politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Day 2 of Osbo’s new job and he’s not being helpful to the woma

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Day 2 of Osbo’s new job and he’s not being helpful to the woman who sacked him

Although its now a freebie with a circulation confined to the capital the London Evening Standard is hugely influential in shaping the news narrative – what other parts of the mainstream media come to decide is important.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

George has decided Theresa delenda est.

Oops I think I need to do some Latin revision.

Casino_Royale

George has decided that revenge is a dish best served freezing cold.

kle4

Certainly at the least he's giving an indication that he will no be an uncritical friend.

Unless you believe the talk that Tories want Labour to be seen as in with more of a chance, so media criticism like this helps them push their message of needing to fight Corbyn, even thought it is critical.

Scott_P

Casino_Royale said:

George has decided that revenge is a dish best served freezing cold.

Twice a day...

TheScreamingEagles

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

isam

Scott_P said:

Casino_Royale said:

George has decided that revenge is a dish best served freezing cold.

Twice a day...

Seems to be serving it piping hot doesn't he?!

Mind you, he had an even more prominent role last year, and no one listened then

Carolus_Rex

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

I should reserve judgment on that until 9 June if I were you.

Richard_Nabavi

It will be very interesting to see how things develop; we might get some very perceptive comment from the new editor.

However, realistically, is this front-page any different from the front pages which the previous editor might have run?

isam

SeanT said:

Speaking as a journalist I have to say the idea the Standard is "hugely influential" is total and utter bollocks.

We have had thread after thread citing Newspaper circulation as a reason why it is so infl.... erm

kle4

LucyJones said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Happy Edstone day everyone.

So much better than Ed Balls day. Not as viscerally funny as an Abbott meltdown, but with far more permanence, like the memory of it was carved into stone.

I thought people were joking when I first heard about.

It didn't dawn on my husband for months that the Edstone was real. He thought it was some kind of joke from HIGNFY. He was quite surprised when I told him it wasn't a skit.

And in other news, I met a friend for coffee earlier today. Talk turned to the general election. "My hear sunk when I heard about it", she said. "So boring. Already had to put up with an election in 2015, Brexit and Trump last year and now this. Boring." Yes, it's true, There actually are people out there who don't obsess about the minutiae of Brexit negotiations, or Diane Abbott interview questions or Theresa May eating chips.

Such strange people. I quite like election time. It's the one time of year people I know also talk about these things (all three of your examples have come up inthe office today).

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

Paristonda said:

Scott_P said:

@JoeMurphyLondon: Exclusive: Labour inheritance tax will only hit mansions in most regions - but modest family homes in pricey London
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-plan-to-impose-inheritance-tax-on-estates-worth-425000-a3529116.html

Yes this is way too low a threshold for London and will play badly there. In Labour's Harrow West for example, many semi-detached houses in typical suburbia will be hit, and are likely to contain Asian families that vote Labour. Very risky for a group that is moving away from them already (although this seat is probably going Conservative at the next election anyway).

Seems like a very predictable issue to crop up, did they not have a 'but it will be x in London' clause?

That wouldn't go down well elsewhere, if Londoners are given a tax loophole not available to the rest of the country.

Betting on retaining their London firewall then, in the hope of broadening appeal elsewhere. Probably a worthwhile gamble.

IanB2 said:

Doesn't feel like Labour is holding its vote in Remain-y London

They must be somewhere, the polling says they're improving.

Cicero

I think many people now think that the Tories Strong and Stable nonsense should now be filed under:
"ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant"
They create a desert [and] call it peace.
So "Conservativa partis delenda est!"

Richard_Nabavi

SeanT said:

...
From there on down they descend in importance - the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these,....

The Standard behind the Indy? Ouch!

TheScreamingEagles

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

I should reserve judgment on that until 9 June if I were you.

Even Theresa May can't lose to Corbyn.

CommanderShepard

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

So you've decided Theresa is Carthage and George is playing Scipio? Do you think George has 3 years to conduct his siege?

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Risks looking like an embittered vendetta, not to mention a man not worried about damaging his party ahead of an election.

Carolus_Rex

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

I should reserve judgment on that until 9 June if I were you.

Even Theresa May can't lose to Corbyn.

Probably nobody could, but you don't get to pick your opponents, do you?

SouthamObserver

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone even though everyone pretends to hate it and never read it. Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

Influential is maybe not the right word (outside of London politics), but it has become must-read all of a sudden. Political journalists will all be looking for it in their in-boxes in a way they never were before. That's how newspapers become influential.

