Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : September 12th 2013

SystemSystem Posts: 12,683
edited September 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : September 12th 2013

Dunstable, Northfields on Central Befordshire (Con Defence)
Last Local Election (2011): Con 48, Lib Dem 5, Ind 4, Lab 1 (Con overall majority of 38)
Result at last election (2011):

Read the full story here


Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    No need to apologise Harry, we're all very appreciative of your hard work and pieces every Thursday night
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    Fascinating convo with Ken Clarke here

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-this-old-trouper-is-well-placed-to-spot-a-loser-in-tory-leadership-contest-8812982.html
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    FPT - Interesting piece here on Ed

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10304690/Even-Labour-supporters-dont-think-that-Ed-Milibands-up-to-it.html
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Two for the price of one!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    I always said Rugby League and Aussies were weird

    Penis bite lands Anthony Watts eight-match ban, say reports

    http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/sep/11/penis-bite-anthony-watts-banned
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    Some bad findings for Labour on welfare

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-benefits-on-welfare-at-labours-expense-8812897.html
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @TSE - I think you've prematurely published tomorrow's article too. Dont worry, it happens to all men from time to time.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    edited September 2013
    Some 44 per cent of people (and 30 per cent of Labour supporters) believe welfare spending is too high, while only 18 per cent think it is too low and 17 per cent say it is about right.



    When those who say the welfare bill is too high are asked who they believe is responsible for it,

    54% Blame the last Lab Govt

    5% Blame the coalition

    31% blame both equally
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    I guess Mike and TSE managed a simultaneous posting!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Hear! Hear!

    Wreake villages is a true blue bit of Leics, lovely villages on the edge of the Vale of Belvoir.

    Hard to see Ed Miliband winning here.
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    No need to apologise Harry, we're all very appreciative of your hard work and pieces every Thursday night

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    Neil said:

    @TSE - I think you've prematurely published tomorrow's article too. Dont worry, it happens to all men from time to time.

    In the words of Shaggy, It wasn't me.

    I've not published anything today
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    I've never suffered from premature posting, ever.

    I did once ever experience multiple posts, and published the same post 5 times, concurrently.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 37,476
    Hey????

    Short thread...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2013
    Andy Burnham was best of the five.

    And still may be worth a punt if Ed does call it quits, I cannot see a defenestration.

    The Tories need to decide whether they want a wounded and lame Ed Miliband, or to kick away and try to get a Labour contest.

    Iam beginning to agree with Fester on the last thread, I think Ed M is not the problem, but rather the disloyal colleagues he is surrounded by. Maybe they really would rather have five more years of opposition.
    SeanT said:

    I had this debate with a lefty mate over drinks the other day: who SHOULD Labour have elected, given that Ed Miliband is a disaster (yes, I used to do drugs and fast women, now I chat about party leadershop elections (*sob*))

    It occurred to me that this *choosing the right Miliband* bollocks was just that: bollocks. Two geeky Primrose Hill millionaire sons-of-a-Marxist? There was no *correct* Miliband to choose, neither was suitable.

    Labour should have looked at the chinless, beardless, posho Toryboy leadership and gone prole, and gone old and/or female. Alan Johnson as leader, perhaps, with Yvette Cooper as SCOTE.

    Miliband D could have been Shadow ForSec with an expectation of becoming leader next time around.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    Yeah, apologies if you've had your comments zapped on the other thread, they will reappear when the thread is republished tomorrow
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    A UK Independence Party MEP has quit the party in protest at Nigel Farage's "totalitarian" leadership.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24074756
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I've never suffered from premature posting, ever.

    I did once ever experience multiple posts, and published the same post 5 times, concurrently.

    Comments all over the place, no doubt.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    Poor Labour

    Uncut poll reveals public blame last Labour government, not Tories, for today’s benefits bill

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/09/12/uncut-poll-reveals-public-blame-last-labour-government-not-tories-for-today’s-benefits-bill/#more-17150
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    The East Lindsey contest is a straight fight between Conservative and UKIP . Today's news of the breakaway of 6 UKIP Lincolnshire CC to form a new group probably came too late to effect the result here .
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I've never suffered from premature posting, ever.

