politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Summary : February 2019

SystemSystem Posts: 12,172
edited March 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Summary : February 2019

Labour 7,858 votes (30% -4% on last time) winning 3 seats (-2 seats on last time) Liberal Democrats 6,854 votes (26% +10% on last time) winning 2 seats (+1 seat on last time) Conservatives 6,267 votes (24% -1% on last time) winning 3 seats (unchanged on last time) Plaid Cymru 831 votes (3% +1% on last time) winning 1 seat (+1 seat on last time) Green Party 691 votes (3% -1% on last time) winning 0 seats (unchanged on last time) Local Independents 668 votes (3% unchanged on last time) winning 0 seats (-1 on last time) Independents 464 votes (2% -2% on last time) winning 0 seats (unchanged on last time) United Kingdom Independence Party 301 votes (1% +1% on last time) winning 0 seats (unchanged on last time) Other Parties 2,214 votes (8% -5% on last time) winning 1 seat (+1 seat on last time)

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,710
    First?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,497
    Con GAIN everything.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Have the LDs literally been up 10% in cumulative by-election shares every month since June 2017?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    I doubt local elections tell us even epsilon about Brexit.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,871
    Fifth like Boris
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    If not already posted, John Curtice on current brexit polling

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/four-weeks-go-brexit-day-polls-getting-interesting/

    Highlights: right/wrong to vote leave now 47:53.

    83% of leave voters say they would vote leave again. He glosses this as "most of them" but it looks a dramatic falling off to me.

    Leave voters 50/50 on Mays deal vs no deal.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,871
    And this week's councillor defections:

    Barnet: Lab to IND
    Bexley: Lab to IND
    Broxtowe: Lab to IND
    Dumfries & Galloway: Lab to Ind
    Forest Heath: Con to IND, UKIP to Con
    Malvern Hills: Ind to Con
    Medway: Con to Ind (suspended)
    Mendip: LD to Con
    Nth Dorset: Con to IND, Con to IND
    NE Lincolnshire: Lab to LD
    Peterborough: LD to Lab, LD to Lab
    Poole: LD to IND
    Salford: Lab to IND
    Sheffield: Lab to IND (MP's husband)
    Spelthorne: Ind readmitted to Con
    Stoke-on-Trent: UKIP to Ind

    Surely a few potential Tiggers amongst the newly Independent ones.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,617
    The local elections in 2015 were Conservative 35% Labour 29%. Are these seats up for election more Tory-friendly in the election cycle? The general election on the same day was 37% Con, 31% Labour, so the margin was a similar read-across. On current polling, wondering how bad the locals might be for Labour in May?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    IanB2 said:

    And this week's councillor defections:

    Barnet: Lab to IND
    Bexley: Lab to IND
    Broxtowe: Lab to IND
    Dumfries & Galloway: Lab to Ind
    Forest Heath: Con to IND, UKIP to Con
    Malvern Hills: Ind to Con
    Medway: Con to Ind (suspended)
    Mendip: LD to Con
    Nth Dorset: Con to IND, Con to IND
    NE Lincolnshire: Lab to LD
    Peterborough: LD to Lab, LD to Lab
    Poole: LD to IND
    Salford: Lab to IND
    Sheffield: Lab to IND (MP's husband)
    Spelthorne: Ind readmitted to Con
    Stoke-on-Trent: UKIP to Ind

    Surely a few potential Tiggers amongst the newly Independent ones.

    That looks like an unusually long defections list. Lots of INDs could turn into TIG if they set up a party.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,218
    IanB2 said:

    And this week's councillor defections:

    Barnet: Lab to IND
    Bexley: Lab to IND
    Broxtowe: Lab to IND
    Dumfries & Galloway: Lab to Ind
    Forest Heath: Con to IND, UKIP to Con
    Malvern Hills: Ind to Con
    Medway: Con to Ind (suspended)
    Mendip: LD to Con
    Nth Dorset: Con to IND, Con to IND
    NE Lincolnshire: Lab to LD
    Peterborough: LD to Lab, LD to Lab
    Poole: LD to IND
    Salford: Lab to IND
    Sheffield: Lab to IND (MP's husband)
    Spelthorne: Ind readmitted to Con
    Stoke-on-Trent: UKIP to Ind

    Surely a few potential Tiggers amongst the newly Independent ones.