But how long will Osborne last? Is he really going to stick around? I imagine he'll be off within a couple of years and the Standard will go back to what it was last week.

TheScreamingEagles

CommanderShepard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

So you've decided Theresa is Carthage and George is playing Scipio? Do you think George has 3 years to conduct his siege?

18 months. If the Brexit deal goes mammary glands up and we go WTO, that's when the siege ends and Osborne is transformed from Scipio Africanus to Winston Churchill of 1940.

Richard_Nabavi

LibDem seats:

SpreadEx 25-28
SPIN 22-25

I've got an open sell at 26, and I think the SpreadEx sell price is still a bit of a snip.

As always, DYOR, the spreads can be treacherous, you might lose your shirt, etc etc

isam

Richard_Nabavi said:

LibDem seats:

SpreadEx 25-28
SPIN 22-25

I've got an open sell at 26, and I think the SpreadEx sell price is still a bit of a snip.

As always, DYOR, the spreads can be treacherous, you might lose your shirt, etc etc

I worked in Spread betting for about 12 years, and in fact the mistake most people make is not betting big enough because they exaggerate the probable loss

CommanderShepard

TheScreamingEagles said:

CommanderShepard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

So you've decided Theresa is Carthage and George is playing Scipio? Do you think George has 3 years to conduct his siege?

18 months. If the Brexit deal goes mammary glands up and we go WTO, that's when the siege ends and Osborne is transformed from Scipio Africanus to Winston Churchill of 1940.

Haha. Osborne as Churchill, I knew you had a man crush......

TheScreamingEagles

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

I should reserve judgment on that until 9 June if I were you.

Even Theresa May can't lose to Corbyn.

Probably nobody could, but you don't get to pick your opponents, do you?

You misunderestimate the power and influence of the Bilderberg Illuminati Lizards.

SimonStClare

The Lonndon freebie is not hugely influential, period.

TheScreamingEagles

CommanderShepard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CommanderShepard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

So you've decided Theresa is Carthage and George is playing Scipio? Do you think George has 3 years to conduct his siege?

18 months. If the Brexit deal goes mammary glands up and we go WTO, that's when the siege ends and Osborne is transformed from Scipio Africanus to Winston Churchill of 1940.

Haha. Osborne as Churchill, I knew you had a man crush......

I did a thread on it last summer.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/01/george-osborne-the-modern-day-winston-churchill/

Anyhoo I have only one political man crush and his name is Johnny Mercer.

CommanderShepard

At his best Osborne would only manage been Boudica.

isam

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone even though everyone pretends to hate it and never read it. Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

Influential is maybe not the right word (outside of London politics), but it has become must-read all of a sudden. Political journalists will all be looking for it in their in-boxes in a way they never were before. That's how newspapers become influential.

But how long will Osborne last? Is he really going to stick around? I imagine he'll be off within a couple of years and the Standard will go back to what it was last week.

A must read for people who follow politicians on twitter and hang on their every word maybe. I shouldn't think many other people even know he is the editor, or read it for anything other than the housing/sport section

FrancisUrquhart

I wouldn't totally down play the influence of the evening standard, it certainly helped Boris get two terms as London mayor and the rest of the MSM / influencers are overwhelming London based.

Like the guardian it's influence on the narrative far extends it's reach of actual readers.

TOPPING

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

Are the millions of Londoners who read the Standard every day aware of the nuances of your hierarchy of media importance?

Richard_Nabavi

isam said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

LibDem seats:

SpreadEx 25-28
SPIN 22-25

I've got an open sell at 26, and I think the SpreadEx sell price is still a bit of a snip.

As always, DYOR, the spreads can be treacherous, you might lose your shirt, etc etc

I worked in Spread betting for about 12 years, and in fact the mistake most people make is not betting big enough because they exaggerate the probable loss

In this particular case, it's possible that punters are over-worried about the potential asymmetric risk. Obviously in theory you could lose a lot more on the upside, but, realistically, how many gains could the LibDems make even on a very good day, unless things really change massively in the next few weeks?

brokenwheel

NickPalmer said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))‏Verified account @DPJHodges 20m20 minutes ago
More
Could a pollster speculate on why polls show Labour at 2015 levels, when that runs counter to everything we're hearing from the ground?

Exactly as we have been asking on here.

Most polls were showing Labour a bit higher in 2015, around 32-34%.