    I did once ever experience multiple posts, and published the same post 5 times, concurrently.

    Comments all over the place, no doubt.
    I'm going to have to plead the filth amendment
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    SeanT said:


    The entire POINT of a jury system is that 12 ordinary people make human judgements of veracity and mendacity, of trustworthiness and untrustworthiness, going by the words, body language and demeanour of the person in the witness box.

    She wasnt being tried.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,338
    I don't suppose that PLP loyalty to Ed M is that strong given the numbers of MPs who hadn't voted for him in the first place.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 37,476
    Neil said:

    SeanT said:


    The entire POINT of a jury system is that 12 ordinary people make human judgements of veracity and mendacity, of trustworthiness and untrustworthiness, going by the words, body language and demeanour of the person in the witness box.

    She wasnt being tried.
    That doesn't matter IMO. Total face coverings are not appropriate in UK courts.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:


    The entire POINT of a jury system is that 12 ordinary people make human judgements of veracity and mendacity, of trustworthiness and untrustworthiness, going by the words, body language and demeanour of the person in the witness box.

    She wasnt being tried.

    i said "witness, plaintiff or defendant" IN THE COMMENT. Cretin.
    And I was just pointing out that despite your comment about 12 ordinary people there was no jury involved.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    TSE is half of this threads posts
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Andy_JS said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:


    The entire POINT of a jury system is that 12 ordinary people make human judgements of veracity and mendacity, of trustworthiness and untrustworthiness, going by the words, body language and demeanour of the person in the witness box.

    She wasnt being tried.
    That doesn't matter IMO. Total face coverings are not appropriate in UK courts.
    I was surprised that the court seemed to change its opinion. But I seriously doubt it will go any further than it did today.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 37,476
    The Aussie bellweather constituency has stayed true to form:

    "Michael O'Neill ‏@Michael_KSC 5m

    #ausvotes Mike Kelly has conceded defeat in Eden Monaro. Another L/NP Victory. Bellwether seat retains its status. Via @2GB873
    Expand"

    https://twitter.com/search?q=eden monaro&src=typd
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:


    The entire POINT of a jury system is that 12 ordinary people make human judgements of veracity and mendacity, of trustworthiness and untrustworthiness, going by the words, body language and demeanour of the person in the witness box.

    She wasnt being tried.

    i said "witness, plaintiff or defendant" IN THE COMMENT. Cretin.
    And I was just pointing out that despite your comment about 12 ordinary people there was no jury involved.
    But she is scheduled for a trial you f*cking blockhead.
    Yes and if she is allowed to cover her face at her trial then your outrage will finally be fully justified. As it is you're getting ahead of the situation a little.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    Neil/SeanT - I can't believe you're talking about that, when this happened

    Tom Hanks jury case halted 'after prosecutor approached star'

    A court case in which Tom Hanks was sitting as a juror came to a halt amid allegations of jury tampering after a "star-struck" prosecutor approached the Oscar-winning actor during a break in the hearing.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10303507/Tom-Hanks-jury-case-halted-after-prosecutor-approached-star.html
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    The way journalists get quotes is usually this:

    1. They decide on the general theme: does Cam have credibility? Is Ed crap? Might Clegg resign?
    2. They chat to 20 MPs who they've built up a friendly relationship with. They ask them their views on lots of things, including the theme they want
    3. They pick the two or three who say something useful to the theme.