    More labour councillors there than other parties...
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    Ishmael_Z said:

    If not already posted, John Curtice on current brexit polling

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/four-weeks-go-brexit-day-polls-getting-interesting/

    Highlights: right/wrong to vote leave now 47:53.

    83% of leave voters say they would vote leave again. He glosses this as "most of them" but it looks a dramatic falling off to me.

    Leave voters 50/50 on Mays deal vs no deal.

    47:53 to remain was pretty much the polling on referendum day last time (48:52 to remain, to be precise), and we all know how that turned out.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,780
    IanB2 said:

    Fifth like Boris

    If you can successfully name one election he's going to come fifth in here and now I'll give you a fiver should that be so.

    I think he's gone. An influence, still important, but just gone. Somewhere there's a Boris-Rees-Mogg child just waiting to leap onto the stage!

    Betting is right in that Gove is a preening magnificence in the land of the turds.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,617
    Scrapheap - there's a good rail service from central Oxford to Paddington. There's also a fast bus service that zips along the M40 -> A40, that wouldn't be much slower than driving yourself.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    and deliciously in my twitter feed the very next one is entirely appropriate but totally unrelated.....

    :)

    https://twitter.com/SpursOfficial/status/1101557741565431808
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    MarqueeMark said:

    Scrapheap - there's a good rail service from central Oxford to Paddington. There's also a fast bus service that zips along the M40 -> A40, that wouldn't be much slower than driving yourself.

    Thank you - so maybe bus service is the way to go once I find the nearest stop to Oxford?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,725
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    and deliciously in my twitter feed the very next one is entirely appropriate but totally unrelated.....

    :)

    https://twitter.com/SpursOfficial/status/1101557741565431808

    Is the transfer window open?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,780
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scrapheap - there's a good rail service from central Oxford to Paddington. There's also a fast bus service that zips along the M40 -> A40, that wouldn't be much slower than driving yourself.

    Thank you - so maybe bus service is the way to go once I find the nearest stop to Oxford?
    I know it's a little regarded hamlet, but I believe that Oxford has both bus and rail stops of its own. (Lord knows why!)
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842
    MarqueeMark said:

    Scrapheap - there's a good rail service from central Oxford to Paddington. There's also a fast bus service that zips along the M40 -> A40, that wouldn't be much slower than driving yourself.

    Fast? My average journey time is about 2hrs 15. Admittedly it is better if you can get to Thornhill (the final stop in Oxford) - as the journey from the centre to there can take 30-45 minutes

    I use it for cost reasons mainly. The 12 trip pass (£75) is good value.

    And I spend the time enjoying an audiobook. But I would never describe it as fast.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857</blockquote

    Confuse and pollute, instead of adding oil to troubled water, Formby lobs in some sodium. Great way to keep the story running over the weekend.

  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857

    The party organisation has disintegrated completely. She has no idea what is going on or her own role in it.

    Utterly shameless and shameful at the same time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    edited March 2019
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857

    She might be right about that if his suggestions were followed as described. But even considering the broadside that was his public letter, it is a pretty brutal response. Were it not an emotive subject and period for the party I’d suggest she really enjoyed writing it - it can be a relief being able to cut loose in a letter when normally you have to be so much more restrained.

    But then again they love to focus on process more than anything else, as a distraction.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Casino_Royale said:

    Con GAIN everything.

    Except the title of most welcoming party for anti semites
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,725
    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1101561178034180096?s=21
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842
    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1101561178034180096?s=21

    Not really much of a disclosure - as they were all known about before 7.13pm today!
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited March 2019
    From the BBC Documentary The Satanic verses 30 Years on

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FTEMHP4t9c

    Please watch,it's only 8 or 9 mins long,very worrying if you live in the city(Bradford) with religious nutters like a couple of examples on here.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,218
    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1101561178034180096?s=21

    Spelman should survive, she just wants to avoid no deal. Grieve perhaps should consider resigning the whip, he's an effective parliamentarian but hasn't supported May's deal in the slightest.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Omnium said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scrapheap - there's a good rail service from central Oxford to Paddington. There's also a fast bus service that zips along the M40 -> A40, that wouldn't be much slower than driving yourself.