However, let's assume for the sake of argument that Labour win 30%, and I'll make a stab at an explanation:-

1. Labour's vote is holding steady or increasing in left wing areas that voted Remain.

2. Labour's vote share is holding steady or increasing in Conservative areas that voted Remain.

3. UKIP's vote share has plummeted, and some of those voters have gone over to Labour. But, they're far outnumbered by those that are going to the Conservatives.

4. Labour's vote share is falling badly in Labour seats that voted Leave, and UKIP voters in those seats are switching very strongly to the Conservatives.

Sounds plausible, though I'm in a Labour seat that I think voted Leave, and they seem fairly loyal (Nottingham North). Rottenborough isn't quite right that we've been all sounding like Dan Hodges here, though I don't think he believes it when we don't. As I've said a few times, I think Labour is retaining the great majority of its 2015 vote, but not getting many new votes yet.

Which interestingly is precisely the opposite of what the polls are saying re: the uptick in the Labour VI. Maybe a regional difference?

CommanderShepard

TheScreamingEagles said:

CommanderShepard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CommanderShepard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

So you've decided Theresa is Carthage and George is playing Scipio? Do you think George has 3 years to conduct his siege?

18 months. If the Brexit deal goes mammary glands up and we go WTO, that's when the siege ends and Osborne is transformed from Scipio Africanus to Winston Churchill of 1940.

Haha. Osborne as Churchill, I knew you had a man crush......

I did a thread on it last summer.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/01/george-osborne-the-modern-day-winston-churchill/

Anyhoo I have only one political man crush and his name is Johnny Mercer.

See, I get Johnny Mercer. His work on IHAT, MOD and mental health is exactly the work MPs should do.

isam

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

LibDem seats:

SpreadEx 25-28
SPIN 22-25

I've got an open sell at 26, and I think the SpreadEx sell price is still a bit of a snip.

As always, DYOR, the spreads can be treacherous, you might lose your shirt, etc etc

I worked in Spread betting for about 12 years, and in fact the mistake most people make is not betting big enough because they exaggerate the probable loss

In this particular case, it's possible that punters are over-worried about the potential asymmetric risk. Obviously in theory you could lose a lot more on the upside, but, realistically, how many gains could the LibDems make even on a very good day, unless things really change massively in the next few weeks?

...and you can always get out if something seismic happens, so the max loss is always avoidable. Although that would mean admitting you were wrong! They say the first cut is the cheapest

ThreeQuidder

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

...
From there on down they descend in importance - the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these,....

The Standard behind the Indy? Ouch!

The Standard is behind the Metro.

perdix

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Risks looking like an embittered vendetta, not to mention a man not worried about damaging his party ahead of an election.

Keeping Osborne in Cabinet after Theresa becoming Leader would not have worked. GO considered himself invincible but he chose the losing side for the Referendum. He's obviously very bitter but still ambitious.

CommanderShepard

perdix said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Risks looking like an embittered vendetta, not to mention a man not worried about damaging his party ahead of an election.

Keeping Osborne in Cabinet after Theresa becoming Leader would not have worked. GO considered himself invincible but he chose the losing side for the Referendum. He's obviously very bitter but still ambitious.

Bitter, ambitious and in danger of burning his bridges.

felix

The pundits read them all and twitter about their stories day in and day out ever more frantically while the voters get on with their lives and vote Conservative. I don't imagine they'll understand it even if there is a landslide. Either way it won't be down to them. On Osborne - I'm sad he's taken this route - the party is weaker without him. what is unclear is whether he was pushed or decided to jump into potential LD never never land. Cameron has kept a mostly dignified silence but I imagine with him there are a few regrets.

isam

Remember this in case Osborne doesn't fully endorse the Tories. As Richard says, that would mean no change

"On 5 May 2015, an editorial stated that the newspaper would again be supporting David Cameron and the Conservatives in the 2015 General Election, saying that the Conservatives have "shown themselves to be good for London."[28] The newspaper did however also claim "there may be good tactical reasons to vote Liberal Democrat."[28]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Evening_Standard

FF43

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

I thought the factory making the vans closed on George's watch?

Beverley_C

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carolus_Rex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

12 months ago, Dave and George were the masters of the political universe.

Sic Gloria Transit, Theresa.

I should reserve judgment on that until 9 June if I were you.

Even Theresa May can't lose to Corbyn.

Probably nobody could, but you don't get to pick your opponents, do you?

You do (allegedly) if you are Putin

[Deleted User]

The Tories have no real opposition. Osbo is the nearest they get!

