politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn becomes an even stronger betting favourite to be the ne

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn becomes an even stronger betting favourite to be the next PM

Above is the betdata.io trend chart showing the big movement to Corbyn in the next PM market.

Read the full story here

tlg86

First

OldKingCole

Second. Like the Tories next time round.

RobD

Third, like the LDs

TheScreamingEagles

Yeah, back an MP who hasn't been an MP for long as next PM.

I'd go for Johnny Mercer or Tom Tugendhat.

Peter_the_Punter

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

YellowSubmarine

Surely that's Betfair customers misreading the situation ? If we really are heading towards a systemic crisis for the government then May will be toppled and another Tory will become PM ? And we aren't then by common consent May will go after Brexit followed by a new Tory PM. Corbyn is the next PM only if their is an early election fought by May ( which is difficult to see) and he wins it OR he lasts another 4.5 years and wins in 2022. I've not seen anything happen this week that makes either scenario more likely. I think it's Betfair froth from folk thinking Tory Troubles = Corbyn PM. It's much more complicated than that.

AlastairMeeks

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I basically agree. But there are other outside possibilities.

1) If the government falls apart into incoherence (perhaps over "no deal Brexit"), he might take over the role in this Parliament.

2) If the government is defeated next year on a point fundamental to Brexit, the Conservatives might go into a snap election under Theresa May.

Like you, I see this as a long shot and laying Jeremy Corbyn is a keystone of my "Next Prime Minister" and "Next Conservative leader" markets strategy.

TheScreamingEagles

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

The Fixed-Term Parliament Act.

It is possible that Corbyn becomes PM without an election.

I don't buy the line that the DUP won't make Corbyn PM.

They made Martin McGuinness Deputy First Minister.

The DUP will back whoever gives them the most pork.

Nigelb

Posted with a trigger warning for Smithson jnr....
https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2017/oct/31/knives-out-why-fox-news-declared-war-on-radiohead

Peter_the_Punter

AlastairMeeks said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I basically agree. But there are other outside possibilities.

1) If the government falls apart into incoherence (perhaps over "no deal Brexit"), he might take over the role in this Parliament.

2) If the government is defeated next year on a point fundamental to Brexit, the Conservatives might go into a snap election under Theresa May.

Like you, I see this as a long shot and laying Jeremy Corbyn is a keystone of my "Next Prime Minister" and "Next Conservative leader" markets strategy.

So 20/1 about right the, yeah?

Thank you.

Richard_Nabavi

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

What you are missing is the sheer chaos. Sure, there's no way that the party would voluntarily go into the next election with TM as leader, but, given the febrile atmosphere, the complete breakdown of discipline, and the added complication of division over Brexit and the sheer difficulty of managing all the complex and conflicting pressures, there's a not insignificant risk that the government could suddenly collapse without there being time to install a new leader. In such circumstances, Corbyn would probably win.

So, IMO the current odds on Corbyn are probably too short, but not massively so in the circumstances.

Nigelb

AlastairMeeks said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I basically agree. But there are other outside possibilities.

1) If the government falls apart into incoherence...

Isn't the incoherence bit already a done deal ?

foxinsoxuk

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I suppose the scenario is a government collapse leading to a GE before the Tories can have a contest. Hardly odds on though.

The aimless drift, battles over Europe, whiff of decay and sleaze is all making me nostalgic for the 90's.

YellowSubmarine

The value is on the Tory Brexiteers you've never heard of ( the Fat Pope/Thin Pope scenario ) or on a penitent and lower profile Remainer ( if Brexit really goes tits up ) Hunt seems to be angling for the later senario if you look at the media strategy he is employing.

Fysics_Teacher

AlastairMeeks said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I basically agree. But there are other outside possibilities.

1) If the government falls apart into incoherence (perhaps over "no deal Brexit"), he might take over the role in this Parliament.

2) If the government is defeated next year on a point fundamental to Brexit, the Conservatives might go into a snap election under Theresa May.

Like you, I see this as a long shot and laying Jeremy Corbyn is a keystone of my "Next Prime Minister" and "Next Conservative leader" markets strategy.

Where can I lay Jeremy Corbyn on the "Next Conservative Leader" market?

stevef

Neil Kinnock was the favourite to become PM during the Westland scandal in 1986, and again after Thatcher's resignation in 1990, and again in 1992. Ed Miliband was favourite to be PM in 2015. Theresa May was favourite to win a landslide in 2017. David Cameron was tipped to win a majority in 2010. David Miliband was favourite to be Labour leader in 2010.........................................

Jeremy Corbyn is tipped as favourite to be the next PM........................................................

stevef

Oh and mustnt forget Hillary Clinton was favourite to win the presidency....

AlastairMeeks

Fysics_Teacher said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I basically agree. But there are other outside possibilities.

1) If the government falls apart into incoherence (perhaps over "no deal Brexit"), he might take over the role in this Parliament.

2) If the government is defeated next year on a point fundamental to Brexit, the Conservatives might go into a snap election under Theresa May.

Like you, I see this as a long shot and laying Jeremy Corbyn is a keystone of my "Next Prime Minister" and "Next Conservative leader" markets strategy.

Where can I lay Jeremy Corbyn on the "Next Conservative Leader" market?

The two markets are closely linked, not bet on simultaneously and have often thrown up anomalies.

By laying Jeremy Corbyn on the next Prime Minister market, it enables me to make certain other plays on the next Conservative Leader market.

RobD

stevef said:

Oh and mustnt forget Hillary Clinton was favourite to win the presidency....

99.9% chance, I’m told

FF43

AlastairMeeks said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I basically agree. But there are other outside possibilities.

1) If the government falls apart into incoherence (perhaps over "no deal Brexit"), he might take over the role in this Parliament.

2) If the government is defeated next year on a point fundamental to Brexit, the Conservatives might go into a snap election under Theresa May.

Like you, I see this as a long shot and laying Jeremy Corbyn is a keystone of my "Next Prime Minister" and "Next Conservative leader" markets strategy.

Laying Jeremy Corbyn as "Next Conservative Leader" does seem a good strategy. Mind you we live in strange political times!

Peter_the_Punter

YellowSubmarine said:

Surely that's Betfair customers misreading the situation ? If we really are heading towards a systemic crisis for the government then May will be toppled and another Tory will become PM ? And we aren't then by common consent May will go after Brexit followed by a new Tory PM. Corbyn is the next PM only if their is an early election fought by May ( which is difficult to see) and he wins it OR he lasts another 4.5 years and wins in 2022. I've not seen anything happen this week that makes either scenario more likely. I think it's Betfair froth from folk thinking Tory Troubles = Corbyn PM. It's much more complicated than that.

Yes, I agree,YS.

This is a classic example of the betting markets reflecting naive opinion. PBers who have not yet filled their boots should not waste time in doing so.

On a related theme, I would suggest the Labour Most Seats price of 1.93 is way too big. I would suggest 1.66 is the more appropriate figure, with or without Mrs M in charge of the Tories.

Tissue_Price

A reminder that Corbyn traded around the same price to be Next PM after Cameron, when Cameron had also announced he was going in the 2015-20 term.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/04/15/is-it-now-the-left-who-bet-with-their-hearts/

Big_G_NorthWales

Dominic Rabb issuing a complete rejection of any inappropriate behaviour

AlastairMeeks

Tissue_Price said:

A reminder that Corbyn traded around the same price to be Next PM after Cameron, when Cameron had also announced he was going in the 2015-20 term.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/04/15/is-it-now-the-left-who-bet-with-their-hearts/

That was even crazier, because David Cameron had been explicit that he would stand down before the next election.

foxinsoxuk

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I basically agree. But there are other outside possibilities.