    Thank you - so maybe bus service is the way to go once I find the nearest stop to Oxford?
    I know it's a little regarded hamlet, but I believe that Oxford has both bus and rail stops of its own. (Lord knows why!)
    to wembley?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Omnium said:

    IanB2 said:

    Fifth like Boris

    If you can successfully name one election he's going to come fifth in here and now I'll give you a fiver should that be so.

    I think he's gone. An influence, still important, but just gone. Somewhere there's a Boris-Rees-Mogg child just waiting to leap onto the stage!

    Betting is right in that Gove is a preening magnificence in the land of the turds.
    Tory leadership election
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Omnium said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scrapheap - there's a good rail service from central Oxford to Paddington. There's also a fast bus service that zips along the M40 -> A40, that wouldn't be much slower than driving yourself.

    Thank you - so maybe bus service is the way to go once I find the nearest stop to Oxford?
    I know it's a little regarded hamlet, but I believe that Oxford has both bus and rail stops of its own. (Lord knows why!)
    to wembley?
    Chiltern run a direct service:

    http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/S10224/2019/03/02/advanced
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scrapheap - there's a good rail service from central Oxford to Paddington. There's also a fast bus service that zips along the M40 -> A40, that wouldn't be much slower than driving yourself.

    Thank you - so maybe bus service is the way to go once I find the nearest stop to Oxford?
    Oxford Tube fr Gloucester Green
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,888
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    Omnium said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scrapheap - there's a good rail service from central Oxford to Paddington. There's also a fast bus service that zips along the M40 -> A40, that wouldn't be much slower than driving yourself.

    Thank you - so maybe bus service is the way to go once I find the nearest stop to Oxford?
    I know it's a little regarded hamlet, but I believe that Oxford has both bus and rail stops of its own. (Lord knows why!)
    to wembley?
    Oxford to Wembley Stadium station is theoretically possible, though you may need to change at High Wycombe.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,780
    Charles said:

    Omnium said:

    IanB2 said:

    Fifth like Boris

    If you can successfully name one election he's going to come fifth in here and now I'll give you a fiver should that be so.

    I think he's gone. An influence, still important, but just gone. Somewhere there's a Boris-Rees-Mogg child just waiting to leap onto the stage!

    Betting is right in that Gove is a preening magnificence in the land of the turds.
    Tory leadership election
    Ok, you're on!

    Do badger me if you win. You'll have your fiver.

    I imagined you might have gone 'London Mayor'. (Tory independent running blind). I just don't see him as failing to understand that he can't win in the Tory Leadership and therefore not running.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,136
    dr_spyn said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857

    Um, if the data is provided voluntarily by the individual to Watson for the purposes both agree on, then it isn't a GDPR violation: quite the contrary, in fact. Am I correct that Jennie Wotsit is just Making Shit Up at this point?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,871
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    And this week's councillor defections:

    Barnet: Lab to IND
    Bexley: Lab to IND
    Broxtowe: Lab to IND
    Dumfries & Galloway: Lab to Ind
    Forest Heath: Con to IND, UKIP to Con
    Malvern Hills: Ind to Con
    Medway: Con to Ind (suspended)
    Mendip: LD to Con
    Nth Dorset: Con to IND, Con to IND
    NE Lincolnshire: Lab to LD
    Peterborough: LD to Lab, LD to Lab
    Poole: LD to IND
    Salford: Lab to IND
    Sheffield: Lab to IND (MP's husband)
    Spelthorne: Ind readmitted to Con
    Stoke-on-Trent: UKIP to Ind

    Surely a few potential Tiggers amongst the newly Independent ones.

    That looks like an unusually long defections list. Lots of INDs could turn into TIG if they set up a party.
    About twice as long as last week (which may have contained one or two premature TIGs) - so a fair few, but hardly a political landslide. Yet.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Tykejohnno said:

    From the BBC Documentary The Satanic verses 30 Years on

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FTEMHP4t9c

    Please watch,it's only 8 or 9 mins long,very worrying if you live in the city(Bradford) with religious nutters like a couple of examples on here.

    Worrying that the presenter chap, correctly, has to point out that it took bravery to just go there with a copy of that book.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,871
    Omnium said:

    IanB2 said:

    Fifth like Boris

    If you can successfully name one election he's going to come fifth in here and now I'll give you a fiver should that be so.

    I think he's gone. An influence, still important, but just gone. Somewhere there's a Boris-Rees-Mogg child just waiting to leap onto the stage!

