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 » Looking at the UKIP leadership race

SystemSystem Posts: 12,259
edited September 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking at the UKIP leadership race

This year’s running of the UKIP leadership race might not have attracted all that much attention, but it’s probably one of the most open and unpredictable party leader elections I can remember. Of the seven candidates left, six have a plausible shot at winning and there could be plenty of betting value around.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,722
    To my surprise, I've been sent a ballot paper (I did tell them, I wouldn't be renewing by membership).

    I think I'll vote for the gay donkey man.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,338
    edited September 2017
    Sean_F said:

    To my surprise, I've been sent a ballot paper (I did tell them, I wouldn't be renewing by membership).

    I think I'll vote for the gay donkey man.

    Can you vote for David Kurten please, it would help my betting portfolio.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,074
    What's the voting system?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,338
    Morris_Dancer said:

    What's the voting system?

    First past the post.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,074
    Mr. Eagles, just the one round?

    Might favour Waters.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    I appreciate that 'sane' is a relative word in this context, but the key point seems to me to be that the sane vote is split, whereas Anne Marie Waters has a dedicated band of supporters.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,338
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, just the one round?

    Might favour Waters.

    Yup, only one round of voting with FPTP.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    FPT
    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    619 said:

    stevef said:

    Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.

    Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.

    I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".

    But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
    He actually did a bit better than Brown who only managed 258 seats to Corbyn's 262. Moreover, Corbyn performed much better in England & Wales than Brown did in 2010 in that Brown's total included over 40 seats from Scotland.
    The Tories though got 318 seats to 306 in 2010, 2017 was not as good for the Tories as 2015 in terms of seats but better than 2010
    No, it was 317 (318 includes Bercow, BBC style).
    Who was elected as a Tory before he became speaker but even 317 is 11 more than 306
    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    There's a gap in the market, sadly, for an avowedly anti-Islam party. Cold logic therefore points towards Anne Marie Waters. No other candidate has offered a raison d'etre for UKIP.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    What's the voting system?

    First past the post.
    Which favours the candidate with the horse, even if the horse has suffered unwanted attentions from a donkey with inadequate sexual boundaries.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,722
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    I appreciate that 'sane' is a relative word in this context, but the key point seems to me to be that the sane vote is split, whereas Anne Marie Waters has a dedicated band of supporters.

    Anne Marie Waters is certainly sane. That doesn't make her nice.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,074
    Mr. Nabavi, the diffusion of opposition and concentration of support for Waters was my thinking too.

    If she won, there would be an interesting situation regarding the media and how much coverage she got, and the nature of that coverage. If the media came across as directly opposed rather than reporting her views, it could benefit her/UKIP electorally.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,353
    Henry Bolton has had a few promoted posts on my twitter timeline so (I assume) he must have a bit of money behind him. I'm afraid I initially thought they were parodies of the reactionary 'Fairly Secret Army' mindset.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2017
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,726
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    To my surprise, I've been sent a ballot paper (I did tell them, I wouldn't be renewing by membership).

    I think I'll vote for the gay donkey man.

    Can you vote for David Kurten please, it would help my betting portfolio.
    I didn't renew my membership this year either. Once the referendum was won UKIP for me became just another pointless political party. I Still get lots of emails from the National Secretary and various officers but no longer get any official documentation such as candidate lists or ballot papers. Seems their postal people are rather more on the ball than their internet people.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    I appreciate that 'sane' is a relative word in this context, but the key point seems to me to be that the sane vote is split, whereas Anne Marie Waters has a dedicated band of supporters.

    There is also an anti-Waters vote. It seems not yet to be coalescing around Peter Whittle, who seems to have the Big Om. It is very possible that one of the others emerges from the pack on this basis. David Kurten and Henry Bolton look to be the most likely to manage this.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Is Ann Marie Waters closer to Farage or Griffin politically?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,338
    edited September 2017
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Is Ann Marie Waters closer to Farage or Griffin politically?

    She's closer to Hitler apparently.