1) If the government falls apart into incoherence...

Isn't the incoherence bit already a done deal ?

If there is a failed NC vote Jezza could lead a minority government without an election.

Unlikely but not impossible.

AlastairMeeks

Peter_the_Punter said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Surely that's Betfair customers misreading the situation ? If we really are heading towards a systemic crisis for the government then May will be toppled and another Tory will become PM ? And we aren't then by common consent May will go after Brexit followed by a new Tory PM. Corbyn is the next PM only if their is an early election fought by May ( which is difficult to see) and he wins it OR he lasts another 4.5 years and wins in 2022. I've not seen anything happen this week that makes either scenario more likely. I think it's Betfair froth from folk thinking Tory Troubles = Corbyn PM. It's much more complicated than that.

Yes, I agree,YS.

This is a classic example of the betting markets reflecting naive opinion. PBers who have not yet filled their boots should not waste time in doing so.

On a related theme, I would suggest the Labour Most Seats price of 1.93 is way too big. I would suggest 1.66 is the more appropriate figure, with or without Mrs M in charge of the Tories.

I agree with both of these tips.

Big_G_NorthWales

foxinsoxuk said:

Nigelb said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I basically agree. But there are other outside possibilities.

1) If the government falls apart into incoherence...

Isn't the incoherence bit already a done deal ?

If there is a failed NC vote Jezza could lead a minority government without an election.

Unlikely but not impossible.

I simply do not think anything is impossible in this climate

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

OldKingCole

TheScreamingEagles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

The Fixed-Term Parliament Act.

It is possible that Corbyn becomes PM without an election.

I don't buy the line that the DUP won't make Corbyn PM.

They made Martin McGuinness Deputy First Minister.

The DUP will back whoever gives them the most pork.

They had to make Martin McGuiness DFM.Or face an election. Or worse, closing down the Assembly and with it their salaries.
Incidentally, are Assembly members actually getting paid, given that they can agree on a Government?

Pro_Rata

Perhaps this is the scenario by which May stays as PM. 18% anyone?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=61s&v=m-ZjldsoyAs

And on that, I will leave you for the afternoon.

YellowSubmarine

foxinsoxuk said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I suppose the scenario is a government collapse leading to a GE before the Tories can have a contest. Hardly odds on though.

The aimless drift, battles over Europe, whiff of decay and sleaze is all making me nostalgic for the 90's.

I'm nostalgic for the '90s as well. At least then we had the Smith/Blair opposition ready to take over with Paddy in his prime as little helper. They seem like prelapsarian days. Now we have Corbyn and a succession of Ghoulish populist Nationalists of left and right. The recent Northern Ireland polling on unification isn't that far off what YES started with in Scotland. The is entirely a post Brexit phenomenon.

There is a mounting sense in my view this all of 2016/17 is just a begining rather than a clarifying end. The weaker the Brexit deal that more febrile post Brexit politics will become.

Hopefully this will be a self denying prophecy and as things continue to deteriorate we collapse into a as a close to a status quo Brexit as possible as a shock absorber but at this stage who knows. And of course a Corbyn government wouldn't be the end of it. It's campaign pledges meeting reality would be a whole new begining.

I can't think of a worse time in British politics as I'm not quite old enough to remember the '70s properly.

Time to retreat to family, voluntary and charity work and the garden me thinks while the storm blows it's self out without hopefully blowing us all up.

Peter_the_Punter

Richard_Nabavi said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

What you are missing is the sheer chaos. Sure, there's no way that the party would voluntarily go into the next election with TM as leader, but, given the febrile atmosphere, the complete breakdown of discipline, and the added complication of division over Brexit and the sheer difficulty of managing all the complex and conflicting pressures, there's a not insignificant risk that the government could suddenly collapse without there being time to install a new leader. In such circumstances, Corbyn would probably win.

So, IMO the current odds on Corbyn are probably too short, but not massively so in the circumstances.

Yes, I take your point (and Alistair's which was kind of the same one) but you are still talking about a political meltdown scenario in which there isn't time to replace a paralysed PM. Still reckon that's only a 5% chance. Corbyn too short.

Bet you've had some!

AlastairMeeks

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

The Fixed-Term Parliament Act.

It is possible that Corbyn becomes PM without an election.

I don't buy the line that the DUP won't make Corbyn PM.

They made Martin McGuinness Deputy First Minister.

The DUP will back whoever gives them the most pork.

They had to make Martin McGuiness DFM.Or face an election. Or worse, closing down the Assembly and with it their salaries.
Incidentally, are Assembly members actually getting paid, given that they can agree on a Government?

Yes they are. It is the subject of discontent.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-mlas-to-get-pay-rise-despite-no-work-and-call-to-halt-salaries-35573191.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/18/northern-ireland-power-sharing-talks-stalled-james-brokenshire

anothernick

Within the next year it will become clear that MPs will have to decide whether to remain in the EU in all but name or take the country over the cliff. The EU has no intention of offering a bespoke transition, and even if it wanted to it's very unlikely that such a deal could be agreed in the time available.

So the UK will either crash out or be forced to accept an "off the shelf" EEA transition in which budgetary contributions and acceptance of the acquis, ECJ and four freedoms will continue. May will be forced to recommend one of these options to the Commons. The opposition parties will vote against both of them and blame the Tories for their abject failure to get a better deal. They will demand May's immediate resignation. So unless the Tory remainers vote to go over the cliff or the Tory leavers vote to (effectively) stay in the EU May will not be able to carry the Commons and accordingly the government will have to resign.

This would land us in a major political and economic crisis and it would be clear that no new Tory leader could command a Commons majority for any Brexit policy. It is quite possible that this could lead to a Corbyn-led minority government for a short time even without a new election - the scale of the crisis could be such that immediate action to clarify the UK's future relationship with the EU would be needed, and it seems likely that a majority could be found for Labour's position - remaining in the EEA for a "transitional" period.

The odds against such a chain of events leading to Corbyn becoming the next PM are quite long but I'd say they are greater than 20-1.

Peter_the_Punter

YellowSubmarine said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I suppose the scenario is a government collapse leading to a GE before the Tories can have a contest. Hardly odds on though.

The aimless drift, battles over Europe, whiff of decay and sleaze is all making me nostalgic for the 90's.

I'm nostalgic for the '90s as well. At least then we had the Smith/Blair opposition ready to take over with Paddy in his prime as little helper. They seem like prelapsarian days. Now we have Corbyn and a succession of Ghoulish populist Nationalists of left and right. The recent Northern Ireland polling on unification isn't that far off what YES started with in Scotland. The is entirely a post Brexit phenomenon.

There is a mounting sense in my view this all of 2016/17 is just a begining rather than a clarifying end. The weaker the Brexit deal that more febrile post Brexit politics will become.

Hopefully this will be a self denying prophecy and as things continue to deteriorate we collapse into a as a close to a status quo Brexit as possible as a shock absorber but at this stage who knows. And of course a Corbyn government wouldn't be the end of it. It's campaign pledges meeting reality would be a whole new begining.

I can't think of a worse time in British politics as I'm not quite old enough to remember the '70s properly.

Time to retreat to family, voluntary and charity work and the garden me thinks while the storm blows it's self out without hopefully blowing us all up.

This is more depressing than the 70s, YS. There was at least hope for improvement then.

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

Richard_Nabavi

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

No evidence there of any date-rate drug.

We really are in the midst of the Popish Plot.

rkrkrk

I'm laying JC, JRM and Ruth.
Somehow 3/top 6 are overpriced...