SquareRoot

The Jeremy Vine show did Abbot up like a kipper under the pretence of the reaction not being fair. It just gave it more airtime. LOL

isam

SquareRoot said:

The Jeremy Vine show did Abbot up like a kipper under the pretence of the reaction not being fair. It just gave it more airtime. LOL

This Week on Thursday night should be good sport.

bobajobPB

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Perdix, it wasn't Osborne's side that was the problem, it was his conduct. The lamentations of apocalypse were pure propaganda.

It is interesting to consider what would have happened had Remain won. Labour would be in a dreadful state, of course, but would the Conservatives be united, or split? Would Farage be leading a UKIP riding high in the polls?

MTimT

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Risks looking like an embittered vendetta, not to mention a man not worried about damaging his party ahead of an election.

That was my take. Further diminution of any respect and legacy. Petty little man who would damage his country and party to salve his ego.

isam

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

Quite surprising it is so far behind Metro, 1.46m plays 887k

I would have thought the Standard would be far more popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2010_to_present

SimonStClare

SquareRoot said:

The Jeremy Vine show did Abbot up like a kipper under the pretence of the reaction not being fair. It just gave it more airtime. LOL

Is that his radio show, or has he moved over to the box in the corner?

[Deleted User]

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Perdix, it wasn't Osborne's side that was the problem, it was his conduct. The lamentations of apocalypse were pure propaganda.

It is interesting to consider what would have happened had Remain won. Labour would be in a dreadful state, of course, but would the Conservatives be united, or split? Would Farage be leading a UKIP riding high in the polls?

It was his side too. He was on the wrong side of history, the people and his party. He thinks we can be part of a European superstate. You don't get to be more wrong than that.

peter_from_putney

I've just grabbed all I could of Betfair's 12.5 against the Tories winning between 35% - 40% of the U.K. vote. Looks like stonking value to me ... I would have thought it was more of a 7 or 8 shot, but DYOR.

SquareRoot

isam said:

SquareRoot said:

The Jeremy Vine show did Abbot up like a kipper under the pretence of the reaction not being fair. It just gave it more airtime. LOL

This Week on Thursday night should be good sport.

Yes ..remember Andrew Neil on Abbott over private school education for her son and black mothers going to the wall for their children

video deleted by poster

TOPPING

SeanT said:

TOPPING said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

Are the millions of Londoners who read the Standard every day aware of the nuances of your hierarchy of media importance?

Yep, which is why they throw it away when they're done with it, and don't even bother to take it home.

You mean they don't take it home and add it to their temperature-controlled, CCTV-monitored Guardian and Times storage facility?

SirNorfolkPassmore

This is why appointing Osborne was a shrewd move. Sean WAS right that the Standard had become the journal of record for Sudoko players, and not much else. But now its niche is getting the inside track on intra-Tory Party disputes which, let's face it, is where power politics will play out in the UK over the next several years. It's given the paper a real relevance it had lacked for years.

SquareRoot

Is that his radio show, or has he moved over to the box in the corner?

radio

ThreeQuidder

isam said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

Quite surprising it is so far behind Metro, 1.46m plays 887k

I would have thought the Standard would be far more popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2010_to_present

Commuting on the Tube every day, I'm not that surprised. I don't know why, but far more people read the Metro than the Standard.

Metro has regional editions too, I believe, are they included?

bobajobPB

isam said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

Quite surprising it is so far behind Metro, 1.46m plays 887k

I would have thought the Standard would be far more popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2010_to_present

Metro is UK wide, Standard just London and Home Counties.

[Deleted User]

ThreeQuidder said:

isam said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

Quite surprising it is so far behind Metro, 1.46m plays 887k

I would have thought the Standard would be far more popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2010_to_present

Commuting on the Tube every day, I'm not that surprised. I don't know why, but far more people read the Metro than the Standard.

2/3 of the Standard is property porn. 3/4 of the Metro is news.

SouthamObserver

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone even though everyone pretends to hate it and never read it. Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

Influential is maybe not the right word (outside of London politics), but it has become must-read all of a sudden. Political journalists will all be looking for it in their in-boxes in a way they never were before. That's how newspapers become influential.

But how long will Osborne last? Is he really going to stick around? I imagine he'll be off within a couple of years and the Standard will go back to what it was last week.

A must read for people who follow politicians on twitter and hang on their every word maybe. I shouldn't think many other people even know he is the editor, or read it for anything other than the housing/sport section

Surely influential means affecting coverage of an issue. The Standard will be doing that every time it runs a controversial headline because of who its editor is. It is influential because of Osborne, not because of its readership. That makes it different to just about every other newspaper.

isam

bobajobPB said:

isam said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

Quite surprising it is so far behind Metro, 1.46m plays 887k

I would have thought the Standard would be far more popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2010_to_present

Metro is UK wide, Standard just London and Home Counties.