    Ukip risks becoming 'UK Nazi party' if it selects wrong leader

    Candidate Henry Bolton says party could ‘easily slip towards ideals of national socialism’ depending on who it chooses

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/11/leadership-hopeful-warns-wrong-leader-could-turn-ukip-into-uks-nazi-party-henry-bolton
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    edited September 2017
    Betting Post:

    Gennady Golovkin is favourite (1.71) to win this weekend vs Canelo Alvarez (2.64).

    Golovkin (37-0) is unbeaten professionally and has had hundreds of amateur fights. He has real knockout power and has ended most of his fights by knockout - apart from his most recent, vs Daniel Jacobs. He can switch styles and has impressed with his ability to adapt especially with his jabbing vs Jacobs when everyone expected him to go headhunting. After that fight, some commentators, however, began to ask questions about his "invincibility", while others question the quality of his opponents.

    Canelo (49-1), meanwhile is a powerhouse and apart from losing to FMJ has an unbeaten record, is a technically good boxer and bangs. He has fought some good names (as well as destroying, as expected, Amir Khan recently).

    Those who favour Triple G expect him to adapt to Canelo well and overcome him as he has done with all his other opponents.

    Floyd Mayweather Snr and Jeff Mayweather both expect Canelo to win, citing him as the better boxer who has come on tremendously over the years (apart from his loss to Floyd he is famously supposed to have been inferior in sparring with Golovkin).

    Judges of boxing don't come much better than the Mayweather clan and hence at 2.64 I think Canelo is good value.

    DYOR of course!!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    AlastairMeeks said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    What's the voting system?

    First past the post.
    Which favours the candidate with the horse, even if the horse has suffered unwanted attentions from a donkey with inadequate sexual boundaries.
    Ass play??
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,831
    edited September 2017
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Is Ann Marie Waters closer to Farage or Griffin politically?

    These days Farage is politically closer to Griffin than to the image he used to cultivate of the affable bloke.

    He also seems to have been overdoing his am-dram classes.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/905039563453861888
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,518
    Wonder how many members they have left? It seems quite a few who joined because they wanted out of the EU have not renewed (including Messrs F and Tyndall). This would imply that the outright anti-foreigner vote will be a much higher percentage than last time.
    Which favours Ms. Waters.
    Which is at least a USP, if nothing else.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    That wasn't my point.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Norway election results:

    It looks like the centre-right have won the election despite getting slightly fewer/less votes than the centre-left. Odd given that it's supposed to be a PR system. I guess the threshold must have had something to do with it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,230
    I know it's a betting post (and thank goodness for that) but I'm still struggling to give a sh*t.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    Casino_Royale said:

    I know it's a betting post (and thank goodness for that) but I'm still struggling to give a sh*t.

    About the fight????!!! Surely not.

    :wink:
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,722
    edited September 2017
    AndyJS said:

    Norway election results:

    It looks like the centre-right have won the election despite getting slightly fewer/less votes than the centre-left. Odd given that it's supposed to be a PR system. I guess the threshold must have had something to do with it.

    Yes, the Red Party and the Greens only won 2 seats, in total, because neither reached the 4% threshold. Had they been awarded seats in proportion to their vote share, they'd have won 9 between them.

    The Liberals and Christian Democrats, who support the government, managed to win 8 each, despite only just clearing the 4% threshold in each case.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,722
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    619 said:

    stevef said:

    Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.

    Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.

    I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".

    But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)
    He actually did a bit better than Brown who only managed 258 seats to Corbyn's 262. Moreover, Corbyn performed much better in England & Wales than Brown did in 2010 in that Brown's total included over 40 seats from Scotland.
    The Tories though got 318 seats to 306 in 2010, 2017 was not as good for the Tories as 2015 in terms of seats but better than 2010
    No, it was 317 (318 includes Bercow, BBC style).
    Who was elected as a Tory before he became speaker but even 317 is 11 more than 306
    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
    The Conservatives led Labour in England by 11.5% in 2010, compared to just 3.7% in 2017, yet only lost one seat net, over that period. (They won 298 in 2010, compared to 297 in 2017).