Edit- or I have completely misread this market.
It's happened before...

Big_G_NorthWales

rkrkrk said:

I'm laying JC, JRM and Ruth.
Somehow 3/6 are overpriced...

Does make you wonder if JRM will become a serious contender as he is seen to be above all this

Sandpit

AlastairMeeks said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

The Fixed-Term Parliament Act.

It is possible that Corbyn becomes PM without an election.

I don't buy the line that the DUP won't make Corbyn PM.

They made Martin McGuinness Deputy First Minister.

The DUP will back whoever gives them the most pork.

They had to make Martin McGuiness DFM.Or face an election. Or worse, closing down the Assembly and with it their salaries.
Incidentally, are Assembly members actually getting paid, given that they can agree on a Government?

Yes they are. It is the subject of discontent.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-mlas-to-get-pay-rise-despite-no-work-and-call-to-halt-salaries-35573191.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/18/northern-ireland-power-sharing-talks-stalled-james-brokenshire

I understand the nature of Northern Irish politics can sometimes make things difficult, but if there’s one sure way to speed up the process of sorting out a government it will be suspending the salaries of the politicians until they can sort it out.

Tissue_Price

rkrkrk said:

I'm laying JC, JRM and Ruth.
Somehow 3/top 6 are overpriced...

Edit- or I have completely misread this market.
It's happened before...

JC/JRM, yes. I was laying Ruth but have changed my mind on that.

My big positives across this and the Tory leader market are Davis, Raab, Hunt & McVey, with smaller plusses on some of the other next gen'ers.

Peter_the_Punter

@Another Nick

Excellent post, and thank you Nick, but your last sentence needs clarification. Do you think 20/1 is too big or too small?

OldKingCole

Peter_the_Punter said:

YellowSubmarine said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I suppose the scenario is a government collapse leading to a GE before the Tories can have a contest. Hardly odds on though.

The aimless drift, battles over Europe, whiff of decay and sleaze is all making me nostalgic for the 90's.

I'm nostalgic for the '90s as well. At least then we had the Smith/Blair opposition ready to take over with Paddy in his prime as little helper. They seem like prelapsarian days. Now we have Corbyn and a succession of Ghoulish populist Nationalists of left and right. The recent Northern Ireland polling on unification isn't that far off what YES started with in Scotland. The is entirely a post Brexit phenomenon.

There is a mounting sense in my view this all of 2016/17 is just a begining rather than a clarifying end. The weaker the Brexit deal that more febrile post Brexit politics will become.

Hopefully this will be a self denying prophecy and as things continue to deteriorate we collapse into a as a close to a status quo Brexit as possible as a shock absorber but at this stage who knows. And of course a Corbyn government wouldn't be the end of it. It's campaign pledges meeting reality would be a whole new begining.

I can't think of a worse time in British politics as I'm not quite old enough to remember the '70s properly.

Time to retreat to family, voluntary and charity work and the garden me thinks while the storm blows it's self out without hopefully blowing us all up.

This is more depressing than the 70s, YS. There was at least hope for improvement then.

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

I’m 10 years older than you Mr Punter, and I agree wholeheartedly. I cut my political teeth around the late 50’s early 60’s, the times of Suez and Pofumo, and both were a walk in park compared with all this

anothernick

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Another Nick

Excellent post, and thank you Nick, but your last sentence needs clarification. Do you think 20/1 is too big or too small?

20/1 is too long - if I was forced I think I'd say perhaps 8 or 10/1.

RobD

Tissue_Price said:

rkrkrk said:

I'm laying JC, JRM and Ruth.
Somehow 3/top 6 are overpriced...

Edit- or I have completely misread this market.
It's happened before...

JC/JRM, yes. I was laying Ruth but have changed my mind on that.

My big positives across this and the Tory leader market are Davis, Raab, Hunt & McVey, with smaller plusses on some of the other next gen'ers.

Hopefully McVey gets into the Cabinet soon.

Peter_the_Punter

anothernick said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Another Nick

Excellent post, and thank you Nick, but your last sentence needs clarification. Do you think 20/1 is too big or too small?

20/1 is too long - if I was forced I think I'd say perhaps 8 or 10/1.

Yes, I thought that was what you meant!

But the difference in percentage terms is small - 10/1 = 10%, 20/1 = 5% so low levels of probability.

Scrapheap_as_was

O/T As I sit atop the PB Fantasy Football League and enjoy my time in the sun for as long as it may last, I am seeing the world anew.

1. Corbyn will never be PM.

2. Trump won't make it to 2020.

3. It is my strong belief that this tweet means Mr Bale might one day return to Spurs... normally he posts #Halamadrid in his tweets, that is missing here and a little bit vague too on his wishes....

https://twitter.com/GarethBale11/status/925704527898177537

Cyclefree

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

anothernick

Peter_the_Punter said:

anothernick said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Another Nick

Excellent post, and thank you Nick, but your last sentence needs clarification. Do you think 20/1 is too big or too small?

20/1 is too long - if I was forced I think I'd say perhaps 8 or 10/1.

Yes, I thought that was what you meant!

But the difference in percentage terms is small - 10/1 = 10%, 20/1 = 5% so low levels of probability.

Yes it's an outside chance but things are so febrile at the moment that even more outlandish scenarios cannot be ruled out I think. We are drifting toward disaster and most people seem blissfully unaware, which will only make the panic worse when the brown stuff makes contact with the blades.

rkrkrk

Tissue_Price said:

rkrkrk said:

I'm laying JC, JRM and Ruth.
Somehow 3/top 6 are overpriced...

Edit- or I have completely misread this market.
It's happened before...

JC/JRM, yes. I was laying Ruth but have changed my mind on that.

My big positives across this and the Tory leader market are Davis, Raab, Hunt & McVey, with smaller plusses on some of the other next gen'ers.

Why did you change your mind on Ruth?
Even if the govt lasts until 2022 - will that be time for her to find a seat?
She surely would only go for a Scottish Westminster seat?

Slackbladder

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

Security would be one reason. Also I'm guessing MPs have a lot of spare time on their hands whilst in the house around late nights when votes are taking place. Having bars stops them wondering off and within hearing distance of the division bell.

Anorak

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

I work in Westminster. The number of pubs is small, and the number of decent pubs is smaller still.

I'm already fed up with queuing for crap beer, so I don't want 1000+ MP, spads and assorted bag carriers clogging up the watering holes even more. They are very welcome to their subsidised bars.

tlg86

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

BiB - Not any more, but they did in the past and I know people who think it was terrible that they were abolished!

Peter_the_Punter

OldKingCole said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

YellowSubmarine said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I suppose the scenario is a government collapse leading to a GE before the Tories can have a contest. Hardly odds on though.

The aimless drift, battles over Europe, whiff of decay and sleaze is all making me nostalgic for the 90's.

I'm nostalgic for the '90s as well. At least then we had the Smith/Blair opposition ready to take over with Paddy in his prime as little helper. They seem like prelapsarian days. Now we have Corbyn and a succession of Ghoulish populist Nationalists of left and right. The recent Northern Ireland polling on unification isn't that far off what YES started with in Scotland. The is entirely a post Brexit phenomenon.

There is a mounting sense in my view this all of 2016/17 is just a begining rather than a clarifying end. The weaker the Brexit deal that more febrile post Brexit politics will become.

Hopefully this will be a self denying prophecy and as things continue to deteriorate we collapse into a as a close to a status quo Brexit as possible as a shock absorber but at this stage who knows. And of course a Corbyn government wouldn't be the end of it. It's campaign pledges meeting reality would be a whole new begining.