    An absolutely disciplined MP knows this is happening and steers clear of anything usable - I've heard Ken Clarke being apparently indiscreet for 90 minutes and yet not saying anything really damaging. I was once interviewed for over two hours by that former TV programme that had Parliament as a crocodile - they used one and half sentences when I strayed momentarily into indiscretion. But in general, MPs like to chat and a few will cooperate. It's always worth taking with salt.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,409
    This doom and gloom about Ed Miliband's leadership is premature. He can still turn things round at his conference speech if he's bold enough and makes an explosive announcement. I'd suggest he offers the hand of friendship to Nigel Farage and forms a pact with UKIP, SDP-Liberal-Alliance style. That would put the cat among the pigeons and get the commentariat absolutely bouncing!
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:


    The entire POINT of a jury system is that 12 ordinary people make human judgements of veracity and mendacity, of trustworthiness and untrustworthiness, going by the words, body language and demeanour of the person in the witness box.

    She wasnt being tried.

    i said "witness, plaintiff or defendant" IN THE COMMENT. Cretin.
    And I was just pointing out that despite your comment about 12 ordinary people there was no jury involved.
    But she is scheduled for a trial you f*cking blockhead.
    Yes and if she is allowed to cover her face at her trial then your outrage will finally be fully justified. As it is you're getting ahead of the situation a little.
    The willingness of homosexual lefties to defend the repulsive aspects of Islam mystifies me.
    You're inventing my defence of anything Islamic. All I said was that (a) she wasnt being tried and (b) we'll see whether she is allowed to cover herself during the trial when that happens. As you need to have a big blazing row with everyone over everything you have somehow managed to transform these simple statements into a defence of repulsive aspects of islam. Whatever floats your boat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,272
    Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd share some awkward smalltalk, as Rudd hands over the Lodge to the new PM
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-13/tony-abbott-and-kevin-rudd-share-an-awkward-moment/4955280
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,409
    NickPalmer said:

    I was once interviewed for over two hours by that former TV programme that had Parliament as a crocodile

    Ah yes, 'On the record'. I seem to remember that Tony Blair bottled out appearing on the last ever episode of that because Cherie-Gate was in full swing.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    This ban also applies in Birmingham metropolitan college:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/birmingham-college-bans-the-burka-8807148.html

    And incidentally for all staff at University Hospitals Leicester
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:


    The entire POINT of a jury system is that 12 ordinary people make human judgements of veracity and mendacity, of trustworthiness and untrustworthiness, going by the words, body language and demeanour of the person in the witness box.

    She wasnt being tried.

    i said "witness, plaintiff or defendant" IN THE COMMENT. Cretin.
    And I was just pointing out that despite your comment about 12 ordinary people there was no jury involved.
    But she is scheduled for a trial you f*cking blockhead.
    Yes and if she is allowed to cover her face at her trial then your outrage will finally be fully justified. As it is you're getting ahead of the situation a little.
    The willingness of homosexual lefties to defend the repulsive aspects of Islam mystifies me.
    You're inventing my defence of anything Islamic. All I said was that (a) she wasnt being tried and (b) we'll see whether she is allowed to cover herself during the trial when that happens. As you need to have a big blazing row with everyone over everything you have somehow managed to transform these simple statements into a defence of repulsive aspects of islam. Whatever floats your boat.

    If you comment like an idiot then expect to get treated like an idiot.
    I was just correcting the impression you may have given some people that she was covered for her trial. She wasnt. And I didnt think you were treating me like an idiot, I just thought you were wrong.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    Enjoying seanT's total failure to wind Neil up - like seeing a drunk haranguing a lamppost under the impression that it's his wife.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    North Hertfordshire - Hitchin Oughton
    Lab 361 Con 180 UKIP 148 Green 32 LD 31

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    tim said:

    @tom_watson: Police confirm "Sir Cyril Smith visited alleged sex abuse guest house": http://t.co/jTZ4VMY9oa

    Careful, MarkSenior will be along to accuse you of being a PBTory tool of Murdoch.......

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    NickPalmer said:

    Enjoying seanT's total failure to wind Neil up - like seeing a drunk haranguing a lamppost under the impression that it's his wife.

    LOL!
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    An interesting bit in Lord Oakshott's attack on Clegg:

    We are likely to lose seats. If we are on 15% we would hold 30 seats, if we are on 17% we would hold 40 seats – and if we are on 13% we would hold 20 seats.