Oh that would be it. Didn't seem right

SquareRoot

Patrick said:

ThreeQuidder said:

isam said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

Quite surprising it is so far behind Metro, 1.46m plays 887k

I would have thought the Standard would be far more popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2010_to_present

Commuting on the Tube every day, I'm not that surprised. I don't know why, but far more people read the Metro than the Standard.

2/3 of the Standard is property porn. 3/4 of the Metro is news.

Metro and news?. Those two words should never repeated in the same sentence.

isam

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone even though everyone pretends to hate it and never read it. Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

Influential is maybe not the right word (outside of London politics), but it has become must-read all of a sudden. Political journalists will all be looking for it in their in-boxes in a way they never were before. That's how newspapers become influential.

But how long will Osborne last? Is he really going to stick around? I imagine he'll be off within a couple of years and the Standard will go back to what it was last week.

A must read for people who follow politicians on twitter and hang on their every word maybe. I shouldn't think many other people even know he is the editor, or read it for anything other than the housing/sport section

Surely influential means affecting coverage of an issue. The Standard will be doing that every time it runs a controversial headline because of who its editor is. It is influential because of Osborne, not because of its readership. That makes it different to just about every other newspaper.

I just don't think it has become a must read for people who weren't already searching for political stories that's all. I never said it was or wasn't influential, in fact you seem to be saying that "influential" isn't the right word, and "must read" is dont you?

Richard_Nabavi

Patrick said:

2/3 of the Standard is property porn. 3/4 of the Metro is news.

You found some news in the Metro? Really?

HHemmelig

isam said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

Quite surprising it is so far behind Metro, 1.46m plays 887k

I would have thought the Standard would be far more popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2010_to_present

I think Metro is distributed in other big cities - Manchester, Birmingham etc - whilst the Standard is London only.

SeanT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeanT said:

...
From there on down they descend in importance - the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these,....

The Standard behind the Indy? Ouch!

That was a close call. They are quite similar. Both are now given away for free - which just underlines their lack of importance.

That's a daft argument given that the majority of newspapers are also given away for free online, which is how most people read them nowadays.

Sean_F

isam said:

Remember this in case Osborne doesn't fully endorse the Tories. As Richard says, that would mean no change

"On 5 May 2015, an editorial stated that the newspaper would again be supporting David Cameron and the Conservatives in the 2015 General Election, saying that the Conservatives have "shown themselves to be good for London."[28] The newspaper did however also claim "there may be good tactical reasons to vote Liberal Democrat."[28]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Evening_Standard

Maybe Osborne will endorse Corbyn?

felix

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

It's free - and litters the streets daily. Circulation smirkulation!

SouthamObserver

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone even though everyone pretends to hate it and never read it. Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

Influential is maybe not the right word (outside of London politics), but it has become must-read all of a sudden. Political journalists will all be looking for it in their in-boxes in a way they never were before. That's how newspapers become influential.

But how long will Osborne last? Is he really going to stick around? I imagine he'll be off within a couple of years and the Standard will go back to what it was last week.

A must read for people who follow politicians on twitter and hang on their every word maybe. I shouldn't think many other people even know he is the editor, or read it for anything other than the housing/sport section

Surely influential means affecting coverage of an issue. The Standard will be doing that every time it runs a controversial headline because of who its editor is. It is influential because of Osborne, not because of its readership. That makes it different to just about every other newspaper.

I just don't think it has become a must read for people who weren't already searching for political stories that's all. I never said it was or wasn't influential, in fact you seem to be saying that "influential" isn't the right word, and "must read" are dont you?

Yep, I am. I think too much about specific words sometimes!

Nigelb

MTimT said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Risks looking like an embittered vendetta, not to mention a man not worried about damaging his party ahead of an election.

That was my take. Further diminution of any respect and legacy. Petty little man who would damage his country and party to salve his ego.

What utter nonsense. He's editing a newspaper, not running the election campaign.
Just how is it damaging to the country to air an issue which could cause the next government a great deal of trouble if not addressed ?
And the prospects for the Tory party - which will form the next government whatever the Standard chooses to publish - depend not on the precise side of its comfortable majority, but on how it governs for the next fiver years.

CarlottaVance

Much as its fun to see 'Osborne having a go at May' in every story its a legit issue - London schools are facing less funding as other parts of the country see funding increased - righting a previous wrong, or screwing the golden goose? Pity it wasn't better written.

isam

The story will be that George Osborne is trying to influence the narrative via the Standard, not that the Standard is influencing the narrative, I reckon.