I can't think of a worse time in British politics as I'm not quite old enough to remember the '70s properly.

Time to retreat to family, voluntary and charity work and the garden me thinks while the storm blows it's self out without hopefully blowing us all up.

This is more depressing than the 70s, YS. There was at least hope for improvement then.

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

I’m 10 years older than you Mr Punter, and I agree wholeheartedly. I cut my political teeth around the late 50’s early 60’s, the times of Suez and Pofumo, and both were a walk in park compared with all this

We have been a fortunate generation, OKC, but I fear for the next few. Yesterday I was advising my son to take up his option to obtain an Irish Passport, and look for work outside the UK. I have never been so pessimistic about my country and for the first time ever I would sincerely advise getting out if you can. With a little luck, I may even be doing so myself.

YellowSubmarine

@Peter_the_Punter One of my very first memories of anything was sitting in the dark with exciting Candles and an assumption musically jubilant Dad. Only when I was older was it explained it was a power cut caused by a miners strike. My Dad was a striking me nervous hence the jubilation. Even this childhood fragment had an impact on my later politics ? Imagine getting yourself into a situation where a power cut was a sign for political sucess ?

The difference now I think is our depleted social capital makes crisis harder to weather. That and fake Social Capital formation replacing the real thing. Poppy Fascism on the Right kicking in as real WW2 veterans die off. Anti-capitalistism on the Left perpetrated by clicktivism via an iPhone.

The Philosopher's At be of 21st Century western politics will be real social capital formation in an automising, globalising world. If we don't find it it will be a grim period.

Tissue_Price

rkrkrk said:

Tissue_Price said:

rkrkrk said:

I'm laying JC, JRM and Ruth.
Somehow 3/top 6 are overpriced...

Edit- or I have completely misread this market.
It's happened before...

JC/JRM, yes. I was laying Ruth but have changed my mind on that.

My big positives across this and the Tory leader market are Davis, Raab, Hunt & McVey, with smaller plusses on some of the other next gen'ers.

Why did you change your mind on Ruth?
Even if the govt lasts until 2022 - will that be time for her to find a seat?
She surely would only go for a Scottish Westminster seat?

1) The Scottish Labour revival could well spell eclipse for her in Scotland
2) This piece (£) by Danny Finkelstein. Conclusion:

If the Conservative Party is still the great election-winning machine it prides itself on being, if it still has will, it cannot just stand there accepting that the obvious solution is impossible.

So let me give an example. The Conservative Party changes its rules to allow its Scottish leader to stand in the contest to be the overall party leader. And it delays any such contest until after the Scottish election in 2021.

If Ms Davidson were successful she would stand for Westminster and as leader for the next term in 2022 while Mrs May finishes the term as prime minister.

I can see every objection to this. Indeed with all my political experience I confess it looks, even to me, a little eccentric. But on the other hand how much less eccentric is knowing what to do, being able to do it, and doing nothing? That’s not eccentric, it’s bonkers. Does the party want to win or doesn’t it?

rkrkrk

Anorak said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

I work in Westminster. The number of pubs is small, and the number of decent pubs is smaller still.

I'm already fed up with queuing for crap beer, so I don't want 1000+ MP, spads and assorted bag carriers clogging up the watering holes even more. They are very welcome to their subsidised bars.

Number of pubs is small!?

Always seemed like loads to me when I was working there - although I accept queueing often took a while.

Richard_Tyndall

Peter_the_Punter said:

YellowSubmarine said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I suppose the scenario is a government collapse leading to a GE before the Tories can have a contest. Hardly odds on though.

The aimless drift, battles over Europe, whiff of decay and sleaze is all making me nostalgic for the 90's.

I'm nostalgic for the '90s as well. At least then we had the Smith/Blair opposition ready to take over with Paddy in his prime as little helper. They seem like prelapsarian days. Now we have Corbyn and a succession of Ghoulish populist Nationalists of left and right. The recent Northern Ireland polling on unification isn't that far off what YES started with in Scotland. The is entirely a post Brexit phenomenon.

There is a mounting sense in my view this all of 2016/17 is just a begining rather than a clarifying end. The weaker the Brexit deal that more febrile post Brexit politics will become.

Hopefully this will be a self denying prophecy and as things continue to deteriorate we collapse into a as a close to a status quo Brexit as possible as a shock absorber but at this stage who knows. And of course a Corbyn government wouldn't be the end of it. It's campaign pledges meeting reality would be a whole new begining.

I can't think of a worse time in British politics as I'm not quite old enough to remember the '70s properly.

Time to retreat to family, voluntary and charity work and the garden me thinks while the storm blows it's self out without hopefully blowing us all up.

This is more depressing than the 70s, YS. There was at least hope for improvement then.

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

I am in my 50s and for almost all if my adult life I have felt the country was going in the wrong direction. This is the first time since I was old enough to vote that I feel we have any chance at all if starting to put things right again.

Richard_Nabavi

Tissue_Price said:

" Does the party want to win or doesn’t it?"

That is indeed the question. It's not clear that it does.

I joined the party when the choice of David Cameron as leader demonstrated that, finally, they wanted to become a party of government again. I'll drift away if the party once again gives up on that.

Peter_the_Punter

Richard_Tyndall said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

YellowSubmarine said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I suppose the scenario is a government collapse leading to a GE before the Tories can have a contest. Hardly odds on though.

The aimless drift, battles over Europe, whiff of decay and sleaze is all making me nostalgic for the 90's.

I'm nostalgic for the '90s as well. At least then we had the Smith/Blair opposition ready to take over with Paddy in his prime as little helper. They seem like prelapsarian days. Now we have Corbyn and a succession of Ghoulish populist Nationalists of left and right. The recent Northern Ireland polling on unification isn't that far off what YES started with in Scotland. The is entirely a post Brexit phenomenon.

There is a mounting sense in my view this all of 2016/17 is just a begining rather than a clarifying end. The weaker the Brexit deal that more febrile post Brexit politics will become.

Hopefully this will be a self denying prophecy and as things continue to deteriorate we collapse into a as a close to a status quo Brexit as possible as a shock absorber but at this stage who knows. And of course a Corbyn government wouldn't be the end of it. It's campaign pledges meeting reality would be a whole new begining.

I can't think of a worse time in British politics as I'm not quite old enough to remember the '70s properly.

Time to retreat to family, voluntary and charity work and the garden me thinks while the storm blows it's self out without hopefully blowing us all up.

This is more depressing than the 70s, YS. There was at least hope for improvement then.

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

I am in my 50s and for almost all if my adult life I have felt the country was going in the wrong direction. This is the first time since I was old enough to vote that I feel we have any chance at all if starting to put things right again.

Well, I am glad somebody does, Richard, and I do hope you are proved right.

Richard_Tyndall

YellowSubmarine said:

@Peter_the_Punter One of my very first memories of anything was sitting in the dark with exciting Candles and an assumption musically jubilant Dad. Only when I was older was it explained it was a power cut caused by a miners strike. My Dad was a striking me nervous hence the jubilation. Even this childhood fragment had an impact on my later politics ? Imagine getting yourself into a situation where a power cut was a sign for political sucess ?

The difference now I think is our depleted social capital makes crisis harder to weather. That and fake Social Capital formation replacing the real thing. Poppy Fascism on the Right kicking in as real WW2 veterans die off. Anti-capitalistism on the Left perpetrated by clicktivism via an iPhone.

The Philosopher's At be of 21st Century western politics will be real social capital formation in an automising, globalising world. If we don't find it it will be a grim period.

