politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Based on current Betfair WH2016 odds why Nate Silver thinks Be

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Based on current Betfair WH2016 odds why Nate Silver thinks Beto O’Rourke is the most likely Democratic VP pick

This is from a discussion on Nate’s site – Fivethirtyeight on Beto O’Rourke’s chances of becoming his party’s Vice Presidential nominee. This is, of course, chosen by the nominee for President and takes place just before the convention. He notes.

Read the full story here

Jonathan

Bet on Beto?

Anorak

Goddammit, I'm not having my only comment of the day lost to the curse. I don't care how bad a joke it is.

FPT:

El_Capitano said:

Intriguing. The official Lib Dem Press account drawing people's attention to an interview in which Layla Moran didn't rule out standing for leader:

https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/1095771957843410945

She looks like a character from "Guess Who?"

tlg86

Third like Man City come the end of the season.

williamglenn

Beto O’Rourke is a bit too much like a Tom Hanks movie character to take seriously.

dixiedean

On topic. Even the very slightest, most miniscule possibility of flipping Texas to the Dems might well be worth a go. Would leave the Orange One with an Everest to climb.

NickPalmer

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

TGOHF

Is Beto a villain?

williamglenn

TGOHF said:

Is Beto a villain?

A reference to this?

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1095803128123920385

OllyT

tlg86 said:

Third like Man City come the end of the season.

I'll hold onto that prediction till May when I am sure it will prove as prophetic as your ramblings on Brexit.

MikeSmithson

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

I've just done that poll as well

MarqueeMark

Jonathan said:

Bet on Beto?

Bet 0 on Beto?

MarqueeMark

Anorak said:

Goddammit, I'm not having my only comment of the day lost to the curse. I don't care how bad a joke it is.

FPT:

El_Capitano said:

Intriguing. The official Lib Dem Press account drawing people's attention to an interview in which Layla Moran didn't rule out standing for leader:

https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/1095771957843410945

She looks like a character from "Guess Who?"

Better to be a Hasbro than a never was......

Sunil_Prasannan

williamglenn said:

Beto O’Rourke is a bit too much like a Tom Hanks movie character to take seriously.

Captain Miller?

Jonathan

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

I've just done that poll as well

A representative sample of what exactly?

_Anazina_

Spurs imperious tonight. Enthralling match.

Scott_P

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1095809676212690944

Gallowgate

Scott_P said:

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1095809676212690944

Isnt this what he wants?

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

dr_spyn

John McDonnell playing the Tonypandy card for all its worth 109 years later.

AndyJS

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

kle4

Scott_P said:

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1095809676212690944

I'm sure he's super worried, they've never threatened to quit before.

He'll change position when he'd damn well ready, not before, and they don't have the balls to do more than whinge before he does.

solarflare

I suppose the one advantage of May's "nothing has changed I'm not pivoting to anything else regardless of how many people tell me it's stupid and not gonna work" clog-iron stubbornness does mean that it's considerably easier to go "well what does Jezza think about Brexit now since 20 minutes ago?"

TheJezziah

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

Big_G_NorthWales

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1095809676212690944

I'm sure he's super worried, they've never threatened to quit before.

He'll change position when he'd damn well ready, not before, and they don't have the balls to do more than whinge before he does.

Kevin Maguire on Sky confirmed that splits are expected in the next couple of weeks in labour as the two opposites for and against brexit fight for their side. He said that while the conservatives are divided they will hold together as a party of government, but he said it is labour who now have real problems

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/Jgs_x/status/1095818453263548416

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1095818451044761600

Cyclefree

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

I've just done that poll as well

My understanding is that there are those who are trying to set up a party/grouping but are facing two problems: (1) no-one wants to be the first mover; and (2) all the usual suspects are scared of making a move, think they will be attacked, don't want to give up their party, want to stay and fight etc, blah, blah, all the usual excuses for not doing anything.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1095818656150368256

IanB2

The Coyle tweet says councillors are already leaving, but I haven't seen many Labour defections recently? The slow trickle of councillors the LibDems have picked up have mostly been from the Tories (in some cases via Independents), apart from the one in Rochdale.