    Lib Dem voters from 2010 have split about 2:1 Labour/Conservative over that period, but the Conservatives won the lion's share of Lib Dem held seats, offsetting their losses to Labour.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,338
    https://twitter.com/Pat_Horan92/status/907605289603657728
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,145
    I find it hard to see why anyone is interested in keeping UKIP active. Mission more-or-less accomplished, and I can see why it might be moth-balled rather than shut down, but what is UKIP for, now?

    There's very little mileage left for MEPs. Would it matter to UKIP MEPs if their party sank itself beneath them? An honourable end after a successful campaign would be quite satisfying, I should think.

    Do those seeking UKIP leadership have much that unites them, behind anything?

    If the members were to find another vision or goal, then perhaps they could re-badge their party with a new name to reflect that. I could see some sense in that, too.

    Maybe finding another vision is really what this leadership election is about.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,959
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, just the one round?

    Might favour Waters.

    Yup, only one round of voting with FPTP.
    In this particular context, that was perhaps not an entirely redundant question, though.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    williamglenn said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Is Ann Marie Waters closer to Farage or Griffin politically?

    These days Farage is politically closer to Griffin than to the image he used to cultivate of the affable bloke.

    He also seems to have been overdoing his am-dram classes.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/905039563453861888
    Looked at the still for that video, and for a moment thought it was Stephen Hawking.

    [with apologies to the Prof.]
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,074
    Good afternoon, Miss JGP.

    It's definitely on the wane, but historically it's much harder to grow a new party than revitalise an old one.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,761
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-nottinghamshire-41233581?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_derby&ns_linkname=english_regions&ns_fee=0#post_59b7dd39e4b054faf998effb
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,761
    Oh dear

    All art is meant to be a talking point and that certainly seems to be the case with this year’s design."
    Chesterfield Borough Council spokesman
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    O/T

    Why couldn't the police arrest these people for illegal dumping before moving them on?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/12/travellers-dump-mountain-rubbish-2012-olympic-park/
  • eekeek Posts: 28,780
    Off topic and worse its a link to Zero Hedge but http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-12/cable-sinks-eu-uk-postpone-next-round-brexit-talks

    Reading the edited highlights there it sounds like a Hard Brexit in a total mess on March 29 2019 is a sure bet....
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,145
    bigjohnowls said:

    Oh dear

    All art is meant to be a talking point and that certainly seems to be the case with this year’s design."
    Chesterfield Borough Council spokesman

    :smile: I was completely at sea with that "well dressing tradition" for a moment. My mind was running along the lines of fashion - e.g. the top ten best-dressed people.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited September 2017
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241153

    How did this become a crime?

    "possession of a document likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"

    That's a reeeeally repressive law given that, i assume, just a one time click-through to some dodgy radical internet page (via twitter or whatever) would constitute "possession" of such a document.

    And the definition of terrorism is fuzzy as f*ck.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,758
    Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    Casino_Royale said:

    I know it's a betting post (and thank goodness for that) but I'm still struggling to give a sh*t.

    "UKIP if you want to. The Lady's NOT for kipping!"
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,758
    williamglenn said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Is Ann Marie Waters closer to Farage or Griffin politically?

    These days Farage is politically closer to Griffin than to the image he used to cultivate of the affable bloke.

    He also seems to have been overdoing his am-dram classes.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/905039563453861888

    The referendum result has set him free to be the far-right wannabe that always lurked just below the surface.

  • eekeek Posts: 28,780
    Pong said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241153

    How did this become a crime?

    "possession of a document likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"

    That's a reeeeally repressive law given that, i assume, just a one time click-through to some dodgy radical internet page (via twitter or whatever) would constitute "possession" of such a document.

    Given how UK law works for pornography a one-time click wouldn't just constitute possession it might also constitute creating....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,338
    edited September 2017
    Pong said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241153

    How did this become a crime?