    That has at least the merit of clarity and precision, unusual virtues for a LibDem. Do we think it's right?
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Central Bedfordshire- Dunstable Northfields

    Ind 434 Con 305 Lab 297 UKIP 227 LD 35
    Independent gain from Conservative

    Charnwood - Wreake Villages
    Con 396 Lab 87
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited September 2013
    tim said:

    Sound about right but with two complicating factors.
    Scotland and how well UKIP do in the SW

    If it is about right - not so much the absolute numbers as the steepness of the gradient - then it means the much-vaunted LibDem incumbency/campaigning advantage must be less than some think. It would also make betting on the low end of the seat bands quite attractive - 13% is by no means unthinkable.

    I don't have a specific forecast but I've been assuming something like 40 seats on a 15% vote share, and with a less steep reduction in the seats than Oakshott is suggesting if the votes share is less than 15%.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    If the libdems halve their seats yet hold the balance of power in a hung parliament it will be hard to be kingmakers with credibility.

    Personally i think they will be poll about 15% as voters drift back from Labour.
    RichardNabavi said:

    tim said:

    Sound about right but with two complicating factors.
    Scotland and how well UKIP do in the SW

    If it is about right - not so much the absolute numbers as the steepness of the gradient - then it means the much-vaunted LibDem incumbency/campaigning advantage must be less than some think. It would also make betting on the low end of the seat bands quite attractive - 13% is by no means unthinkable.

    I don't have a specific forecast but I've been assuming something like 40 seats and a 15% vote share, and with a less steep reduction in the seats than Oakshott is suggesting if the votes share is less than 15%.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Hertfordshire- Hitchin North
    Lab 1250 Con 673 LD 246 UKIP 235 Green 212


  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,931
    SeanT said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Enjoying seanT's total failure to wind Neil up - like seeing a drunk haranguing a lamppost under the impression that it's his wife.

    Seeing as Neil is entirely failing to answer, perhaps you could fill in as my wife/lamp-post?

    Do you believe niqabs should be allowed in court?

    No!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Libs go to conference in 4th place and 5 points behind UKIP; CON 34%, LAB 38%, UKIP 13%, LDEM 8%.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    SeanT said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Enjoying seanT's total failure to wind Neil up - like seeing a drunk haranguing a lamppost under the impression that it's his wife.

    Seeing as Neil is entirely failing to answer, perhaps you could fill in as my wife/lamp-post?

    Do you believe niqabs should be allowed in court?

    For anyone not giving evidence or accused - the jury, the audience, the journalists, the ushers, sure, it's no business of ours what they choose to wear. Witnesses and the accused - probably. I see your argument, but I don't think it matters much, and I'd be concerned that anyone giving evidence appeared uneasy, not because they were lying but because they were being forced to dress in a way that made them feel indecently exposed. I think that would outweigh the possible advantage of a jury assessing truth through the vagaries of people's mouth movements etc. (not really convinced that juries should be finding guilt or innocence on the basis of being amateur mouth interpreters anyway).

    An early start tomorrow so I'll leave you to foam alone.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    East Lindsay - Frithville
    Con 221 UKIP 163

    Con gain fron Ind.

    All results in. Good night
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 37,476
    German election:

    Taking the average of the polling numbers from each firm:

    Centre/right parties: 45.14%
    Centre/left + Linke: 45.14%

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,182
    SeanT said:

    And....? Lefties? Niqabs? Hell-o?

    What's the problem? Is there normally a dress code for a defendant in a court? If I was a juror I would probably feel that someone who kept her face covered, had something to hide.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    SeanT said:

    NickPalmer said:

    SeanT said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Enjoying seanT's total failure to wind Neil up - like seeing a drunk haranguing a lamppost under the impression that it's his wife.

    Seeing as Neil is entirely failing to answer, perhaps you could fill in as my wife/lamp-post?