Big_G_NorthWales

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1095818656150368256

And are they ignoring the deadlock in the HOC

Foxy

Cyclefree said:

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

I've just done that poll as well

My understanding is that there are those who are trying to set up a party/grouping but are facing two problems: (1) no-one wants to be the first mover; and (2) all the usual suspects are scared of making a move, think they will be attacked, don't want to give up their party, want to stay and fight etc, blah, blah, all the usual excuses for not doing anything.

Who was ultimately more successful, the SDP gang of four, or the little known Tony Blair elected in 1983 on a unilateralist, Brexiting, out of NATO manifesto?

kle4

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

They might well believe it, it might even be true he will never be able to win a GE, but given they, like most people, thought he'd do a lot worse than he did they are completely undercut from convincing people,. They know that, hence the whines every few months then they sit back down and behave until the next crunch point.

But next time they totally won't stand for it you guys, for realsies.

kle4

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1095818656150368256

And are they ignoring the deadlock in the HOC

While May's indecision has made things so much worse than they already were, these business leaders and the EU too for that matter do sometimes appear to act as though they think May is the master of events right now, rather than recognising the obvious truth that she is trying something akin to pulling off the most energetic and complex orchestral conducting ever attempted, while having her arms tied to two separate windmills.

Gallowgate

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasnt elected you mean?

kle4

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

Verulamius

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

I've just done that poll as well

My understanding is that there are those who are trying to set up a party/grouping but are facing two problems: (1) no-one wants to be the first mover; and (2) all the usual suspects are scared of making a move, think they will be attacked, don't want to give up their party, want to stay and fight etc, blah, blah, all the usual excuses for not doing anything.

Who was ultimately more successful, the SDP gang of four, or the little known Tony Blair elected in 1983 on a unilateralist, Brexiting, out of NATO manifesto?

1983 elected for the first time

Tony Blair
Gordon Brown
Jeremy Corbyn
Paddy Ashdown
Michael Howard

Gallowgate

Foxy said:

Cyclefree said:

MikeSmithson said:

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

I've just done that poll as well

My understanding is that there are those who are trying to set up a party/grouping but are facing two problems: (1) no-one wants to be the first mover; and (2) all the usual suspects are scared of making a move, think they will be attacked, don't want to give up their party, want to stay and fight etc, blah, blah, all the usual excuses for not doing anything.

Who was ultimately more successful, the SDP gang of four, or the little known Tony Blair elected in 1983 on a unilateralist, Brexiting, out of NATO manifesto?

Would we have had New Labour without the SDP fiasco?

bigjohnowls

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasnt elected you mean?

Where he increased Labour's share of the vote by the most since 1948.

Gallowgate

bigjohnowls said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasnt elected you mean?

Where he increased Labour's share of the vote by the most since 1948.

But it just wasn’t enough was it.

TheJezziah

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

Gallowgate

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

TheJezziah

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

Nemtynakht

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

NickPalmer said:

There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1095809676212690944

I'm sure he's super worried, they've never threatened to quit before.

He'll change position when he'd damn well ready, not before, and they don't have the balls to do more than whinge before he does.

Kevin Maguire on Sky confirmed that splits are expected in the next couple of weeks in labour as the two opposites for and against brexit fight for their side. He said that while the conservatives are divided they will hold together as a party of government, but he said it is labour who now have real problems

The left have more of a splitting problem due to their attitude to Purity of opinion. It’s amazing really that the Labour Party exists and is able to hold together a reasonably broad group of supporters

Foxy

Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.

Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.

Gallowgate

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

You guys are so deluded.

https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21

RobD

Foxy said:

Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.

Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.

Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.