    "possession of a document likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"

    That's a reeeeally repressive law given that, i assume, just a one time click-through to some dodgy radical internet page (via twitter or whatever) would constitute "possession" of such a document.

    From the actual law

    'It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.'

    So your example would be fine.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    Why do the goody-two-shoes Greenies keep standing against the Speaker?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,399
    SouthamObserver said:

    Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.

    Macron is picking his battles. For example train drivers retire at 52, SNCF office workers at 57.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,758
    FF43 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.

    Macron is picking his battles. For example train drivers retire at 52, SNCF office workers at 57.

    That is unbelievable.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    How many of them were at Hillsborough?

    This is a Norwegian Blue of a party which is very unlikely to stand in a numerically significant number of seats next time out. The key skill they should be looking for is that of an Insolvency Practitioner or a funeral undertaker.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,508
    Ok, political anoraks, here's your starter for ten:

    https://twitter.com/HistParl/status/907177710543306753
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    eek said:

    Off topic and worse its a link to Zero Hedge but http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-12/cable-sinks-eu-uk-postpone-next-round-brexit-talks

    Reading the edited highlights there it sounds like a Hard Brexit in a total mess on March 29 2019 is a sure bet....

    Only ZeroHedge would run a headline "Cable Sinks As EU-UK Postpone Next Round Of Brexit Talks" on a day when sterling is trading at a one-year high against the dollar!

    Nonetheless, the central point is right: the UK government, and the UK parliament, won't agree to paying megabucks to the EU just for old times' sake. I really do hope that our EU friends aren't so deluded as to think that we will.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited September 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pong said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241153

    How did this become a crime?

    "possession of a document likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"

    That's a reeeeally repressive law given that, i assume, just a one time click-through to some dodgy radical internet page (via twitter or whatever) would constitute "possession" of such a document.

    From the actual law

    'It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.'

    So your example would be fine.
    Thanks.

    Lawyers do earn their money...

    ;)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,084
    Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.

    As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.

    The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.

    The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.

    As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.

    The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.

    The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Anorak said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
    True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Anorak said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
    True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.
    You may joke.

    I'll probably be first against the wall.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,145
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.

    As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.

    The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.

    The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn

    I expect Mr Corbyn feels he will be able to deliver on that promise. As I understand it, socialists believe that where governments are concerned, there is no difference between credit and money.

    I find it impossible to understand, myself, but that seems to be behind the argument that the household budget analogy doesn't scale up to governments.

    Oh, and like qualitative easing, the central bank just adds a few trillion pounds into the country's account out of nowhere.

    How many zeroes would you like, sir? Will £100,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 be enough?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,338
    Anorak said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
    I wonder if we'll see the Corbynites come up with a British 'Deep State' that some of the deluded Trumpers use.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,230
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But, it's going to happen, isn't it?

    Unless the Conservatives can start arguing again (confidently, reasonably and unapologetically) from first principles, and demonstrate theirs is a better way for the under 40s, we will learn all the same old lessons the hard way again.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.

    As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.

    The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.

    The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn

    saying public workers will get the rises they deserve isn't the same as saying that they are getting 5% of course.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    Recidivist said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.

    As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.

    The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.

    The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
    Quite. The government will answer Corbyn's call and lift the public sector pay cap in the budget. Thus giving further credibility to someone who once seemed completely incredible.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    Nah, it'll be Brexit's fault, which is a Tory obsession
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,230
    FF43 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.

    Macron is picking his battles. For example train drivers retire at 52, SNCF office workers at 57.
    Source?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,338
    edited September 2017
    Casino_Royale said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But, it's going to happen, isn't it?

    Unless the Conservatives can start arguing again (confidently, reasonably and unapologetically) from first principles, and demonstrate theirs is a better way for the under 40s, we will learn all the same old lessons the hard way again.
    You're implementing some parts of Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto, Corbyn's wanting to implement other parts of that manifesto.

    Just saying....
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Casino_Royale said:

    But, it's going to happen, isn't it?