    Do you believe niqabs should be allowed in court?

    For anyone not giving evidence or accused - the jury, the audience, the journalists, the ushers, sure, it's no business of ours what they choose to wear. Witnesses and the accused - probably. I see your argument, but I don't think it matters much, and I'd be concerned that anyone giving evidence appeared uneasy, not because they were lying but because they were being forced to dress in a way that made them feel indecently exposed. I think that would outweigh the possible advantage of a jury assessing truth through the vagaries of people's mouth movements etc. (not really convinced that juries should be finding guilt or innocence on the basis of being amateur mouth interpreters anyway).

    An early start tomorrow so I'll leave you to foam alone.
    PS I will probably be quotin' you in a forthcoming Telegraph blog, as the prospective Labour MP for Broxtowe. At least you are quite articulate in your total foolishness.
    Classy.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Do you think University Hospitals Leicester dress code banning facial coverings for staff is a reasonable one?
    NickPalmer said:

    SeanT said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Enjoying seanT's total failure to wind Neil up - like seeing a drunk haranguing a lamppost under the impression that it's his wife.

    Seeing as Neil is entirely failing to answer, perhaps you could fill in as my wife/lamp-post?

    Do you believe niqabs should be allowed in court?

    For anyone not giving evidence or accused - the jury, the audience, the journalists, the ushers, sure, it's no business of ours what they choose to wear. Witnesses and the accused - probably. I see your argument, but I don't think it matters much, and I'd be concerned that anyone giving evidence appeared uneasy, not because they were lying but because they were being forced to dress in a way that made them feel indecently exposed. I think that would outweigh the possible advantage of a jury assessing truth through the vagaries of people's mouth movements etc. (not really convinced that juries should be finding guilt or innocence on the basis of being amateur mouth interpreters anyway).

    An early start tomorrow so I'll leave you to foam alone.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    edited September 2013
    Tom Newton Dunn tweets:

    "RT @Sun_Politics YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Libs go to conference in 4th place and 5 points behind UKIP; CON 34%, LAB 38%, UKIP 13%, LDEM 8%.

    The last time the Lib Dems were lower was July 2012....
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,182
    @Andy_JS

    You need to learn how to spell bellwether
    Clue: it's a sheep with a bell round its neck.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,784
    Even a Lib Dem recovery to 15% would struggle to get 40 seats, judging from their experiences in Scotland in 2011. Their vote collapsed more than UNS would suggest in seats they were defending, even allowing for incumbency factors. Excluding incumbency, their vote loss followed a proportional not a UNS model.

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3597
    foxinsoxuk said:



    I don't have a specific forecast but I've been assuming something like 40 seats and a 15% vote share, and with a less steep reduction in the seats than Oakshott is suggesting if the votes share is less than 15%.


  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    SeanT said:

    NickPalmer said:

    SeanT said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Enjoying seanT's total failure to wind Neil up - like seeing a drunk haranguing a lamppost under the impression that it's his wife.

    Seeing as Neil is entirely failing to answer, perhaps you could fill in as my wife/lamp-post?

    Do you believe niqabs should be allowed in court?

    For anyone not giving evidence or accused - the jury, the audience, the journalists, the ushers, sure, it's no business of ours what they choose to wear. Witnesses and the accused - probably. I see your argument, but I don't think it matters much, and I'd be concerned that anyone giving evidence appeared uneasy, not because they were lying but because they were being forced to dress in a way that made them feel indecently exposed. I think that would outweigh the possible advantage of a jury assessing truth through the vagaries of people's mouth movements etc. (not really convinced that juries should be finding guilt or innocence on the basis of being amateur mouth interpreters anyway).