So your father was jubilant at the idea of bringing misery to millions. That is pretty shameful.

NickPalmer

Anorak said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

I work in Westminster. The number of pubs is small, and the number of decent pubs is smaller still.

I'm already fed up with queuing for crap beer, so I don't want 1000+ MP, spads and assorted bag carriers clogging up the watering holes even more. They are very welcome to their subsidised bars.

I virtually never used the bars, but for a place where people work up to 18 hours a day and are on intermittent 8 minutes' notice that they may need to vote, some sort of refreshments facility on site is essential. Anywhere that served Coca-Cola would be fine with me, but I think one has to accept that some MPs will want beer. Not serving stronger booze might make sense.

Sean_F

Richard_Tyndall said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

YellowSubmarine said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I suppose the scenario is a government collapse leading to a GE before the Tories can have a contest. Hardly odds on though.

The aimless drift, battles over Europe, whiff of decay and sleaze is all making me nostalgic for the 90's.

I'm nostalgic for the '90s as well. At least then we had the Smith/Blair opposition ready to take over with Paddy in his prime as little helper. They seem like prelapsarian days. Now we have Corbyn and a succession of Ghoulish populist Nationalists of left and right. The recent Northern Ireland polling on unification isn't that far off what YES started with in Scotland. The is entirely a post Brexit phenomenon.

There is a mounting sense in my view this all of 2016/17 is just a begining rather than a clarifying end. The weaker the Brexit deal that more febrile post Brexit politics will become.

Hopefully this will be a self denying prophecy and as things continue to deteriorate we collapse into a as a close to a status quo Brexit as possible as a shock absorber but at this stage who knows. And of course a Corbyn government wouldn't be the end of it. It's campaign pledges meeting reality would be a whole new begining.

I can't think of a worse time in British politics as I'm not quite old enough to remember the '70s properly.

Time to retreat to family, voluntary and charity work and the garden me thinks while the storm blows it's self out without hopefully blowing us all up.

This is more depressing than the 70s, YS. There was at least hope for improvement then.

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

I am in my 50s and for almost all if my adult life I have felt the country was going in the wrong direction. This is the first time since I was old enough to vote that I feel we have any chance at all if starting to put things right again.

The Conservatives are a bit dismal, and Labour are worse, but that's been the case for most of my adult life. It's certainly no reason to leave the country. On the whole, this is a good place to live in. I'd qualify for an Irish passport, but why should I want one?

Anorak

rkrkrk said:

Anorak said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

I work in Westminster. The number of pubs is small, and the number of decent pubs is smaller still.

I'm already fed up with queuing for crap beer, so I don't want 1000+ MP, spads and assorted bag carriers clogging up the watering holes even more. They are very welcome to their subsidised bars.

Number of pubs is small!?

Always seemed like loads to me when I was working there - although I accept queueing often took a while.

It may be relative. I previously worked near Convent Garden and Bank, where the number of booze hostelries was truly awesome.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

F1: in shock news, man whose team has the best engine isn't happy at proposals to revamp engine rules:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41833948

On-topic: it's bloody depressing.

OldKingCole

Peter_the_Punter said:

OldKingCole said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

YellowSubmarine said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I suppose the scenario is a government collapse leading to a GE before the Tories can have a contest. Hardly odds on though.

The aimless drift, battles over Europe, whiff of decay and sleaze is all making me nostalgic for the 90's.

I'm nostalgic for the '90s as well. At least then we had the Smith/Blair opposition ready to take over with Paddy in his prime as little helper.


I can't think of a worse time in British politics as I'm not quite old enough to remember the '70s properly.

Time to retreat to family, voluntary and charity work and the garden me thinks while the storm blows it's self out without hopefully blowing us all up.

This is more depressing than the 70s, YS. There was at least hope for improvement then.

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

I’m 10 years older than you Mr Punter, and I agree wholeheartedly. I cut my political teeth around the late 50’s early 60’s, the times of Suez and Pofumo, and both were a walk in park compared with all this

We have been a fortunate generation, OKC, but I fear for the next few. Yesterday I was advising my son to take up his option to obtain an Irish Passport, and look for work outside the UK. I have never been so pessimistic about my country and for the first time ever I would sincerely advise getting out if you can. With a little luck, I may even be doing so myself.

Totally agree; your generation might be considered a bit more fortunate than mine, but when I look at the prospects for the young I am, like you, pessimistic. One of my son’s has left the country; I suspect he still thinks of it as a bolt-hole, although with a Thai wife and half-Thai children it might not be as easy as he once thought.
My eldest grandson is about to get married; he and his wife, both teachers, have, besides their student loans, a £200k mortgage on a modest ex-council house. A return to the interest rates of my middle age could be disastrous for them.

OldKingCole

Peter_the_Punter said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

YellowSubmarine said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Like TSE and OGH I am at a loss to see why Corbyn is favorite. I make him 20/1, at least, for the reason Mike gives. TM has to lead the Government at the next election for him to be next PM and I don't make that more than a 5% probability.

And then of course he has to win, so even 20/1 would be a stingy price. What am I missing?

I suppose the scenario is a government collapse leading to a GE before the Tories can have a contest. Hardly odds on though.

The aimless drift, battles over Europe, whiff of decay and sleaze is all making me nostalgic for the 90's.

I'm nostalgic for the '90s as well. At least then we had the Smith/Blair opposition ready to take over with Paddy in his prime as little helper. They seem like prelapsarian days. Now we have Corbyn and a succession of Ghoulish populist Nationalists of left and right. The recent Northern Ireland polling on unification isn't that far off what YES started with in Scotland. The is entirely a post Brexit phenomenon.

There is a mounting sense in my view this all of 2016/17 is just a begining rather than a clarifying end. The weaker the Brexit deal that more febrile post Brexit politics will become.

Hopefully this will be a self denying prophecy and as things continue to deteriorate we collapse into a as a close to a status quo Brexit as possible as a shock absorber but at this stage who knows. And of course a Corbyn government wouldn't be the end of it. It's campaign pledges meeting reality would be a whole new begining.

I can't think of a worse time in British politics as I'm not quite old enough to remember the '70s properly.

Time to retreat to family, voluntary and charity work and the garden me thinks while the storm blows it's self out without hopefully blowing us all up.

This is more depressing than the 70s, YS. There was at least hope for improvement then.

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

I am in my 50s and for almost all if my adult life I have felt the country was going in the wrong direction. This is the first time since I was old enough to vote that I feel we have any chance at all if starting to put things right again.

Well, I am glad somebody does, Richard, and I do hope you are proved right.

Snap.

Anorak

Tangential to the thread topic, I can't tell you how hilarious I'd find it if the excruciatingly pious JC was caught up in the allegations. Maybe Diane can tell us a tale or two...

Philip_Thompson

FPT

kyf_100 said:

The trouble is, of course, if it isn't banned for you, what's to stop a company like Sports Direct taking on "students" for a week or two for the "valuable experience" they gain. Where do you draw the line?

If someone is actually doing a job, as in, is contributing towards wealth creation somewhere, even if it's just licking enevelopes that go out on marketing mailers, they should be paid for that job, because their labour is earning money for somebody else. If they are purely there to learn something - as is the case of the sixth form student who shadowed me for the day to discover what my job entailed - that is slightly different. I think the exploitation, certainly within my industry, has become so egregious that legislation is the only way to move forward.

It is astonishing how we are now all of the consensus that the minimum wage is a good thing. I remember it wasn't a million years ago (more like twenty!) that the Tories were actively campaigning against it.