    Unless the Conservatives can start arguing again (confidently, reasonably and unapologetically) from first principles, and demonstrate theirs is a better way for the under 40s, we will learn all the same old lessons the hard way again.

    It might happen, and we should certainly plan our affairs as best we can just in case it does happen, but I'd be very loath to make any prediction even 12 months out in current circumstances. I can see plausible scenarios ranging from Labour majority and Conservative collapse to Conservative majority and Labour collapse.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,761
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.

    As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.

    The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.

    The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn

    TBF You thought Lab on 25% was peak Corbyn!!!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,399
    Casino_Royale said:

    FF43 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.

    Macron is picking his battles. For example train drivers retire at 52, SNCF office workers at 57.
    Source?
    They had a piece on the French news a couple of days ago where they interviewed Macron. He made a big play on this being unsustainable.(train drivers retire at 52; SNCF office workers at 57)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,230
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But, it's going to happen, isn't it?

    Unless the Conservatives can start arguing again (confidently, reasonably and unapologetically) from first principles, and demonstrate theirs is a better way for the under 40s, we will learn all the same old lessons the hard way again.
    You're implementing some parts of Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto, Corbyn's wanting to implement other parts of that manifesto.

    Just saying....
    How tediously predictable.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,353
    Charles said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Anorak said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
    True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.
    You may joke.

    I'll probably be first against the wall.
    Wow.
    The shark of self importance is cleared by several meters.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited September 2017
    619 said:

    Nah, it'll be Brexit's fault, which is a Tory obsession

    Yes, the Tories are obsessed with fulfilling the democratic will of the people as expressed in the referendum. Dreadful, isn't it?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    FF43 said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    FF43 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.

    Macron is picking his battles. For example train drivers retire at 52, SNCF office workers at 57.
    Source?
    They had a piece on the French news a couple of days ago where they interviewed Macron. He made a big play on this being unsustainable.(train drivers retire at 52; SNCF office workers at 57)
    Presumably the SNCF office workers will now go on strike until this disgraceful anomaly is rectified.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,227
    Charles said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Anorak said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
    True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.
    You may joke.

    I'll probably be first against the wall.
    After WWII the Nazi list of people to be eliminated in an occupied Britain was released - Trades Unionists, Communists and other 'undesirables' - including Noel Coward - who quipped 'to think, the people we'd have been seen dead with'.....
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But, it's going to happen, isn't it?

    Unless the Conservatives can start arguing again (confidently, reasonably and unapologetically) from first principles, and demonstrate theirs is a better way for the under 40s, we will learn all the same old lessons the hard way again.
    You're implementing some parts of Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto, Corbyn's wanting to implement other parts of that manifesto.

    Just saying....
    Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just because a single policy was in the 83 manifesto doesn't mean it is definitely wrong - especially when circumstances have since changed.

    Many "Loony" policies have subsequently become law too.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
    He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.

    You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    CarlottaVance said:

    Charles said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Anorak said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
    True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.
    You may joke.

    I'll probably be first against the wall.
    After WWII the Nazi list of people to be eliminated in an occupied Britain was released - Trades Unionists, Communists and other 'undesirables' - including Noel Coward - who quipped 'to think, the people we'd have been seen dead with'.....
    Did it not include the editor of the Beano?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
    He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.

    You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
    In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,758
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Anorak said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
    True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.

    Whereas the Tories blame the BBC, the Guardian, trade unions, public service workers, the EU, the feckless poor and each other for their failures!!

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,139
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
    He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.

    You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
    In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
    Doesn't that he BBC count him as CON?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
    He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.

    You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
    In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
    No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    RobD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
    He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.

    You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
    In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
    Doesn't that he BBC count him as CON?
    Yep, but Wikipedia don't :)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,758
    Not good news:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/09/12/business/12reuters-autoshow-frankfurt-toyota-eu.html?partner=IFTTT&referer=https://t.co/oJV05Zy825?amp=1
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,139
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    RobD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
    He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.