HHemmelig

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone even though everyone pretends to hate it and never read it. Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

Influential is maybe not the right word (outside of London politics), but it has become must-read all of a sudden. Political journalists will all be looking for it in their in-boxes in a way they never were before. That's how newspapers become influential.

But how long will Osborne last? Is he really going to stick around? I imagine he'll be off within a couple of years and the Standard will go back to what it was last week.

A must read for people who follow politicians on twitter and hang on their every word maybe. I shouldn't think many other people even know he is the editor, or read it for anything other than the housing/sport section

Surely influential means affecting coverage of an issue. The Standard will be doing that every time it runs a controversial headline because of who its editor is. It is influential because of Osborne, not because of its readership. That makes it different to just about every other newspaper.

It also has access to millions of people who don't normally read, still less buy, newspapers, by virtue of them flicking through a copy when bored on their journey home from work.

bobajobPB

felix said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

It's free - and litters the streets daily. Circulation smirkulation!

Well slag it off as much as you like but the fact remains that millions of people read it every day. I'm not a great fan of it, but I still read it, as there is sod all else to do when you are several hundred feet underground. It has a captive audience – literally.

ThreeQuidder

I got an email plugging this site:

http://www.electionprediction.org/2017_uk/

They're forecasting Con 312 (inc Speaker), excluding 125 too close to call.

bobajobPB

isam said:

bobajobPB said:

isam said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

Quite surprising it is so far behind Metro, 1.46m plays 887k

I would have thought the Standard would be far more popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2010_to_present

Metro is UK wide, Standard just London and Home Counties.

Oh that would be it. Didn't seem right

In fairness to you, I reckon the Metro does probably have a bigger circ within London, but I don't think any figure on that is available (not sure it's broken down by region).

rpjs

bobajobPB said:

felix said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

It's free - and litters the streets daily. Circulation smirkulation!

Well slag it off as much as you like but the fact remains that millions of people read it every day. I'm not a great fan of it, but I still read it, as there is sod all else to do when you are several hundred feet underground. It has a captive audience – literally.

I always used to enjoy its crossword. American papers simply don't do cryptics.

HHemmelig

bobajobPB said:

felix said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

It's free - and litters the streets daily. Circulation smirkulation!

Well slag it off as much as you like but the fact remains that millions of people read it every day. I'm not a great fan of it, but I still read it, as there is sod all else to do when you are several hundred feet underground. It has a captive audience – literally.

Exactly.

Also it has an advantage over Metro in that people are more likely to be doing work on their morning commute rather than on their evening one.

timmo

I would have thought abandoning the new proposed school funding would be popular in london as a lot of schools were going to lose out..

Recidivist

I'm outside London, so maybe that is the kind of headline that cockneys lap up, but I thought it was boring. The first stage for being influential is that someone should actually read what you are writing.

bobajobPB

HHemmelig said:

bobajobPB said:

felix said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

It's free - and litters the streets daily. Circulation smirkulation!

Well slag it off as much as you like but the fact remains that millions of people read it every day. I'm not a great fan of it, but I still read it, as there is sod all else to do when you are several hundred feet underground. It has a captive audience – literally.

Exactly.

Also it has an advantage over Metro in that people are more likely to be doing work on their morning commute rather than on their evening one.

Agreed. And more in the mood to read longer analyses – not that the Metro carries much beyond 300 words and a reading age of 12.

AnneJGP

IMHO it definitely wouldn't be a good look for a chap who's new to the job to be pushing his own party politics too blatantly.

(I don't know any Latin so most of the jokes are over my head, I'm afraid.)

Good afternoon, everybody.

bobajobPB

Nigelb said:

MTimT said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Risks looking like an embittered vendetta, not to mention a man not worried about damaging his party ahead of an election.

That was my take. Further diminution of any respect and legacy. Petty little man who would damage his country and party to salve his ego.

What utter nonsense. He's editing a newspaper, not running the election campaign.
Just how is it damaging to the country to air an issue which could cause the next government a great deal of trouble if not addressed ?
And the prospects for the Tory party - which will form the next government whatever the Standard chooses to publish - depend not on the precise side of its comfortable majority, but on how it governs for the next fiver years.

All dissent must be CRUSHED!

kle4

bobajobPB said:

Nigelb said:

MTimT said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Risks looking like an embittered vendetta, not to mention a man not worried about damaging his party ahead of an election.