TheJezziah

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

You guys are so deluded.

https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21

We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.

Foxy

RobD said:

Foxy said:

Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.

Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.

Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.

Sure, but I can see the advantage for both sides of converting the WA timeframe to status quo.

28 well worth a nibble IMO.

RobD

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.

Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.

Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.

Sure, but I can see the advantage for both sides of converting the WA timeframe to status quo.

28 well worth a nibble IMO.

Would be a big concession from the EU, to admit how wrong they were in terms of sequencing.

MikeSmithson

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

But Corbyn still lost against the worst general election campaign by a major party in recent history.

Foxy

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

You guys are so deluded.

https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21

We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.

Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?

Gallowgate

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

You guys are so deluded.

https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21

We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.

It is people like you who are going to be responsible for a Tory majority.

Floater

Foxy said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

You guys are so deluded.

https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21

We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.

Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?

Did he win then?

Cyclefree

RobD said:

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.

Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.

Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.

Sure, but I can see the advantage for both sides of converting the WA timeframe to status quo.

28 well worth a nibble IMO.

Would be a big concession from the EU, to admit how wrong they were in terms of sequencing.

It gives the EU more time to encourage more companies to move there, which they have been very open about. It gives them more time to change rules making it necessary for banks to move more of their operations across. Rinse and repeat for loads of attractive industries and sectors.

If the EU agree to this it's not because they're admitting they're wrong, it's because they can sense the mess and weakness on our side and can see how giving this allows them even more time to take advantage of our confusion and the uncertainty for companies while avoiding the disadvantages for them of a No Deal exit.

Big_G_NorthWales

Foxy said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

You guys are so deluded.

https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21

We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.

Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?

He lost

Foxy

RobD said:

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.

Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.

Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.

Sure, but I can see the advantage for both sides of converting the WA timeframe to status quo.

28 well worth a nibble IMO.

Would be a big concession from the EU, to admit how wrong they were in terms of sequencing.

Though it does resolve all 3 issues of the WA in the short term, and open up FTA terms for negotiation. It moves things on by cunningly bypassing a meaningful vote. If course it is very possible that at the end of the extension Brexit has been reversed/abandoned too.

I can see it getting EU and Labour support.

Foxy

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

You guys are so deluded.

https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21

We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.

Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?

He lost

Gained seats while May lost them.

Big_G_NorthWales

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

You guys are so deluded.

https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21

We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.

Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?

He lost

Gained seats while May lost them.

He lost

kle4

MikeSmithson said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

But Corbyn still lost against the worst general election campaign by a major party in recent history.

If we have another GE soon I think the Tories will manage to exceed that. Last time they at least had most pretending they were united.

rottenborough

MikeSmithson said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

But Corbyn still lost against the worst general election campaign by a major party in recent history.

"In recent history"?

I think you are being kind.

In living memory?

Maybe Foot's campaign is a close runner up?

Foxy

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

You guys are so deluded.

https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21

We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.

Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?

He lost

Gained seats while May lost them.

He lost

May lost too.

Sure Jezza lost, but he is just a few seats away from bringing down the Tories. 2 years ago the talk was of a 3 figure Tory majority.

AndyJS

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

Nobody denies that Corbyn did much better than expected in 2017, but he still got less seats than Neil Kinnock in 1992 and only 4 more than Gordon Brown in 2010.

rottenborough

williamglenn said:

TGOHF said:

Is Beto a villain?

A reference to this?

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1095803128123920385

Oh dear, the mask slipped there didn't it John?

RobD

Cyclefree said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

RobD said:

Foxy said:

Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.

Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.

Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.

Sure, but I can see the advantage for both sides of converting the WA timeframe to status quo.

28 well worth a nibble IMO.

Would be a big concession from the EU, to admit how wrong they were in terms of sequencing.

It gives the EU more time to encourage more companies to move there, which they have been very open about. It gives them more time to change rules making it necessary for banks to move more of their operations across. Rinse and repeat for loads of attractive industries and sectors.