    You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
    In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
    Doesn't that he BBC count him as CON?
    Yep, but Wikipedia don't :)
    I'm gonna go with the BBC on this one :D
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,139
    SouthamObserver said:

    Not good news:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/09/12/business/12reuters-autoshow-frankfurt-toyota-eu.html?partner=IFTTT&referer=https://t.co/oJV05Zy825?amp=1

    Of course it could, the real question is will it.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    edited September 2017
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
    He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.

    You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
    In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
    No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.
    The Ballot Paper in Buckingham looked like this: 


    The Speaker seeking re-election    John Bercow
    UKIP 	                               Brian Mapletoft
    Independent 	                     Scott Raven
    Green 	                             Michael Sheppard
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Not good news:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/09/12/business/12reuters-autoshow-frankfurt-toyota-eu.html?partner=IFTTT&referer=https://t.co/oJV05Zy825?amp=1

    Of course it could, the real question is will it.
    It depends entirely on what deal if any we get. I don't think that there can be any doubt that our car industry is one of the most vulnerable sectors.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,831
    https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/907639129772609537
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,139
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
    He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.

    You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
    In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
    No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.
    The Ballot Paper in Buckingham looked like this: 


    The Speaker seeking re-election  John Bercow
    UKIP 	                                           Brian Mapletoft
    Independent 	                           Scott Raven
    Green 	                                   Michael Sheppard
    What kind of crappy printing service are they using in Buckingham? :D
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,139
    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/907639129772609537

    Let the cat out of the bag? The EU have been banging on for months that they won't talk about trade.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,074
    Mr. Glenn, if the EU won't discuss a matter with us then they'll be blamed for the failure of any deal.

    It's ridiculous to have the Irish border as a top priority and then refusing to discuss a key aspect of resolving it to mutual satisfaction.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,508
    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/907639129772609537

    You broke it, you own it.

    If any of this sort of chaos actually transpires then Corbyn is in Downing Street.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    RobD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
    He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.

    You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
    In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
    No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.
    The Ballot Paper in Buckingham looked like this: 


    The Speaker seeking re-election  John Bercow
    UKIP 	                                           Brian Mapletoft
    Independent 	                           Scott Raven
    Green 	                                   Michael Sheppard
    What kind of crappy printing service are they using in Buckingham? :D
    I couldn't edit it properly within the 6 minutes :)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,399
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Not good news:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/09/12/business/12reuters-autoshow-frankfurt-toyota-eu.html?partner=IFTTT&referer=https://t.co/oJV05Zy825?amp=1

    Of course it could, the real question is will it.
    It depends entirely on what deal if any we get. I don't think that there can be any doubt that our car industry is one of the most vulnerable sectors.
    Agreed. Along with foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, aeronautics and services, in particular financial services.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,357
    RobD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    RobD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.

    Mathematically he's a Tory.

    The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
    Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.
    But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393
    But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.
    He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.

    You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
    In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.
    Doesn't that he BBC count him as CON?
    Yep, but Wikipedia don't :)
    I'm gonna go with the BBC on this one :D
    He stood as The Speaker, not a CON :innocent:
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    rottenborough said:

    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/907639129772609537

    You broke it, you own it.

    If any of this sort of chaos actually transpires then Corbyn is in Downing Street.
    Great idea for a referendum Cameron!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited September 2017
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Charles said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Anorak said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Recidivist said:

    The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?

    The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.
    But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.
    True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.
    You may joke.

    I'll probably be first against the wall.
    Wow.
    The shark of self importance is cleared by several meters.
    Actually it was a reference to a comment that a friend of mine at school (who is using his not inconsiderable family resources to support communism in the UK) made...

    And he backs Corbyn... but only as a first step...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Charles said:

    Actually it was a reference to a comment that a friend of mine at school (who is using his not inconsiderable family resources to support communism in the UK) made...

    And he backs Corbyn... but only as a first step...

    You were at school with Seamas Milne?
This discussion has been closed.