    Betting is right in that Gove is a preening magnificence in the land of the turds.
    The shiniest of them all.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857

    If I was Watson I'd take umbrage with the idea that he is suggesting that his work he is offering to do is "unrelated to your personal role as an MP". It is entirely related to his role as elected Deputy Party Leader.

    Then again if I was Watson I'd be looking to leave to go to Tiggers and Formby seems to be saying here "f##k off and I'll hold the door open for you".
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    viewcode said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857

    Um, if the data is provided voluntarily by the individual to Watson for the purposes both agree on, then it isn't a GDPR violation: quite the contrary, in fact. Am I correct that Jennie Wotsit is just Making Shit Up at this point?
    After all the nonsense about GDPR when it came in some people have tended to wield it as a weapon just to get others to shut up. This seems to be a case in point.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052
    kyf_100 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    If not already posted, John Curtice on current brexit polling

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/four-weeks-go-brexit-day-polls-getting-interesting/

    Highlights: right/wrong to vote leave now 47:53.

    83% of leave voters say they would vote leave again. He glosses this as "most of them" but it looks a dramatic falling off to me.

    Leave voters 50/50 on Mays deal vs no deal.

    47:53 to remain was pretty much the polling on referendum day last time (48:52 to remain, to be precise), and we all know how that turned out.
    True, but pollsters have now corrected for their error. Doesn't mean the current polls are accurate, but it's misleading to suggest they're calculated on the same basis as in 2016.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    viewcode said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857

    Um, if the data is provided voluntarily by the individual to Watson for the purposes both agree on, then it isn't a GDPR violation: quite the contrary, in fact. Am I correct that Jennie Wotsit is just Making Shit Up at this point?
    If she is then the governance and legal team she is seeking to defend are not worth their salaries, or at least not the full amount.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Philip_Thompson said:

    viewcode said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857

    Um, if the data is provided voluntarily by the individual to Watson for the purposes both agree on, then it isn't a GDPR violation: quite the contrary, in fact. Am I correct that Jennie Wotsit is just Making Shit Up at this point?
    After all the nonsense about GDPR when it came in some people have tended to wield it as a weapon just to get others to shut up. This seems to be a case in point.
    I have to admit in my experience so far it seems to get interpreted pretty strictly, and people are genuinely worried it will be used to hound them, and pre-emptively restrict themselves before it is used as a weapon against them.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    Dadge said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    If not already posted, John Curtice on current brexit polling

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/four-weeks-go-brexit-day-polls-getting-interesting/

    Highlights: right/wrong to vote leave now 47:53.

    83% of leave voters say they would vote leave again. He glosses this as "most of them" but it looks a dramatic falling off to me.

    Leave voters 50/50 on Mays deal vs no deal.

    47:53 to remain was pretty much the polling on referendum day last time (48:52 to remain, to be precise), and we all know how that turned out.
    True, but pollsters have now corrected for their error. Doesn't mean the current polls are accurate, but it's misleading to suggest they're calculated on the same basis as in 2016.
    They weren't accurate at GE2017, either. The point is that 47:53 should be considered within the margin of error.

    Considering that the so-called "people's" vote lot have been campaigning since 2016 without a corresponding leave campaign, if I were looking to overturn Brexit, I wouldn't be calling for a second referendum right now.

    The country is entrenched. Split down the middle.

    To borrow a May-ism, nothing has changed.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/diane-abbotts-local-party-says-scandal-claim-labour-institutionally/

    No one is even pretending any more

    Labour death match is on.

    (ps url not reflecting the headline of story)

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,136
    kle4 said:

    viewcode said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857

    Um, if the data is provided voluntarily by the individual to Watson for the purposes both agree on, then it isn't a GDPR violation: quite the contrary, in fact. Am I correct that Jennie Wotsit is just Making Shit Up at this point?
    If she is then the governance and legal team she is seeking to defend are not worth their salaries, or at least not the full amount.
    She might be. The whole point about GDPR is that you have certain duties regarding the data you hold on other people. You do not have the same duties on data about yourself. If an individual wishes to CC Watson in on an email they send to Jennie, then there isn't a thing Jennie can do to stop them.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,136
    Philip_Thompson said:

    viewcode said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857

    Um, if the data is provided voluntarily by the individual to Watson for the purposes both agree on, then it isn't a GDPR violation: quite the contrary, in fact. Am I correct that Jennie Wotsit is just Making Shit Up at this point?
    After all the nonsense about GDPR when it came in some people have tended to wield it as a weapon just to get others to shut up. This seems to be a case in point.
    Indeed. Quite worrying.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Floater said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/diane-abbotts-local-party-says-scandal-claim-labour-institutionally/

    No one is even pretending any more

    Labour death match is on.