    An early start tomorrow so I'll leave you to foam alone.
    PS I will probably be quotin' you in a forthcoming Telegraph blog, as the prospective Labour MP for Broxtowe. At least you are quite articulate in your total foolishness.
    Classy.
    At least NPXMP had the cullions to answer the question (however crazy and self-harming his answer). You didn't even do THAT.
    Yeah, not answering seemed to be winding you up more than any answer I could give would and you cant buy that for proper money.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @SeanT

    But will PBC need a new tagline:

    "Britain's most-read political blog but be careful what you say here in case SeanT tries to use it against you in the Telegraph's blogs"?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    @Neil, to be fair to Sean, he has been stitched up on stuff he has said on PB, out of context, by the naughty guardian.

    (third item down)

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/08/hugh-muir-diary
  • RicardohosRicardohos Posts: 258
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Some 44 per cent of people (and 30 per cent of Labour supporters) believe welfare spending is too high, while only 18 per cent think it is too low and 17 per cent say it is about right.



    When those who say the welfare bill is too high are asked who they believe is responsible for it,

    54% Blame the last Lab Govt

    5% Blame the coalition

    This is one of the reasons Labour are so screwed. The word 'meme' is slung around aimlessly, but in this case it applies. It reminds me of the Black Wednesday fall-out which lost the Conservatives their trump card on economic competence. That has basically taken a generation to come out in the wash.

    Now the shoe's on the other foot. With the economy starting to surge, Osborne & Co. can point the finger at Labour and say: you screwed it up, but we fixed it. And they will hammer this point home time and time again over the next 20 months.

    I predict it will be another generation before Labour is trusted again on the economy. Remember last time this happened? Back to 1979 and, again, it took a generation to wash out the awful stain of Labour's 1974-79 screw up. Not until 1997 were they trusted again with the nation's purse.

    It's also why Mike is completely wrong on this. The Conservatives will hammer it home ... and win.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    @SeanT

    But will PBC need a new tagline:

    "Britain's most-read political blog but be careful what you say here in case SeanT tries to use it against you in the Telegraph's blogs"?

    Don't worry, you're OK - you haven't said anything yet. You are too feeble to express the simplest of opinions.
    In case it isnt clear I think threatening to use what posters say here against them is about as contemptibly low as it is possible to get on pbc. Your attitude threatens to deprive us of interesting and relevant opinions from people far more informed on politics and betting than you or I.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    edited September 2013
    Was it only three years ago, that Dave's government used to give SeanT the horn?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    SeanT said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @Neil, to be fair to Sean, he has been stitched up on stuff he has said on PB, out of context, by the naughty guardian.

    (third item down)

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/08/hugh-muir-diary

    LOL!! Stitched up?! I still consider that one of the highlights of my internet career. I think it's the "leatherette posing thong" which makes it such a winner.

    What's more, the Guardian KNEW this, which is why they ran it.
    IIRC, you posted after that comment, you meant alleged rapists, but were upset that guardian didn't correct that.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    Sod the thong, this is the high point

    "I thought they'd be all wishywashy gay poofy rubbish centrist lib-demmy wankfaffle. But no."
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    RichardNabavi said:

    An interesting bit in Lord Oakshott's attack on Clegg:

    We are likely to lose seats. If we are on 15% we would hold 30 seats, if we are on 17% we would hold 40 seats – and if we are on 13% we would hold 20 seats.

    That has at least the merit of clarity and precision, unusual virtues for a LibDem. Do we think it's right?

    Lord Oakshott all but called for a leadership election after the 2014 EU/local elections too.

    "But Oakeshott suggests the party needs to recognise the 2014 European and local elections represent a last chance for the party to save itself. He said: "This will be much the biggest test we've had on a nationwide basis of our support and our appeal since the general election, so that's why it will be crunch time. There will be no excuse when everyone has been voting, particularly in important areas like London. I think that's when everyone will focus on things and I hope we will have a good hard look at our prospects for the election. There will still be time, but next May/June will be the last chance."

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/12/oakeshott-lib-dems-nick-clegg
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,409
    Neil said:


    In case it isnt clear I think threatening to use what posters say here against them is about as contemptibly low as it is possible to get on pbc. Your attitude threatens to deprive us of interesting and relevant opinions from people far more informed on politics and betting than you or I.

