almost all have gone to Burnham as would Kendall's, the fact remains the Labour membership has twice comfortably elected Corbyn and there is no polling evidence to suggest that has changed since
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,410
    rcs1000 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Scott_P said:

    @Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns

    Seems sensible and also he must be confident of his position
    BigG, did you watch the clip that Indigo posted? He basically said that he hasn't spoken to the Russians, and that simply wasn't true. What's more absurd is that the question was not one which required the denial he gave it. He could easily have side stepped the issue.
    His defence in his press conference, in essence, is that he was answering a different question from the one Sen Franken actually asked. He also seemed to remember all about his meeting with the Russian ambassador after having previously said he couldn't remember what was discussed. I think he will survive. His decision to recuse himself from the investigation looks like a response. Still it's andanotherthing for Trump who is looking both incompetent and sleazy, when his manifesto was that he was the man to get things done and to drain the Washington swamp.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 2017
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    The reporting by some of this case reminds me a little bit of ferguson "hands up" stuff. Certain parts of the media wanted it to be true they weren't interested in finding out the truth. Incredibly I remember the press conference for the investigation where some journos were still arguing and unwilling to believe the evidence despite being told here are all the witness statements and there are a lot of them, feel free to check them out.
    Reminds me of blacked up Gina Miller with a bone through her nose-gate
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883
    glw said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    The reporting by some of this case reminds me a little bit of ferguson "hands up" stuff. Certain parts of the media wanted it to be true they weren't interested in finding out the truth. Incredibly I remember the press conference for the investigation where some journos were still arguing and unwilling to believe the evidence despite being told here are all the witness statements and there are a lot of them, feel free to check them out.
    It doesn't matter what the facts are when people are picking sides immediately, going on little more than a headline. The shooting of Trayvon Martin was similarly polarised.
    Polarised between idiots who immediately pick a side, and non-idiots who need a lot of persuasion to pick a side at all.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,730
    glw said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    The reporting by some of this case reminds me a little bit of ferguson "hands up" stuff. Certain parts of the media wanted it to be true they weren't interested in finding out the truth. Incredibly I remember the press conference for the investigation where some journos were still arguing and unwilling to believe the evidence despite being told here are all the witness statements and there are a lot of them, feel free to check them out.
    It doesn't matter what the facts are when people are picking sides immediately, going on little more than a headline. The shooting of Trayvon Martin was similarly polarised.
    Some of the reporting on Trayvon Martin was appalling. They bordered on inciting people to go and attack George Zimmerman.
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    HarryHayfield said:

    FormerToryOrange said:

    Something dodgy about the remain and leave percentages for NI, they add up to 102%. At least it wasn't the turnout!

    The figures I have for Northern Ireland are REMAIN 440,707 votes (55.7%), LEAVE 349,442 votes (44.2%) on a turnout of 62.7% and come from the Electoral Commission, so therefore I must have pressed a 6 when I meant to press a 4

    you do a great job,Harry. Thank you for your diligence.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I thought Channel 4 News were big on "fact checking"?
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    williamglenn said:

    glw said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    The reporting by some of this case reminds me a little bit of ferguson "hands up" stuff. Certain parts of the media wanted it to be true they weren't interested in finding out the truth. Incredibly I remember the press conference for the investigation where some journos were still arguing and unwilling to believe the evidence despite being told here are all the witness statements and there are a lot of them, feel free to check them out.
    It doesn't matter what the facts are when people are picking sides immediately, going on little more than a headline. The shooting of Trayvon Martin was similarly polarised.
    Polarised between idiots who immediately pick a side, and non-idiots who need a lot of persuasion to pick a side at all.
    Wise words. You should heed them.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,122
    rcs1000 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Scott_P said:

    @Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns

    Seems sensible and also he must be confident of his position
    BigG, did you watch the clip that Indigo posted? He basically said that he hasn't spoken to the Russians, and that simply wasn't true. What's more absurd is that the question was not one which required the denial he gave it. He could easily have side stepped the issue.
    I watched his press conference live and he seemed plausable but I am no expert
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,147
    AndyJS said:

    I thought Channel 4 News were big on "fact checking"?

    I guess only when it suits their narrative.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    Cyan said:

    Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.