It is my hope that one day unpaid internships will be seen in a similar light.

What if they're not contributing towards wealth creation?

Do you have any idea how much it costs to train someone? To take someone experienced and stop them from doing their job in order to train and shadow someone who has zero experience?

If we were talking Sports Direct taking on someone for months of "experience" you may have a point. If they're taking on someone for a couple of days during their college's Work Experience Week then you don't really. Sports Direct aren't making any discernible profit on that. Quite the opposite it may even cost more to provide the training etc to give the individuals work experience but it is a way of giving back to the community.

I think there should be a very strict time limit to how long an unpaid internship can last. Maybe a week, maybe a month - if it is going on indefinitely then that is a job and should be paid.

YellowSubmarine

@Richard_Tyndall First I more or less made that point about my father's views myself. So why be so vulgar as to abuse him ? You are talking to me not him. Secondly you are an excellent example of my Dad's position yourself. An obsessive EEA advocate on obscure sovereignty grounds but prepared to vote for the most Xenophobic campaign of my life time and cheer the hardest of Brexits to secure a narrow point.

As you and my Dad demonstrate tribalism and absolutism are powerful things when political combatants lose all perspective.

OldKingCole

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kyf_100 said:

The trouble is, of course, if it isn't banned for you, what's to stop a company like Sports Direct taking on "students" for a week or two for the "valuable experience" they gain. Where do you draw the line?

If someone is actually doing a job, as in, is contributing towards wealth creation somewhere, even if it's just licking enevelopes that go out on marketing mailers, they should be paid for that job, because their labour is earning money for somebody else. If they are purely there to learn something - as is the case of the sixth form student who shadowed me for the day to discover what my job entailed - that is slightly different. I think the exploitation, certainly within my industry, has become so egregious that legislation is the only way to move forward.

It is astonishing how we are now all of the consensus that the minimum wage is a good thing. I remember it wasn't a million years ago (more like twenty!) that the Tories were actively campaigning against it.

It is my hope that one day unpaid internships will be seen in a similar light.

What if they're not contributing towards wealth creation?

Do you have any idea how much it costs to train someone? To take someone experienced and stop them from doing their job in order to train and shadow someone who has zero experience?

If we were talking Sports Direct taking on someone for months of "experience" you may have a point. If they're taking on someone for a couple of days during their college's Work Experience Week then you don't really. Sports Direct aren't making any discernible profit on that. Quite the opposite it may even cost more to provide the training etc to give the individuals work experience but it is a way of giving back to the community.

I think there should be a very strict time limit to how long an unpaid internship can last. Maybe a week, maybe a month - if it is going on indefinitely then that is a job and should be paid.

I believe Poundland or someone like that have, or at any rate have had, a contract with Jobcentres to provide unpaid Work Experience for periods of up to a month.

david_herdson

'Even stronger' is egging it a bit, isn't it? 18% is about 9/2 against.

Edit - that said, I do agree with Mike's main point. Corbyn's odds should not be as short as they are. There is a chance that the government could fall before the next GE, via by-elections, defections, splits, the DUP walking or something of a similar nature, but the chances have to be quite remote. Absent that, and I agree with Mike that it's unlikely that May will last till 2022 and highly unlikely that she'll try to call another early election. And there is no other route to Corbyn becoming next PM.

david_herdson

RobD said:

Third, like the LDs

You expecting an SNP wipeout?

Philip_Thompson

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kyf_100 said:

The trouble is, of course, if it isn't banned for you, what's to stop a company like Sports Direct taking on "students" for a week or two for the "valuable experience" they gain. Where do you draw the line?

If someone is actually doing a job, as in, is contributing towards wealth creation somewhere, even if it's just licking enevelopes that go out on marketing mailers, they should be paid for that job, because their labour is earning money for somebody else. If they are purely there to learn something - as is the case of the sixth form student who shadowed me for the day to discover what my job entailed - that is slightly different. I think the exploitation, certainly within my industry, has become so egregious that legislation is the only way to move forward.

It is astonishing how we are now all of the consensus that the minimum wage is a good thing. I remember it wasn't a million years ago (more like twenty!) that the Tories were actively campaigning against it.

It is my hope that one day unpaid internships will be seen in a similar light.

What if they're not contributing towards wealth creation?

Do you have any idea how much it costs to train someone? To take someone experienced and stop them from doing their job in order to train and shadow someone who has zero experience?

If we were talking Sports Direct taking on someone for months of "experience" you may have a point. If they're taking on someone for a couple of days during their college's Work Experience Week then you don't really. Sports Direct aren't making any discernible profit on that. Quite the opposite it may even cost more to provide the training etc to give the individuals work experience but it is a way of giving back to the community.

I think there should be a very strict time limit to how long an unpaid internship can last. Maybe a week, maybe a month - if it is going on indefinitely then that is a job and should be paid.

I believe Poundland or someone like that have, or at any rate have had, a contract with Jobcentres to provide unpaid Work Experience for periods of up to a month.

I didn't think it was unpaid, I thought they were getting paid JSA.

If it is strictly time-limited like up to a month then that seems a good way of preventing abuse. Staff turnover and training is not cheap.

rkrkrk

Anorak said:

Tangential to the thread topic, I can't tell you how hilarious I'd find it if the excruciatingly pious JC was caught up in the allegations. Maybe Diane can tell us a tale or two...

I think it would bring him down as leader if Diane Abbott/someone else made allegations against him.

OldKingCole

Philip_Thompson said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kyf_100 said:

The trouble is, of course, if it isn't banned for you, what's to stop a company like Sports Direct taking on "students" for a week or two for the "valuable experience" they gain. Where do you draw the line?

If someone is actually doing a job, as in, is contributing towards wealth creation somewhere, even if it's just licking enevelopes that go out on marketing mailers, they should be paid for that job, because their labour is earning money for somebody else. If they are purely there to learn something - as is the case of the sixth form student who shadowed me for the day to discover what my job entailed - that is slightly different. I think the exploitation, certainly within my industry, has become so egregious that legislation is the only way to move forward.

It is astonishing how we are now all of the consensus that the minimum wage is a good thing. I remember it wasn't a million years ago (more like twenty!) that the Tories were actively campaigning against it.

It is my hope that one day unpaid internships will be seen in a similar light.

What if they're not contributing towards wealth creation?

Do you have any idea how much it costs to train someone? To take someone experienced and stop them from doing their job in order to train and shadow someone who has zero experience?

If we were talking Sports Direct taking on someone for months of "experience" you may have a point. If they're taking on someone for a couple of days during their college's Work Experience Week then you don't really. Sports Direct aren't making any discernible profit on that. Quite the opposite it may even cost more to provide the training etc to give the individuals work experience but it is a way of giving back to the community.

I think there should be a very strict time limit to how long an unpaid internship can last. Maybe a week, maybe a month - if it is going on indefinitely then that is a job and should be paid.

I believe Poundland or someone like that have, or at any rate have had, a contract with Jobcentres to provide unpaid Work Experience for periods of up to a month.

I didn't think it was unpaid, I thought they were getting paid JSA.

If it is strictly time-limited like up to a month then that seems a good way of preventing abuse. Staff turnover and training is not cheap.

Shelf-filling to a pre-set template doesn’t require a lot of training, assuming basic literacy.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

F1: in shock news, man whose team has the best engine isn't happy at proposals to revamp engine rules:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41833948

On-topic: it's bloody depressing.

It’s day 2 of an 18-month consultation on the new engine spec, I think the proposal has been given some serious thought and will get refined by everyone over the next year or so.