If the EU agree to this it's not because they're admitting they're wrong, it's because they can sense the mess and weakness on our side and can see how giving this allows them even more time to take advantage of our confusion and the uncertainty for companies while avoiding the disadvantages for them of a No Deal exit.

Good point, a reason not to take them up on the offer.

AndyJS

Danny Finkelstein wrote a more balanced article about Winston Churchill the other day.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/churchill-was-a-racist-but-still-a-great-man-vnhkhfnpm

Wulfrun_Phil

AndyJS said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

Nobody denies that Corbyn did much better than expected in 2017, but he still got less seats than Neil Kinnock in 1992 and only 4 more than Gordon Brown in 2010.

And so dysfunctional has been Labour under Corbyn that in a period of just 20 months since 2017 no less than 6 MPs have given up the Labour whip. So Corbyn now has 2 fewer Labour MPs than Gordon Brown was left with after the 2010 election.

TheJezziah

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Gallowgate said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.

If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.

If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.

He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.

As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.

If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.

You guys are so deluded.

https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21

We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.

Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?

He lost

Gained seats while May lost them.

He lost

May lost too.

Sure Jezza lost, but he is just a few seats away from bringing down the Tories. 2 years ago the talk was of a 3 figure Tory majority.

Exactly, unelectable is someone who would get smashed in an election, doesn't stand a chance. Landslide territory.

Corbyn is clearly not this, he may well never win an election, plenty of politicians don't that doesn't mean they are all unelectable. Otherwise every politician who has never won an election is unelectable which makes any swap in Labour (aside from Tony Blair coming back) pointless on that basis alone.

FrancisUrquhart

williamglenn said:

TGOHF said:

Is Beto a villain?

A reference to this?

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1095803128123920385

He is just echoing this weird movement among the young lefties that have decided that Churchill legacy now needs to be rewritten as an evil man on par with Hitler, mostly based upon some non-pc stuff (that was the norm at the time) and some twisting of historical events.

TheJezziah

AndyJS said:

TheJezziah said:

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1095813093077237760

The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.

I think the rebels in Labour lost the unelectable argument after GE'17, the problem now is most of them don't even believe it themselves.

Nobody denies that Corbyn did much better than expected in 2017, but he still got less seats than Neil Kinnock in 1992 and only 4 more than Gordon Brown in 2010.

He did what Kinnock did in 2 elections in one, brought Labour from a place where we didn't stand a chance of winning an election to a place where it is a real possibility whilst giving us our biggest rise in vote share since WW2.

It wasn't impressive just because he did it whilst under attack from his own party and receiving some of the worst press possible for almost his entire time as leader.

It was an objectively impressive performance even disregarding all that, considering the Conservatives had Brexit which won them huge amounts of votes as well, Labour did brilliantly to not only keep up with the Conservatives but actually begin to catch up with them. The path to a Labour victory thanks to Corbyn's performance in GE'17 is a hell of a lot easier and actually realistically possible.

TheJezziah

Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?

I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...

Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.

Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.

FrancisUrquhart

One of three schoolgirls who left east London in 2015 to join the Islamic State group says she has no regrets, but wants to return to the UK.

In an interview with the Times, Shamima Begum, now 19, talked about seeing "beheaded heads" in bins - but said that it "did not faze her".

Speaking from a camp in Syria, she said she was nine months pregnant and wanted to come home for the sake of her baby.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47229181

Equivalent of the NHS not so good in the Caliphate?

FrancisUrquhart

TheJezziah said:

Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?

I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...

Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.

Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.

Hi Seamus....

Cyclefree

FrancisUrquhart said:

One of three schoolgirls who left east London in 2015 to join the Islamic State group says she has no regrets, but wants to return to the UK.

In an interview with the Times, Shamima Begum, now 19, talked about seeing "beheaded heads" in bins - but said that it "did not faze her".