    Juppe would be an ideal opponent for Le Pen in the runoff now
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,373
    Fwiw.

    https://twitter.com/LJHarteFH/status/837421725595860993
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited March 2017
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said
    ' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

    If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

    Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

    Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then
    Not really. If the preferences of other candidates had been transferred in 2015 to leave just two candidates , Corbyn's margin of victory would have been a fair bit bigger than in 2016. He would have defeated Burnham by circa 65% to 35% and Cooper by at least 67% to 33%. Because he received over 50% of first preference votes there was no need to do that , but in order to make a like for like comparison, we would need to know what the final figures would have been from the transfer process. I believe my estimates to be sound.
    Cooper's votes would almost all have gone to Burnham as would Kendall's, the fact remains the Labour membership has twice comfortably elected Corbyn and there is no polling evidence to suggest that has changed since
    Kendall's would have split between Cooper and Burnham - with some not being transferred at all. At the time, I would think 20 - 25% of Cooper's votes would have gone to Corbyn. Had Burnham been eliminated I would have expected over 30% of his vote to have switched to Corbyn. I am not a party member but did pay £3 to participate in the 2015 contest. I went Cooper Ist - Corbyn 2nd - Burnham 3rd.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

    "Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Fwiw.

    https://twitter.com/LJHarteFH/status/837421725595860993

    Good. Jemma Dolan is one of my bets.
  • BudGBudG Posts: 711
    Cyan said:

    Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.

    And yet Juppe is far more popular than Fillon. Second only to Macron in terms of popularity and a pretty close second too. It will be very tight between these two should Juppe replace Fillon.

    https://www.lesechos.fr/medias/2017/03/02/2050135_presidentielle-2017-les-sondages-des-echos-web-0211789546588.jpg
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited March 2017
    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    Can't spell Farage - bad journalism
    Farage NEVER promised £350m to NHS - fake news
    Makes it more believeable tho. He's some mad frothy lefty Remainer, yet even he is disgusted by the dishonesty surrounding this case.

    It's one of the most blatant examples of Fake News I've seen. Just complete obvious disprovable bullshit from the get-go, yet still being reheated and served up in lefty media.

    I'm a journalist. I don't understand journalists who can write this shit without feeling a paralysing sense of self-disgust (and this applies to right and left). You're lying, you know you're lying, and yet you carry on lying. How do they sleep?

    I guess journalists, especially freelancers, or writers on chancy sites like Buzzzfeed, must now be so desperate scared of poverty and unemployment they don't care. Sad.
    The lack of professional pride in spinning something so outrageously that it borders, perhaps crosses the boundary into, outright lies is quite something.

    Even on here I, not a journalist, try to find sources that would usually disagree with my worldview to make a point*. As you say these journos are probably desperate chancers hoping a story will catch fire before the truth is uncovered.

    *the odd daily mail tweet slips through the net ☺️
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,912
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Scott_P said:

    @Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns

    Seems sensible and also he must be confident of his position
    BigG, did you watch the clip that Indigo posted? He basically said that he hasn't spoken to the Russians, and that simply wasn't true. What's more absurd is that the question was not one which required the denial he gave it. He could easily have side stepped the issue.
    I watched his press conference live and he seemed plausable but I am no expert
    This was the confirmation hearings. He basically said he'd had no contracts with the Russians.

    He could have prevaricated. But he didn't. Like Flynn, be denied something which now shares to be true.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,373
    edited March 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Fwiw.

    https://twitter.com/LJHarteFH/status/837421725595860993

    Good. Jemma Dolan is one of my bets.
    If it is a no change election, it seems it won't be down to a want of voters.

    https://twitter.com/mickfealty/status/837380302691569666
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,549
    edited March 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

    "Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

    It's more bonkers that Twatter .... I honestly don't get these crazy priced tech companies that neither make any money nor have an tech than can't easily be replicated. Snapchat ain't Google or AWS etc
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,147
    edited March 2017
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Fwiw.

    https://twitter.com/LJHarteFH/status/837421725595860993

    Compare with a ~64% turnout at the 2016 election in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency. This is also Arlene Foster's seat.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,912
    HYUFD said:

    Cyan said:

    Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.

    Juppe would be an ideal opponent for Le Pen in the runoff now
    Don't the polls have Juppe 30 points clear of Le Pen in the run off?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,912
    AndyJS said:

    "European Parliament President Antonio Tajani has called for the EU to set up refugee reception centers in Libya and to implement a “Marshall Plan” for Africa in order to curb migration to the bloc, Die Zeit reported Monday. We either act now or 20 million Africans will come to Europe in the coming years,” Tajani said."

    http://www.politico.eu/article/antonio-tajani-calls-for-eu-to-open-refugee-reception-centers-in-libya/

    Surprisingly smart thinking.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    BudG said:

    Cyan said:

    Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.