    Well, several years ago Nick blabbed to the press some remarks a Tory MP made during a private conversation, and was unapologetic, so who cares? (She was subsequently sacked because of the revelation.)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,774
    SeanT said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    SeanT said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @Neil, to be fair to Sean, he has been stitched up on stuff he has said on PB, out of context, by the naughty guardian.

    (third item down)

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/08/hugh-muir-diary

    LOL!! Stitched up?! I still consider that one of the highlights of my internet career. I think it's the "leatherette posing thong" which makes it such a winner.

    What's more, the Guardian KNEW this, which is why they ran it.
    IIRC, you posted after that comment, you meant alleged rapists, but were upset that guardian didn't correct that.
    You recall incorrectly. I was highly amused by the Guardian's lifting of my quote. I didn't give a toss. Go check the relevant threads.
    I'm sorry I'm not that bored.

    However, I will concede my memory maybe faulty, as you do recall, I have the intelligence of a speculum used on Gordon Brown.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited September 2013
    Stark_Dawning said:

    Neil said:


    In case it isnt clear I think threatening to use what posters say here against them is about as contemptibly low as it is possible to get on pbc. Your attitude threatens to deprive us of interesting and relevant opinions from people far more informed on politics and betting than you or I.

    Well, several years ago Nick blabbed to the press some remarks a Tory MP made during a private conversation, and was unapologetic, so who cares? (She was subsequently sacked because of the revelation.)
    And if he did then people might take that into account when having private conversations with Nick. In that case Nick could suffer as a result of what he did (I dont remember the incident). If prominent people (no, SeanT, not me, I'm not answering you because I cant be arsed) become more reluctant to offer lefty opinions when SeanT is around then it's pbc generally that may suffer.

    I had the same opinion of the sh*t who used Rik's comments here against him.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,409
    Neil said:



    And if he did then people might take that into account when having private conversations with Nick. In that case Nick could suffer as a result of what he did (I dont remember the incident).

    Nick wasn't part of the conversation, merely eavesdropping. I also remember Nick keeping a database of comments that SeanT had made on Harry's Place. Nick brought them up on here months later (in fact they'd been deleted from the original site) to win some point or other. Everyone thought it a bit odd at the time.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I dont think nick said anything particularly problematic. The tension between those who wish to hide their faces, and those who find hidden faces problematic or even sinister is a very real one, and one that is alive in many countries, even in the middle east.

    Where does individual liberty to dress in this way become a problem to other people? In a bank? In a courtroom? In a hospital? In a parliament? None of us has unlimited freedom to dress as we choose, we all accept that dressing inappropriately can impinge on the rights of others. That applies as much to over dressing as underdressing. In england at least we are not murdered for not following a dress code, even if we may be spurned. There are countries out there much less tolerant of the freedom to dress, and I know where It is better to live.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited September 2013
    @anotherDave

    I had a look a John Redwood's figures last night.

    In his two blog articles he culled them from different sources. The Red Book 2013 which was issued at the time of the 2013 Budget and then from Table 1.1 of the PESA 2013 report released in mid July.

    The headline spending figures from the Red Book are slightly out of date and don't match those I used in my table. However the differences are not substantive and are no more than what you would expect of figures six months out of date.

    My tables were based on PESA 2013 though so all Redwood's other figures are from the same hymn book. This means that they are consistent with the overall totals shown in my table.

    Redwood has done a bit of cherry-picking, selecting those lines of expenditure which he intuitively dislikes and which have shown a rise (e.g. tax credits, public sector pensions and EU contributions). He should really have put his conclusions in the context of an overall fall in real terms spending but that would have weakened his political point.

    The only figure I would question is Redwood's comparison of 2009-10 with 2011-12 on tax credits as there has been a major methodology change in accounting for tax credits between the two periods. The PESA note is:

    Tax credits – Until PESA 2011 tax credits in HMRC’s AME did not include negative tax (i.e. where the amount paid is less than or equal to the tax liability of the household). In this PESA all tax credits are included in departmental AME, increasing dept AME by approximately £5bn to £6bn per year. This aligns to the way tax credits appear in resource accounts.