Speaking from a camp in Syria, she said she was nine months pregnant and wanted to come home for the sake of her baby.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47229181

Equivalent of the NHS not so good in the Caliphate?

No. If she has no regrets about joining IS then she is a potential threat to us here. She has made her choice and can live with the consequences.

TheJezziah

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?

I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...

Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.

Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.

Hi Seamus....

Hi Piers....

FrancisUrquhart

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?

I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...

Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.

Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.

Hi Seamus....

Hi Piers....

Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...

FrancisUrquhart

Cyclefree said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

One of three schoolgirls who left east London in 2015 to join the Islamic State group says she has no regrets, but wants to return to the UK.

In an interview with the Times, Shamima Begum, now 19, talked about seeing "beheaded heads" in bins - but said that it "did not faze her".

Speaking from a camp in Syria, she said she was nine months pregnant and wanted to come home for the sake of her baby.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47229181

Equivalent of the NHS not so good in the Caliphate?

No. If she has no regrets about joining IS then she is a potential threat to us here. She has made her choice and can live with the consequences.

Well that's what I thought. Not even trying to pretend to have made a mistake like the vast majority of those now trying to get back to their Western country of origin.

MyBurningEars

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

TGOHF said:

Is Beto a villain?

A reference to this?

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1095803128123920385

He is just echoing this weird movement among the young lefties that have decided that Churchill legacy now needs to be rewritten as an evil man on par with Hitler, mostly based upon some non-pc stuff (that was the norm at the time) and some twisting of historical events.

Tbf, with some of the more hardcore lefties, it's not entirely clear whether they think the "right" side won the war...

(And before anyone says, "ahh, but they'd have wanted the Soviets to win the war", then they may not have witnessed what happens when a Trot starts laying into the Stalinists.)

TheJezziah

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?

I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...

Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.

Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.

Hi Seamus....

Hi Piers....

Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...

TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.

Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.

I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.

And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.

FrancisUrquhart

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?

I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...

Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.

Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.

Hi Seamus....

Hi Piers....

Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...

TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.

Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.

I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.

And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.

Somebodies touchy....warn yourself out arguing black is white over Labour's antisemitism problem?

TheJezziah

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?

I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...

Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.

Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.

Hi Seamus....

Hi Piers....

Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...

TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.

Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.

I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.

And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.

Somebodies touchy....warn yourself out arguing black is white over Labour's antisemitism problem?

Aren't you the one getting sensitive about insulting a white supremacist?

Considering the new Hitler youth movement the Tories have got going I thought they would be on board with the idea of Churchill as a bad guy anyway.

Scrapheap_as_was

Well. That was nice.

FrancisUrquhart

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?

I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...

Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.

Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.

Hi Seamus....

Hi Piers....

Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...

TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.

Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.

I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.

And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.

Somebodies touchy....warn yourself out arguing black is white over Labour's antisemitism problem?

Aren't you the one getting sensitive about insulting a white supremacist?

Considering the new Hitler youth movement the Tories have got going I thought they would be on board with the idea of Churchill as a bad guy anyway.

Erhhh...again...not a Tory....and also where did I say anything you just said.

I simply stated that among a section of the hard left there is a movement to brand Churchill in a particular way. You kinda of making my case for me.

Pulpstar

I'm all for Labour's top team airing their honest opinions. I'm sure the Govt won't mind either

TheJezziah

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?

Hi Seamus....

Hi Piers....

Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...

TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.

Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.

I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.

And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.

Somebodies touchy....warn yourself out arguing black is white over Labour's antisemitism problem?

Aren't you the one getting sensitive about insulting a white supremacist?

Considering the new Hitler youth movement the Tories have got going I thought they would be on board with the idea of Churchill as a bad guy anyway.

Erhhh...again...not a Tory....and also where did I say anything you just said.

I simply stated that among a section of the hard left there is a movement to brand Churchill in a particular way. You kinda of making my case for me.

I made a post about grey areas in regards to Churchill and you called me Seamus, it seems you are a little sensitive in that regard.