    And yet Juppe is far more popular than Fillon. Second only to Macron in terms of popularity and a pretty close second too. It will be very tight between these two should Juppe replace Fillon.

    https://www.lesechos.fr/medias/2017/03/02/2050135_presidentielle-2017-les-sondages-des-echos-web-0211789546588.jpg
    Juppe is archetypal establishment, lacks charisma and has a shady past, he also would be imposed on the LRs having lost the primary, in a runoff campaign against him Le Pen would have a lot to go on
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Pulpstar said:

    Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

    "Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

    Even Italian teenage girls hold Snapchat in contempt. The same youngsters describe Instagram as " life ".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    Northern Ireland politics depresses me, for all I know things used to be worse. Is there any prospect of less febrile politics in coming decades?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Pulpstar said:

    Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

    "Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

    You invest, and after a few seconds your money deletes itself? Or maybe I'm just old fashioned
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    AndyJS said:

    "European Parliament President Antonio Tajani has called for the EU to set up refugee reception centers in Libya and to implement a “Marshall Plan” for Africa in order to curb migration to the bloc, Die Zeit reported Monday. We either act now or 20 million Africans will come to Europe in the coming years,” Tajani said."

    http://www.politico.eu/article/antonio-tajani-calls-for-eu-to-open-refugee-reception-centers-in-libya/

    Libya is a borderline failed state with a serious ISIS problem. If the EU sent any sort of mission there its members would soon find themselves being kidnapped and starring in grisly videos, I fear. As for a "Marshall Plan for Africa," that notion rests on the erroneous assumption that increasing migration is driven by increasing poverty rather than increasing wealth - and even that fraction of it caused by people fleeing despotism (e.g. in Eritrea) could only plausibly be resolved by the kind of neo-liberal military intervention that nobody is willing to contemplate post-Iraq.

    The European Parliament's stance is the product of well-meaning but deeply naïve do-goodery. The most effective solution to migration across the Mediterranean would be an Australian-style policy of push back conducted by a naval screen offshore, backed up with special forces action to kill the people smugglers and burn all their boats. Provide effective deterrents and people will eventually learn to stop coming; this, in turn, might help to free up resources to look for sustainable solutions for the minority of genuine refugees, rather than having them taken for every penny they have by armed gangs before being herded at gunpoint onto leaky dinghies and made to gamble with their lives on the high seas.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Pulpstar said:

    Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

    "Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

    What are you, Ed Miliband? This is capitalism, baby!
  • glwglw Posts: 10,010
    Sean_F said:

    Some of the reporting on Trayvon Martin was appalling. They bordered on inciting people to go and attack George Zimmerman.

    From what I've read about him Zimmerman appears to be a awful person, and I think quite fortunate to escape jail. But that doesn't mean that the instant judgements based upon the initial reports are okay, nor the calls for protests and worse.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    welshowl said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

    "Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

    You invest, and after a few seconds your money deletes itself? Or maybe I'm just old fashioned
    It'll never get as good as today. A one day pump and dump if ever there was one !
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said
    ' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

    If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

    Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

    Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then
    Not really. If the preferences of other candidates had been transferred in 2015 to leave just two candidates , Corbyn's margin of victory would have been a fair bit bigger than in 2016. He would have defeated Burnham by circa 65% to 35% and Cooper by at least 67% to 33%. Because he received over 50% of first preference votes there was no need to do that , but in order to make a like for like comparison, we would need to know what the final figures would have been from the transfer process. I believe my estimates to be sound.
    Cooper's votes would almost all have gone to Burnham as would Kendall's, the fact remains the Labour membership has twice comfortably elected Corbyn and there is no polling evidence to suggest that has changed since
    Kendall's would have split between Cooper and Burnham - with some not being transferred at all. At the time, I would think 20 - 25% of Cooper's votes would have gone to Corbyn. Had Burnham been eliminated I would have expected over 30% of his vote to have switched to Corbyn. I am not a party member but did pay £3 to participate in the 2015 contest. I went Cooper Ist - Corbyn 2nd - Burnham 3rd.
    Kendall's would have gone 90%+ to Burnham or Cooper and Burnham came second to Corbyn. The fact remains Corbyn has twice got over 60% of Labour members to back him, the leadership is his for as long as he wants it unless there is a dramatic change in the views of Labour members
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    Pulpstar said:

    Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

    "Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

    They must expect some pretty startling profits in years to come, but even if that is so compared to some companies with proven profitability that is one hell of an amount.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,147
    kle4 said:

    Northern Ireland politics depresses me, for all I know things used to be worse. Is there any prospect of less febrile politics in coming decades?

    Not likely. Sinn Fein have said they won't go back into government with the DUP. If it is a no change election direct rule from UK looks like a distinct possibility.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,301
    Cyan said:

    Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.