    (ps url not reflecting the headline of story)

    And yet 30% still support this outfit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    AndyJS said:

    Floater said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/diane-abbotts-local-party-says-scandal-claim-labour-institutionally/

    No one is even pretending any more

    Labour death match is on.

    (ps url not reflecting the headline of story)

    And yet 30% still support this outfit.
    Quite possibly plenty more than that.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,780
    AndyJS said:

    Floater said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/diane-abbotts-local-party-says-scandal-claim-labour-institutionally/

    No one is even pretending any more

    Labour death match is on.

    (ps url not reflecting the headline of story)

    And yet 30% still support this outfit.
    Indeed.

    Almost everyone supports parties with totally incoherent economic policies as well. Admittedly not as poor as Labour's.

    I'm not sure anyone has actually bothered to espouse a sensible economic policy in recent years, let alone press it as policy.



  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,060
    edited March 2019
    thetrainline.com shows a direct train leaving Oxford tomorrow at 9:42 arriving at Wembley Stadium 10:39, and some direct trains back at 15:34 & 16:04

    https://tinyurl.com/yxjzvm52
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Floater said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/diane-abbotts-local-party-says-scandal-claim-labour-institutionally/

    No one is even pretending any more

    Labour death match is on.

    (ps url not reflecting the headline of story)

    From that article, I find this line confusing as to what they're trying to measure: "Antisemitism complaints received since April 2018 relate to about 0.1% of our membership,"

    0.4% of Britain approximately is Jewish. If Jews are members of the Labour Party at the same rate as non-Jews and if that means 0.1% of members have complained about suffering antisemitic abuse then that would mean the equivalent of 25% Jewish members have complained.

    Lies, damned lies and statistics.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,285
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scrapheap - there's a good rail service from central Oxford to Paddington. There's also a fast bus service that zips along the M40 -> A40, that wouldn't be much slower than driving yourself.

    Thank you - so maybe bus service is the way to go once I find the nearest stop to Oxford?
    The Chiltern line train goes to Marylebone: if you are really lucky you might even get one that stops at Wembley.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,298
    Trump at 9.2 to leave this year on betfair.
    With Mueller still to come, I reckon that's value as a trading bet.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Watson's response.

    https://twitter.com/RaynerSkyNews/status/1101576078953451522
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,136
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Floater said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/diane-abbotts-local-party-says-scandal-claim-labour-institutionally/

    No one is even pretending any more

    Labour death match is on.

    (ps url not reflecting the headline of story)

    From that article, I find this line confusing as to what they're trying to measure: "Antisemitism complaints received since April 2018 relate to about 0.1% of our membership,"

    0.4% of Britain approximately is Jewish. If Jews are members of the Labour Party at the same rate as non-Jews and if that means 0.1% of members have complained about suffering antisemitic abuse then that would mean the equivalent of 25% Jewish members have complained.

    Lies, damned lies and statistics.
    As of August 2018 Labour had 540,000 members. 0.1% of 540000 is 540. So they've had about 540 antisemitism complaints in the past 10 months. About 50 or 60 a month.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,298
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Floater said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/diane-abbotts-local-party-says-scandal-claim-labour-institutionally/

    No one is even pretending any more

    Labour death match is on.

    (ps url not reflecting the headline of story)

    From that article, I find this line confusing as to what they're trying to measure: "Antisemitism complaints received since April 2018 relate to about 0.1% of our membership,"

    0.4% of Britain approximately is Jewish. If Jews are members of the Labour Party at the same rate as non-Jews and if that means 0.1% of members have complained about suffering antisemitic abuse then that would mean the equivalent of 25% Jewish members have complained.

    Lies, damned lies and statistics.
    I think the 0.1% is the figure for those complained against (i.e. accused of being anti-semitic), not those doing the complaining.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Bad night to stop sniffing glue.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1101581150542270465
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,298
    viewcode said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Floater said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/diane-abbotts-local-party-says-scandal-claim-labour-institutionally/

    No one is even pretending any more

    Labour death match is on.