They’re trying to standardise more components and level the playing field a little, so it’s no surprise that Mr Woolf, who’s spent a couple of hundred million dollars at making the current engines the best in the field, is not entirely enthusiastic about having to do it all over again.

Nigelb

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

F1: in shock news, man whose team has the best engine isn't happy at proposals to revamp engine rules:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41833948

I actually tend to agree with Herr Wolff, Mr.D.
The proposals don't look very well thought out - and I'm not sure the other engine builders will be particularly delighted either, just as they are showing signs of getting on top of the existing regulations.

Anyway, engines aren't really the problem - vastly unequal funding is.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit/Mr. B, indeed, there are some legitimate criticisms (I think altering the engines to make the noise better is a frankly infantile approach).

I agree entirely on funding, but other things are lopsided too. Ferrari has a veto on these regulations for example. No other team does.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit/Mr. B, indeed, there are some legitimate criticisms (I think altering the engines to make the noise better is a frankly infantile approach).

I agree entirely on funding, but other things are lopsided too. Ferrari has a veto on these regulations for example. No other team does.

Did you ever hear the old cars running? Visceral doesn’t even start to describe it, the start and first lap was the most amazing assault on the senses imaginable. The new ones sound like a Prius in comparison, you can talk to the guy next to you, listen to the commentary in the stands and don’t even need ear plugs. The F2 cars make a better noise.

Beverley_C

Peter_the_Punter said:

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

The Brexit fallacy is that we are taking back control. No we are not. There is no control and there never was. Countries all get tossed around by events. Remember "Events, dear boy, events!"? Nothing has changed. By isolating ourselves we just become more exposed to the turbulence of events.

I also see little hope. We simply have no politicians worthy of the job. Corbyn or JRM as possible future leaders? It would be hilarious if it was not so heartbreaking.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, although this may put me in a small minority, I absolutely do not care how the cars sound.

Loud noises are something (ironically) I rather dislike.

Mrs C, it's not a wonderful picture, but worth remembering that Domitian preceded the Golden Age of Imperial Rome.

Beverley_C

Sean_F said:

The Conservatives are a bit dismal, and Labour are worse, but that's been the case for most of my adult life. It's certainly no reason to leave the country. On the whole, this is a good place to live in. I'd qualify for an Irish passport, but why should I want one?

The Conservatives are a divided collection of fools wearing rose-tinted glasses and Labour has been hijacked by people who ideology has failed everywhere it has been tried.

This was the best country in the world in which to live. Nowadays, it is simply on borrowed time.

OldKingCole

Beverley_C said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

The Brexit fallacy is that we are taking back control. No we are not. There is no control and there never was. Countries all get tossed around by events. Remember "Events, dear boy, events!"? Nothing has changed. By isolating ourselves we just become more exposed to the turbulence of events.

I also see little hope. We simply have no politicians worthy of the job. Corbyn or JRM as possible future leaders? It would be hilarious if it was not so heartbreaking.

We have, too, a Press which, far too frequently adopts a totally unjustified ‘holier than thou’ attitude.

Cyclefree

Slackbladder said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

Security would be one reason. Also I'm guessing MPs have a lot of spare time on their hands whilst in the house around late nights when votes are taking place. Having bars stops them wondering off and within hearing distance of the division bell.

If they're working should they be drinking?

Security is not a good enough reason. We don't require them and their families to live within a walled compound.

It's a perk. And one past its sell by date if they can't be trusted to behave.

AlastairMeeks

rkrkrk said:

Anorak said:

Tangential to the thread topic, I can't tell you how hilarious I'd find it if the excruciatingly pious JC was caught up in the allegations. Maybe Diane can tell us a tale or two...

I think it would bring him down as leader if Diane Abbott/someone else made allegations against him.

Of course it wouldn't. The Corbynites would assume that the whole thing was a media plot against him.

kyf_100

Beverley_C said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

The Brexit fallacy is that we are taking back control. No we are not. There is no control and there never was. Countries all get tossed around by events. Remember "Events, dear boy, events!"? Nothing has changed. By isolating ourselves we just become more exposed to the turbulence of events.

I also see little hope. We simply have no politicians worthy of the job. Corbyn or JRM as possible future leaders? It would be hilarious if it was not so heartbreaking.

However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.

The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.

TGOHF

kyf_100 said:

Beverley_C said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

I'm in my seventieth year and it is the first time I have felt despondent about the direction of the country. It has made a fundamental and irreversible change of direction and I do not see it recovering in my lifetime.

The Brexit fallacy is that we are taking back control. No we are not. There is no control and there never was. Countries all get tossed around by events. Remember "Events, dear boy, events!"? Nothing has changed. By isolating ourselves we just become more exposed to the turbulence of events.

I also see little hope. We simply have no politicians worthy of the job. Corbyn or JRM as possible future leaders? It would be hilarious if it was not so heartbreaking.

However, we are also taking back the ability to directly hire and fire the people who make the laws that govern us.

The very fact that Brexit is proving so difficult shows exactly how many powers were transferred, without any real form of consent, to what is at best a largely unaccountable bureacracy with very poor democratic checks and balances.

Seems unlikely that citizens of other countries will not soon begin to realise how much decision making has been given away.

Cyclefree

NickPalmer said:

Anorak said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

I work in Westminster. The number of pubs is small, and the number of decent pubs is smaller still.

I'm already fed up with queuing for crap beer, so I don't want 1000+ MP, spads and assorted bag carriers clogging up the watering holes even more. They are very welcome to their subsidised bars.

I virtually never used the bars, but for a place where people work up to 18 hours a day and are on intermittent 8 minutes' notice that they may need to vote, some sort of refreshments facility on site is essential. Anywhere that served Coca-Cola would be fine with me, but I think one has to accept that some MPs will want beer. Not serving stronger booze might make sense.

A canteen/restaurant is fine.

I regularly worked 18 hour days. Only recently was there a canteen open in the evening. If you worked late, you ate at home or bought a sandwich or did without. The idea that I and others should be drinking while working would have been inconceivable. Indeed, it would be a disciplinary offence. Not something to be indulged let alone subsidised.

TGOHF

Beverley_C said:

Sean_F said:

The Conservatives are a bit dismal, and Labour are worse, but that's been the case for most of my adult life. It's certainly no reason to leave the country. On the whole, this is a good place to live in. I'd qualify for an Irish passport, but why should I want one?

The Conservatives are a divided collection of fools wearing rose-tinted glasses and Labour has been hijacked by people who ideology has failed everywhere it has been tried.

This was the best country in the world in which to live. Nowadays, it is simply on borrowed time.

Says the poster with the flag of a country stuck in 1517 and where abortion isn't legal yet as her avatar.

anothernick

Cyclefree said:

Slackbladder said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

Security would be one reason. Also I'm guessing MPs have a lot of spare time on their hands whilst in the house around late nights when votes are taking place. Having bars stops them wondering off and within hearing distance of the division bell.

If they're working should they be drinking?

Security is not a good enough reason. We don't require them and their families to live within a walled compound.

It's a perk. And one past its sell by date if they can't be trusted to behave.

Workplace bars and "social clubs" were common until the 1980s. Going to the pub at lunchtime for a pint or three was unremarkable - some people did it everyday. A business lunch would always be accompanied by copious amounts of alcohol. We are a much more abstemious - not to say censorious - society now.

Beverley_C

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, although this may put me in a small minority, I absolutely do not care how the cars sound.

Loud noises are something (ironically) I rather dislike.

Mrs C, it's not a wonderful picture, but worth remembering that Domitian preceded the Golden Age of Imperial Rome.