    I am not saying Redwood is wrong - the Treasury may have adjusted earlier figures to make them consistent with the updated practice - but I suspect Redwood wasn't aware of the change nor of how the figures have been presented over the period of comparison.

    [to be continued]
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited September 2013
    [...continued]

    But this misses the wood for the trees. Redwood is making a political point that Osborne has not cut benefits and EU paymens as aggressively as he would like. This point is best made in a comment on his blog:

    The cuts are essentially heavily loaded on corners of the state that are politically acceptable to target – which on their own are not enough to control escalating spending in the years ahead.

    Two final points.

    Redwood is wrong to compare UK public spending cut with US federal budget cuts. If the two countries are to be usefully compared (arguable) then he should compare with Federal plus State spending not Federal alone.

    Finally, nothing Redwood has pointed out and no figures he has quoted conflict with the facts that Osborne has reduced and will reduce Total Managed Expenditure in real terms and as a ratio to GDP over the five year term. This means that Redwood's conclusion that austerity has been abandoned is incorrect: it just won't be austere enough for his liking.

    Let me know if you want to see the figures.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 37,476
    JohnLilburne said:

    @Andy_JS

    You need to learn how to spell bellwether
    Clue: it's a sheep with a bell round its neck.

    I've learnt that before but forget.
  • RicardohosRicardohos Posts: 258
    edited September 2013
    AveryLP said:

    @anotherDave

    John Redwood's figures ... are from the same hymn book.

    [to be continued]

    Sorry but mentioning John Redwood in the same post as hymn book makes me think of only one image
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc

    Talking of aliens, SeanT raised an interesting point, before he got into a spat, about David Milipeed. I think it's a very good point. Mr Bean wouldn't have been PM either, so who could Labour have chosen that would have been less a liability than EdM? Well surely Tessa Jowell? There are a couple of other (female) Labour MPs who would have been good but she was a standout candidate.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Stark_Dawning said:

    Neil said:


    In case it isnt clear I think threatening to use what posters say here against them is about as contemptibly low as it is possible to get on pbc. Your attitude threatens to deprive us of interesting and relevant opinions from people far more informed on politics and betting than you or I.

    Well, several years ago Nick blabbed to the press some remarks a Tory MP made during a private conversation, and was unapologetic, so who cares? (She was subsequently sacked because of the revelation.)
    Ann Winterton

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3488036.stm

    Not a great loss to the HoC.......
  • CaveatCaveat Posts: 15
    Wreake Villages on Charnwood:
    Conservatives 396 (82% +4%)
    Labour 87 18% -4%)
    Con HOLD.
    Swing: 4% from Lab to Con

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    @CarlottaVance That article made me feel nostalgic.

    It came from a different, innocent age when we thought John Taylor was a struggling victim of racism rather than the thief and liar he turned out to be. Nick Palmer was revealed to be an schoolboy sneak and tittle-tattle. And Ann Winterton showed that she was out of touch by telling jokes that had been funny two weeks earlier but by that point were boringly old hat.
  • CaveatCaveat Posts: 15
    In Hitchin Oughton today, most of UKIP's vote appears to have come from Labour.
    LAB -12.8%,
    GRN -5.6%,
    CON -0.7%,
    LD -0.6%.
    UKIP +19.7%
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Last night's spat over the Niqab in the dock - looks like its 2007 guidelines responsible:

    "In 2007 guidelines issued by the Judicial Studies Board urged judges to remain sensitive when asking defendants to remove veils, suggesting there should be “no sense of obligation or pressure”.

    Rather than the Judge:

    Judge Murphy said: “I will not have the defendant dictating to the court how she wishes to appear.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10305828/Muslim-defendant-allowed-to-wear-face-veil-in-the-dock.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Old Thread
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025