    (ps url not reflecting the headline of story)

    From that article, I find this line confusing as to what they're trying to measure: "Antisemitism complaints received since April 2018 relate to about 0.1% of our membership,"

    0.4% of Britain approximately is Jewish. If Jews are members of the Labour Party at the same rate as non-Jews and if that means 0.1% of members have complained about suffering antisemitic abuse then that would mean the equivalent of 25% Jewish members have complained.

    Lies, damned lies and statistics.
    As of August 2018 Labour had 540,000 members. 0.1% of 540000 is 540. So they've had about 540 antisemitism complaints in the past 10 months. About 50 or 60 a month.
    I think it's very likely they have had multiple complaints about particular individuals. So my reading would be 540 people complained about, but potentially many thousands of complaints.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,780
    rkrkrk said:

    Trump at 9.2 to leave this year on betfair.
    With Mueller still to come, I reckon that's value as a trading bet.

    Things have to move rather fast to win there. Nice to see some betting posts though. I'm just a random poster, but hearing a betting view is great.

    The next Republican nominee market is a bit more liquid. Mike has, I think, had a few views there, and it seems a better place to gauge sentiment.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    dr_spyn said:

    Bad night to stop sniffing glue.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1101581150542270465

    If Labour are in power for 20 years, that would suggest that they have done a good job. Or they've abolished elections. One of those two.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,136
    edited March 2019
    rkrkrk said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Floater said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/diane-abbotts-local-party-says-scandal-claim-labour-institutionally/

    No one is even pretending any more

    Labour death match is on.

    (ps url not reflecting the headline of story)

    From that article, I find this line confusing as to what they're trying to measure: "Antisemitism complaints received since April 2018 relate to about 0.1% of our membership,"

    0.4% of Britain approximately is Jewish. If Jews are members of the Labour Party at the same rate as non-Jews and if that means 0.1% of members have complained about suffering antisemitic abuse then that would mean the equivalent of 25% Jewish members have complained.

    Lies, damned lies and statistics.
    I think the 0.1% is the figure for those complained against (i.e. accused of being anti-semitic), not those doing the complaining.
    I'm not sure that's true...or if it is, that makes it worse. I assume that a Labour anti-Semite would generate more than one complaint, so that 0.1% of the membership (540 people) would generate one or two thousand complaints. In 10 months...

    Quick question. How many people are in the Labour Party Governance and Legal Unit?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,780
    tlg86 said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Bad night to stop sniffing glue.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1101581150542270465

    If Labour are in power for 20 years, that would suggest that they have done a good job. Or they've abolished elections. One of those two.
    Spot on.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    dr_spyn said:

    Bad night to stop sniffing glue.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1101581150542270465

    When has Mr Poll Tax ever been right about anything?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    rkrkrk said:

    Trump at 9.2 to leave this year on betfair.
    With Mueller still to come, I reckon that's value as a trading bet.

    Agreed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    dr_spyn said:

    Watson's response.

    https://twitter.com/RaynerSkyNews/status/1101576078953451522

    That's pretty much an Arkell v Pressdram response from Watson.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,298
    Omnium said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Trump at 9.2 to leave this year on betfair.
    With Mueller still to come, I reckon that's value as a trading bet.

    Things have to move rather fast to win there. Nice to see some betting posts though. I'm just a random poster, but hearing a betting view is great.

    The next Republican nominee market is a bit more liquid. Mike has, I think, had a few views there, and it seems a better place to gauge sentiment.

    I think almost a certainty Mueller comes this year. How damaging will it be?
    That's hard to know but I lean towards worse than people currently think given what has unraveled already.