Well then, if it worked for the Romans, we could empty the Treasury on public works and vanity projects and then maybe invade somewhere or....

Oh I see, Domitian = Gordon Brown and we are now prosperous!!

*facepalm*!

kyf_100

Philip_Thompson said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

What if they're not contributing towards wealth creation?

Do you have any idea how much it costs to train someone? To take someone experienced and stop them from doing their job in order to train and shadow someone who has zero experience?

If we were talking Sports Direct taking on someone for months of "experience" you may have a point. If they're taking on someone for a couple of days during their college's Work Experience Week then you don't really. Sports Direct aren't making any discernible profit on that. Quite the opposite it may even cost more to provide the training etc to give the individuals work experience but it is a way of giving back to the community.

I think there should be a very strict time limit to how long an unpaid internship can last. Maybe a week, maybe a month - if it is going on indefinitely then that is a job and should be paid.

I believe Poundland or someone like that have, or at any rate have had, a contract with Jobcentres to provide unpaid Work Experience for periods of up to a month.

I didn't think it was unpaid, I thought they were getting paid JSA.

If it is strictly time-limited like up to a month then that seems a good way of preventing abuse. Staff turnover and training is not cheap.

FPT again, this is the story to which I was referring to before, that Pret a Manger tried to hire 500 sixteen to seventeen year old interns to make sandwiches for a week at a time for free during their summer holidays.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/25/pret-a-manger-backtracks-on-unpaid-internships-after-backlash-6532808/

The problem with unpaid internships of any sort is if you give big companies an inch they will take a yard, because the larger the company the more the bean counters will see it as a way to shave 0.01% off cotsts. Smaller companies in my experience are better, but often underpay or offer unpaid internships 'because we're so small we can't really afford to hire anyone at this time...' which is really just another form of cost cutting.

I believe in an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. I can't pay for the food on my table or the roof over my head with 'valuable experience'.

I do find it interesting that many of the old arguments against the minimum wage are now being trotted out to defend unpaid internships - as I said in the previous thread, it is my hope that one day a consensus develops around the need to pay people for an honest day's work.

Beverley_C

TGOHF said:

Beverley_C said:

Sean_F said:

The Conservatives are a bit dismal, and Labour are worse, but that's been the case for most of my adult life. It's certainly no reason to leave the country. On the whole, this is a good place to live in. I'd qualify for an Irish passport, but why should I want one?

The Conservatives are a divided collection of fools wearing rose-tinted glasses and Labour has been hijacked by people who ideology has failed everywhere it has been tried.

This was the best country in the world in which to live. Nowadays, it is simply on borrowed time.

Says the poster with the flag of a country stuck in 1517 and where abortion isn't legal yet as her avatar.

Ireland is climbing out of its dark age - the UK is returning to its dark age. We will wave at you as we pass.

Nigelb

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit/Mr. B, indeed, there are some legitimate criticisms (I think altering the engines to make the noise better is a frankly infantile approach).

I agree entirely on funding, but other things are lopsided too. Ferrari has a veto on these regulations for example. No other team does.

Did you ever hear the old cars running? Visceral doesn’t even start to describe it, the start and first lap was the most amazing assault on the senses imaginable. The new ones sound like a Prius in comparison, you can talk to the guy next to you, listen to the commentary in the stands and don’t even need ear plugs. The F2 cars make a better noise.

I vividly remember a couple of visits to Silverstone (the second time during Mansell's all conquering championship year).
I'm with Mr.D on this - ridiculous noise was just about acceptable when it was a by-product of producing the maximum power possible; now it's just a piece of pointless pandering to a subsection of motorsport enthusiasts.

Morris_Dancer

Mrs C, I could've cited Edward II and Edward III.

All countries of any longevity have leaders bad and good, not unlike the business cycle meaning we always have recessions. Despair is rarely useful.

If we can avoid Comrade Corbyn wreaking economic and political ruin, things may very well improve.

Sunil_Prasannan

Beverley_C said:

TGOHF said:

Beverley_C said:

Sean_F said:

The Conservatives are a bit dismal, and Labour are worse, but that's been the case for most of my adult life. It's certainly no reason to leave the country. On the whole, this is a good place to live in. I'd qualify for an Irish passport, but why should I want one?

The Conservatives are a divided collection of fools wearing rose-tinted glasses and Labour has been hijacked by people who ideology has failed everywhere it has been tried.

This was the best country in the world in which to live. Nowadays, it is simply on borrowed time.

Says the poster with the flag of a country stuck in 1517 and where abortion isn't legal yet as her avatar.

Ireland is climbing out of its dark age - the UK is returning to its dark age. We will wave at you as we pass.

Is Corbyn going to ban abortion?

Cyclefree

anothernick said:

Cyclefree said:

Slackbladder said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/925728929251577856

Is there any reason why there should be bars in Parliament? It's a place of work after all. Most employers don't have pubs or cocktail bars on their premises. Nor do workplace canteens generally serve alcohol.

And it's not as if London is short of bars if MPs or their staff want to imbibe. Of course this wouldn't stop misbehaviour but it might, just might, make it a little bit harder for it to happen, if there are members of the public around.

Security would be one reason. Also I'm guessing MPs have a lot of spare time on their hands whilst in the house around late nights when votes are taking place. Having bars stops them wondering off and within hearing distance of the division bell.

If they're working should they be drinking?

Security is not a good enough reason. We don't require them and their families to live within a walled compound.

It's a perk. And one past its sell by date if they can't be trusted to behave.

Workplace bars and "social clubs" were common until the 1980s. Going to the pub at lunchtime for a pint or three was unremarkable - some people did it everyday. A business lunch would always be accompanied by copious amounts of alcohol. We are a much more abstemious - not to say censorious - society now.

Times do indeed change. MPs need to keep up. I don't see why they should be allowed to be drunk on duty, especially if doing so helps fuel the kind of sexual misbehaviour we've been reading about.

Parliament is a serious business not some sort of teenage sleepover.

Nigelb

Is it just me, or does Dominic Raab look disturbingly similar to the Bond villain played by Toby Stephens in Die Another Day ...?

TGOHF

Beverley_C said:

TGOHF said:

Beverley_C said:

Sean_F said:

The Conservatives are a bit dismal, and Labour are worse, but that's been the case for most of my adult life. It's certainly no reason to leave the country. On the whole, this is a good place to live in. I'd qualify for an Irish passport, but why should I want one?

The Conservatives are a divided collection of fools wearing rose-tinted glasses and Labour has been hijacked by people who ideology has failed everywhere it has been tried.

This was the best country in the world in which to live. Nowadays, it is simply on borrowed time.

Says the poster with the flag of a country stuck in 1517 and where abortion isn't legal yet as her avatar.

Ireland is climbing out of its dark age - the UK is returning to its dark age. We will wave at you as we pass.

Legalising abortion has massive public support in Ireland but the government still cowers to the medieval church. The dark ages continue.

Richard_Tyndall

YellowSubmarine said:

@Richard_Tyndall First I more or less made that point about my father's views myself. So why be so vulgar as to abuse him ? You are talking to me not him. Secondly you are an excellent example of my Dad's position yourself. An obsessive EEA advocate on obscure sovereignty grounds but prepared to vote for the most Xenophobic campaign of my life time and cheer the hardest of Brexits to secure a narrow point.

As you and my Dad demonstrate tribalism and absolutism are powerful things when political combatants lose all perspective.

His views as ypu express them or yours are utterlybrepugnant as are most of uour other views expressed on here. So I am quite happy to abuse both the views and those ignorant enough to be expressing them.