That was my take. Further diminution of any respect and legacy. Petty little man who would damage his country and party to salve his ego.

What utter nonsense. He's editing a newspaper, not running the election campaign.
Just how is it damaging to the country to air an issue which could cause the next government a great deal of trouble if not addressed ?
And the prospects for the Tory party - which will form the next government whatever the Standard chooses to publish - depend not on the precise side of its comfortable majority, but on how it governs for the next fiver years.

All dissent must be CRUSHED!

He might be a saboteur after all.

timmo

ThreeQuidder said:

I got an email plugging this site:

http://www.electionprediction.org/2017_uk/

They're forecasting Con 312 (inc Speaker), excluding 125 too close to call.

But thats 312 deffo Tories
If the too close to calls split 50/50 then it gives the Tories a very nice maj

old_labour

George Osborne, if you are reading this, can you please bring back the weekly TV magazine guide that used to come out on a Thursday. Thank you, you tosser.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, Miss JGP.

The 'delenda est' references are due to the way Cato ended speeches, ahead of the Third Punic War, saying Carthage must be destroyed.

isam

Hartlepool

Conservatives 8/15
Lab 9/4
UKIP 13/2

2015
Labour Iain Wright 35.6
UKIP Phillip Broughton 28.0
Conservative Richard Royal 20.9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartlepool_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

HHemmelig

bobajobPB said:

HHemmelig said:

bobajobPB said:

felix said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

It's free - and litters the streets daily. Circulation smirkulation!

Well slag it off as much as you like but the fact remains that millions of people read it every day. I'm not a great fan of it, but I still read it, as there is sod all else to do when you are several hundred feet underground. It has a captive audience – literally.

Exactly.

Also it has an advantage over Metro in that people are more likely to be doing work on their morning commute rather than on their evening one.

Agreed. And more in the mood to read longer analyses – not that the Metro carries much beyond 300 words and a reading age of 12.

I'm amazed people here do not consider the Standard to be one of the most influential papers at the present time. It reaches millions of people a day and commuters lean Tory, especially the very large numbers coming in from the home counties.

kle4

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, Miss JGP.

The 'delenda est' references are due to the way Cato ended speeches, ahead of the Third Punic War, saying Carthage must be destroyed.

A political promise that, for once, was followed up on.

MTimT

Nigelb said:

MTimT said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Risks looking like an embittered vendetta, not to mention a man not worried about damaging his party ahead of an election.

That was my take. Further diminution of any respect and legacy. Petty little man who would damage his country and party to salve his ego.

What utter nonsense. He's editing a newspaper, not running the election campaign.
Just how is it damaging to the country to air an issue which could cause the next government a great deal of trouble if not addressed ?
And the prospects for the Tory party - which will form the next government whatever the Standard chooses to publish - depend not on the precise side of its comfortable majority, but on how it governs for the next fiver years.

If you are charitable enough to think that Osborne would be running the same stories if he had no personal axe to grind, then you would be right.

isam

HHemmelig said:

bobajobPB said:

HHemmelig said:

bobajobPB said:

felix said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

It's free - and litters the streets daily. Circulation smirkulation!

Well slag it off as much as you like but the fact remains that millions of people read it every day. I'm not a great fan of it, but I still read it, as there is sod all else to do when you are several hundred feet underground. It has a captive audience – literally.

Exactly.

Also it has an advantage over Metro in that people are more likely to be doing work on their morning commute rather than on their evening one.

Agreed. And more in the mood to read longer analyses – not that the Metro carries much beyond 300 words and a reading age of 12.

I'm amazed people here do not consider the Standard to be one of the most influential papers at the present time. It reaches millions of people a day and commuters lean Tory, especially the very large numbers coming in from the home counties.

Well last time they said there were tactical reasons for voting Lib Dem!

rcs1000

Anyone want to hear a good conspiracy theory?

https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/01/exclusive-sean-spicer-tweeted-a-bitcoin-address-not-his-password/

TOPPING

HHemmelig said:

bobajobPB said:

HHemmelig said:

bobajobPB said:

felix said:

bobajobPB said:

SeanT said:

There are three or four very influential newspapers. The Times, as the paper of record; The Guardian, as the paper of the liberal Establishment and the BBC; and definitely the Mail, as the paper that terrifies everyone in power, even though everyone in power pretends to hate it and never read it.

Maybe also the Sun, thanks to its huge readership.


From there on down they descend in importance - the FT, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, the Mirror, then the other Sundays, the Indy....

The Standard is behind all these, and certainly behind the Spectator and the Economist; it's probably just above the Express.