TBH if people genuinely believe Churchill never did anything wrong they are ignorant of history, if they think he did nothing right then similarly.

I don't care where you are on the political spectrum if you can't see beyond people being great or terrible that is just stupid and makes conversation impossible. Everyone, even quite good people are flawed, the idea that Churchill did not do some bad things and have some bad views is just ahistorical.

FrancisUrquhart

TheJezziah said:

I made a post about grey areas in regards to Churchill and you called me Seamus, it seems you are a little sensitive in that regard.

TBH if people genuinely believe Churchill never did anything wrong they are ignorant of history, if they think he did nothing right then similarly.

I don't care where you are on the political spectrum if you can't see beyond people being great or terrible that is just stupid and makes conversation impossible. Everyone, even quite good people are flawed, the idea that Churchill did not do some bad things and have some bad views is just ahistorical.

I called you Seamus, because you parrot lines day in day out that Seamus would be taking.

Again, you are projecting what you think my opinions are, when I haven't said anything other than what is true about a section of the left that has a very low opinion of Churchill, much of which I see parroted based on historical inaccuracies. Even Johnny Mac latest claim is based on an incident where it is extremely disputed that what he is saying is the based on the actual facts.

TheJezziah

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?

Hi Seamus....

Hi Piers....

Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...

TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.

Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.

I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.

And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.

Somebodies touchy....warn yourself out arguing black is white over Labour's antisemitism problem?

Aren't you the one getting sensitive about insulting a white supremacist?

Considering the new Hitler youth movement the Tories have got going I thought they would be on board with the idea of Churchill as a bad guy anyway.

Erhhh...again...not a Tory....and also where did I say anything you just said.

I simply stated that among a section of the hard left there is a movement to brand Churchill in a particular way. You kinda of making my case for me.

I made a post about grey areas in regards to Churchill and you called me Seamus, it seems you are a little sensitive in that regard.

TBH if people genuinely believe Churchill never did anything wrong they are ignorant of history, if they think he did nothing right then similarly.

I don't care where you are on the political spectrum if you can't see beyond people being great or terrible that is just stupid and makes conversation impossible. Everyone, even quite good people are flawed, the idea that Churchill did not do some bad things and have some bad views is just ahistorical.

I called you Seamus, because you parrot lines that Seamus would be taking.

TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.

I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.

FrancisUrquhart

TheJezziah said:

TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.

I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.

You are projecting again....

TheJezziah

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.

I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.

You are projecting again....

Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.

FrancisUrquhart

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.

I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.

You are projecting again....

Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.

You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ

FrancisUrquhart

Half of universities have fewer than 5% poor white students

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47227157

Its a bit hard to get into the best unis if your A-Level grades are crap. Its not the unis fault if applicants from particular demographics have far worse attainment. Its starts much lower down.

FrancisUrquhart

Donald Trump's former election campaign chief Paul Manafort breached his plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller by lying to prosecutors, a US judge says.

US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Manafort "made multiple false statements" to the FBI, Mr Mueller's office and a grand jury.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47234491

TheJezziah

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.

I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.

You are projecting again....

Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.

You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ

No mind reading required, look at the posts. I suggested there was a grey area and Churchill had done some bad things and you tried to insult me (usually a reaction to being hurt) by saying Hi Seamus.

If you weren't sensitive to the idea that Churchill was not an angel you probably wouldn't have bothered.

FrancisUrquhart

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.

I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.

You are projecting again....

Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.

You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ

No mind reading required, look at the posts. I suggested there was a grey area and Churchill had done some bad things and you tried to insult me (usually a reaction to being hurt) by saying Hi Seamus.

If you weren't sensitive to the idea that Churchill was not an angel you probably wouldn't have bothered.

No, I said Hi Seamus, because you take the lines I would expect Seamus to take on every single issue. But keep trying Clinton Baptiste.

TheJezziah

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.