    Fillon and Alain Juppé some of the best politicians money could...
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

    http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

    Can't spell Farage - bad journalism
    Farage NEVER promised £350m to NHS - fake news
    Makes it more believeable tho. He's some mad frothy lefty Remainer, yet even he is disgusted by the dishonesty surrounding this case.

    It's one of the most blatant examples of Fake News I've seen. Just complete obvious disprovable bullshit from the get-go, yet still being reheated and served up in lefty media.

    I'm a journalist. I don't understand journalists who can write this shit without feeling a paralysing sense of self-disgust (and this applies to right and left). You're lying, you know you're lying, and yet you carry on lying. How do they sleep?

    I guess journalists, especially freelancers, or writers on chancy sites like Buzzzfeed, must now be so desperate scared of poverty and unemployment they don't care. Sad.
    I just get the feeling more and more, journalists and news outlets are more interested in pushing their agenda than informing the public of the facts. Of course, there are multiple sides to a story, but it is increasingly harder to find a balanced view. It seems more important to back the side you believe in rather than reporting honestly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,689
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Fwiw.

    https://twitter.com/LJHarteFH/status/837421725595860993

    Could be SDLP take a seat from SF
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Total and utter twats...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

    The benefit of such over sensitivity is you are bound to find someone who considers themselves extremely politically correct and yet will use one of these apparently anathema phrases.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/837422531732713472
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,883
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

    "Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

    They must expect some pretty startling profits in years to come, but even if that is so compared to some companies with proven profitability that is one hell of an amount.
    I don't see how they possibly can. The only compelling argument I've ever heard for why anyone is on Snapchat is that their parents aren't, and even that only covers a minuscule demographic.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,652
    I'm waiting for the SpaceX IPO !

    Now that is a company with LONG TERM potential :>
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said
    ' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

    If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

    Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

    Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then
    Not really. If the preferences of other candidates had been transferred in 2015 to leave just two candidates , Corbyn's margin of victory would have been a fair bit bigger than in 2016. He would have defeated Burnham by circa 65% to 35% and Cooper by at least 67% to 33%. Because he received over 50% of first preference votes there was no need to do that , but in order to make a like for like comparison, we would need to know what the final figures would have been from the transfer process. I believe my estimates to be sound.
    Cooper's votes would almost all have gone to Burnham as would Kendall's, the fact remains the Labour membership has twice comfortably elected Corbyn and there is no polling evidence to suggest that has changed since
    Kendall's would have split between Cooper and Burnham - with some not being transferred at all. At the time, I would think 20 - 25% of Cooper's votes would have gone to Corbyn. Had Burnham been eliminated I would have expected over 30% of his vote to have switched to Corbyn. I am not a party member but did pay £3 to participate in the 2015 contest. I went Cooper Ist - Corbyn 2nd - Burnham 3rd.
    Kendall's would have gone 90%+ to Burnham or Cooper and Burnham came second to Corbyn. The fact remains Corbyn has twice got over 60% of Labour members to back him, the leadership is his for as long as he wants it unless there is a dramatic change in the views of Labour members
    If the NEC was smart enough to change the election rules back to the system Corbyn was originally elected on, then there might be a chance to beat Corbyn by recruiting new voters.
  • BudGBudG Posts: 711
    HYUFD said:

    BudG said:

    Cyan said:

    Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.

    And yet Juppe is far more popular than Fillon. Second only to Macron in terms of popularity and a pretty close second too. It will be very tight between these two should Juppe replace Fillon.

    https://www.lesechos.fr/medias/2017/03/02/2050135_presidentielle-2017-les-sondages-des-echos-web-0211789546588.jpg
    Juppe is archetypal establishment, lacks charisma and has a shady past, he also would be imposed on the LRs having lost the primary, in a runoff campaign against him Le Pen would have a lot to go on
    And yet, as the poll shows, he retains high popularity.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,830
    I am actually surprised Redcar has so many LD councillors. The LDs won the parliamentary seat in 2010 on a massive swing off the back of discontent over the closure of the steelworks (which were reopened, and I believed now closed again) but Labour got it back in 2015 to revert to the norm, but I had just assumed the LD win came from nowhere and there'd be no local support at all.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,225
    HYUFD said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Fwiw.

    https://twitter.com/LJHarteFH/status/837421725595860993

    Could be SDLP take a seat from SF
    Is this different people voting or the same people voting again and again.? Sean Fein depend on the latter.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Pulpstar said:

    Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

    "Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

    It's 1999 all over again. Hopefully we'll be treated to entertainment on the scale of Pets.com, Kozmo.com and (best of all) Webvan.

    Just don't get caught underfoot when the stampede for the exits begins. It will be very rapid indeed when it comes.
This discussion has been closed.