The Standard has a far higher circ than most nationals.

It's free - and litters the streets daily. Circulation smirkulation!

Well slag it off as much as you like but the fact remains that millions of people read it every day. I'm not a great fan of it, but I still read it, as there is sod all else to do when you are several hundred feet underground. It has a captive audience – literally.

Exactly.

Also it has an advantage over Metro in that people are more likely to be doing work on their morning commute rather than on their evening one.

Agreed. And more in the mood to read longer analyses – not that the Metro carries much beyond 300 words and a reading age of 12.

I'm amazed people here do not consider the Standard to be one of the most influential papers at the present time. It reaches millions of people a day and commuters lean Tory, especially the very large numbers coming in from the home counties.

You don't understand. It is not influential because people don't take it home and file it away with the rest of their daily newspapers for future reference.

ThreeQuidder

timmo said:

ThreeQuidder said:

I got an email plugging this site:

http://www.electionprediction.org/2017_uk/

They're forecasting Con 312 (inc Speaker), excluding 125 too close to call.

But thats 312 deffo Tories
If the too close to calls split 50/50 then it gives the Tories a very nice maj

Yeah, exactly. Although in not all the 125 seats are Con a contender, it includes some NI seats for a start. Even if they only get a quarter of them that puts them on 343, maj 36.

peter_from_putney

The London Evening Standard used to be a tremendous newspaper with great writers and considerable style and panache. For me, its business pages alone were well worth the cover price. These days it's just another freebie, packed full of adverts, which I for one never read.
Every time I visit my supermarket, there's a great unattended pile of copies positioned forlornly in a corner.

Sure the owner pulled off a good PR stunt in signing up Osborne as its editor, but from the former Chancellor's point of view it's really not such a big deal. I'll be very surprised if he's still there in 18 months' time.

Y0kel

rcs1000 said:

Anyone want to hear a good conspiracy theory?

https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/01/exclusive-sean-spicer-tweeted-a-bitcoin-address-not-his-password/

That story does not tell the full story. It has a number of errors.

justin124

isam said:

Hartlepool

Conservatives 8/15
Lab 9/4
UKIP 13/2

2015
Labour Iain Wright 35.6
UKIP Phillip Broughton 28.0
Conservative Richard Royal 20.9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartlepool_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

I predict a Labour hold there.

Nigelb

MTimT said:

Nigelb said:

MTimT said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Risks looking like an embittered vendetta, not to mention a man not worried about damaging his party ahead of an election.

That was my take. Further diminution of any respect and legacy. Petty little man who would damage his country and party to salve his ego.

What utter nonsense. He's editing a newspaper, not running the election campaign.
Just how is it damaging to the country to air an issue which could cause the next government a great deal of trouble if not addressed ?
And the prospects for the Tory party - which will form the next government whatever the Standard chooses to publish - depend not on the precise side of its comfortable majority, but on how it governs for the next fiver years.

If you are charitable enough to think that Osborne would be running the same stories if he had no personal axe to grind, then you would be right.

I don't really care either way; psychoanalysing politicians is a waste of time, as is party tribalism.

Baskerville

ThreeQuidder said:

I got an email plugging this site:

http://www.electionprediction.org/2017_uk/

They're forecasting Con 312 (inc Speaker), excluding 125 too close to call.

They appear to be Canadian. Did the 2001 and 2010 UK GEs with 94% and 89% accuracy by constituency.

kle4

It's interesting that both Labour and the LDs now have record or close to record memberships (assuming a certain level of drop off for Labour since the Corbynsurge), and yet could both end up doing terribly in the election. Labour we expect them to do badly, and it's a question of if he will better Foot's percentage or the Tory low points of the late 90s and early 2000s, while with the LDs people are more varied, but expecting the possibility of some losses with the balance of some gains, and a result which while technically good 2 years after a drubbing - say 15-20 as a really good night - it is historically still a terrible result, if not to be sniffed at as it will show significant recovery if they manage it.

AndyJS

Any ideas on which party will win Scunthorpe? I can't decide whether the Tories are favourites or not. Lab maj is 3,134 votes or 8.5%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

IanB2

It took the Standard a very long time to settle on a price that reflects what it is actuallly worth. It is read in preference to facing the armpit of the passenger squeezed in next to you.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. T, that's also a catch-22 for self-publishing.

Price something low, people think it's worth less. Price it higher and it can look extortionate because there's a sea of free and 99p e-books.

Mind you, some publishers do take the piss, having e-book prices identical or just below paperback costs.