I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.

You are projecting again....

Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.

You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ

No mind reading required, look at the posts. I suggested there was a grey area and Churchill had done some bad things and you tried to insult me (usually a reaction to being hurt) by saying Hi Seamus.

If you weren't sensitive to the idea that Churchill was not an angel you probably wouldn't have bothered.

No, I said Hi Seamus, because you take the lines I would expect Seamus to take on every single issue. But keep trying Clinton Baptiste.

You did it specifically in reply to a post about Churchill not being perfect but a grey area, that isn't a left right thing. Pretty much anyone who knows a little about Churchill would make that statement. The only reason to react negatively to such a statement is either because you are ignorant of the history or a little sensitive about the mention of Churchill's history.

Much like Piers Morgan.

FrancisUrquhart

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.

I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.

You are projecting again....

Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.

You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ

No mind reading required, look at the posts. I suggested there was a grey area and Churchill had done some bad things and you tried to insult me (usually a reaction to being hurt) by saying Hi Seamus.

If you weren't sensitive to the idea that Churchill was not an angel you probably wouldn't have bothered.

No, I said Hi Seamus, because you take the lines I would expect Seamus to take on every single issue. But keep trying Clinton Baptiste.

You did it specifically in reply to a post about Churchill not being perfect but a grey area, that isn't a left right thing. Pretty much anyone who knows a little about Churchill would make that statement. The only reason to react negatively to such a statement is either because you are ignorant of the history or a little sensitive about the mention of Churchill's history.

Much like Piers Morgan.

Jesus Christ, even Clinton Baptiste is better than you...he guesses right once in a while.

TheJezziah

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheJezziah said:

TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.

I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.

You are projecting again....

Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.

You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ

No mind reading required, look at the posts. I suggested there was a grey area and Churchill had done some bad things and you tried to insult me (usually a reaction to being hurt) by saying Hi Seamus.

If you weren't sensitive to the idea that Churchill was not an angel you probably wouldn't have bothered.

No, I said Hi Seamus, because you take the lines I would expect Seamus to take on every single issue. But keep trying Clinton Baptiste.

You did it specifically in reply to a post about Churchill not being perfect but a grey area, that isn't a left right thing. Pretty much anyone who knows a little about Churchill would make that statement. The only reason to react negatively to such a statement is either because you are ignorant of the history or a little sensitive about the mention of Churchill's history.

Much like Piers Morgan.

Jesus Christ, even Clinton Baptiste is better than you...he guesses right once in a while.

Okay Piers calm down, it's only an historically accurate take on Churchill, not a vegan sausage roll or anything.

rcs1000

AndyJS said:

Danny Finkelstein wrote a more balanced article about Winston Churchill the other day.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/churchill-was-a-racist-but-still-a-great-man-vnhkhfnpm

What an excellent article.

asjohnstone

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its a bit hard to get into the best unis if your A-Level grades are crap. Its not the unis fault if applicants from particular demographics have far worse attainment. Its starts much lower down.

That's glib to the point of being offensive.

Universities set admission policy, they don't have to do so exclusively on the basis of "A" levels which are easy to game for rich people. There are other ways to identify talented candidates.

Nigelb

Back on topic, this would make a great deal more.sense:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/13/schumer-beto-castro-2020-senate-bid-1168554

I’m not convinced O’Rourke would be a comfortable VP pick for the candidates Nate Silver hypothesises might pick him.

Whereas running for the Senate again in a presidential year would suit everyone; both O’Rourke and the Democrats would benefit.

Nigelb

FrancisUrquhart said:

Donald Trump's former election campaign chief Paul Manafort breached his plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller by lying to prosecutors, a US judge says.

US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Manafort "made multiple false statements" to the FBI, Mr Mueller's office and a grand jury.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47234491

Of course he did.
Telling the full truth might hasten Trump’s impeachment, and would in any event destroy his hopes of a pardon from the Grifter in Chief.