    Even if there isn't damning evidence, it seems likely the media will react pretty heavily. With democratic candidates posturing for 2020, I imagine a reasonable number will call for impeachment which should also affect the odds.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,133
    The political scandal engulfing the Canadian prime minister has outed him as not quite the hero we all believed he was

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/01/justin-trudeau-disgrace-unicorn-political-scandal-canadian

    Guardian dumping their hero worship of Trudeau faster than their previous love-in of Julian wikileaks.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    dr_spyn said:

    Bad night to stop sniffing glue.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1101581150542270465

    I always remember in the 1980s it was received wisdom by political commentators that 3 million+ unemployed would mean the Tories would not win again. Then 1983 came along and the Tories got in again with an increased majority in a landslide, 3 million were still out of work and 1987 occurred with a landslide Tory majority (Not as great as 1983 but a pretty sound victory all the same). The thing about Brexit is the older age groups who tended to support Brexit also support the Tories, so even in a No Deal it is not a forgone conclusion that the Tories will suffer. I say this as someone who opposes Brexit.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Not sure which Labour Party Letwin was referring to. Not sure I would trust the man to take the crown top off a bottle of beer.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,136
    edited March 2019
    rkrkrk said:

    viewcode said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Floater said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/01/diane-abbotts-local-party-says-scandal-claim-labour-institutionally/

    No one is even pretending any more

    Labour death match is on.

    (ps url not reflecting the headline of story)

    From that article, I find this line confusing as to what they're trying to measure: "Antisemitism complaints received since April 2018 relate to about 0.1% of our membership,"

    0.4% of Britain approximately is Jewish. If Jews are members of the Labour Party at the same rate as non-Jews and if that means 0.1% of members have complained about suffering antisemitic abuse then that would mean the equivalent of 25% Jewish members have complained.

    Lies, damned lies and statistics.
    As of August 2018 Labour had 540,000 members. 0.1% of 540000 is 540. So they've had about 540 antisemitism complaints in the past 10 months. About 50 or 60 a month.
    I think it's very likely they have had multiple complaints about particular individuals. So my reading would be 540 people complained about, but potentially many thousands of complaints.
    Ah yes, I see you got there first. Yes, that's plausible (although I wouldn't have gone with "many")
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    From previous thread. A collapse of the European Union is entirely possible. I don't think it would be good for anyone, including us. If it happens anyway, we can make a very good case for getting out ahead. Thing is, the EU probably won't collapse in short order. To the extent Brexit poses a threat to the stability of the EU the commission and member states will be highly motivated to keep the UK at arm's length, thus aggravating the ongoing pain of separation..
    ExiledInScotland said:

    FF43 said:

    williamglenn said:

    "Being in the EU isn't that bad"

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1101433384117698561

    The only way of leaving is by accepting it's worse than Remaining, which is what I think Lilico intended to write. That's why a bunch of the more aware voted Remain. It's better than Leave.
    Remain Now may be better than Leave Now. But what about the future?

    We have no crystal ball. What we can see is that the EU has many fundamental problems as they try to forge an ever closer union. They may be able to pull together amicably or they may require force (economic or military) to build it. Human history strongly suggests the latter - either to forge it (as per the US Civil War) or prevent its breakup (Yugoslavia). Personally I want no part of that.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Letwin hasn't noticed stuff like this.

    https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1101583320046100482
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    viewcode said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    OH MY WORD --- burn...

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1101555308856569857

    Um, if the data is provided voluntarily by the individual to Watson for the purposes both agree on, then it isn't a GDPR violation: quite the contrary, in fact. Am I correct that Jennie Wotsit is just Making Shit Up at this point?
    If she is then the governance and legal team she is seeking to defend are not worth their salaries, or at least not the full amount.
    She might be. The whole point about GDPR is that you have certain duties regarding the data you hold on other people. You do not have the same duties on data about yourself. If an individual wishes to CC Watson in on an email they send to Jennie, then there isn't a thing Jennie can do to stop them.
    Against that presumably a complaint includes data on other people as well?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    rkrkrk said:

    Trump at 9.2 to leave this year on betfair.
    With Mueller still to come, I reckon that's value as a trading bet.

    That's a good trading bet. There's a reasonable chance that impeachment will be talked up at some point this year, even if it doesn't actually happen.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,298
    MikeSmithson said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Trump at 9.2 to leave this year on betfair.
    With Mueller still to come, I reckon that's value as a trading bet.

    Agreed.
    I see it's now down to 7/1. The power of the Mike Smithson endorsement.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited March 2019
    dr_spyn said:

    Bad night to stop sniffing glue.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1101581150542270465

    How old will Corbyn be in 20 years!
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,780
    rkrkrk said:

    Omnium said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Trump at 9.2 to leave this year on betfair.
    With Mueller still to come, I reckon that's value as a trading bet.

    Things have to move rather fast to win there. Nice to see some betting posts though. I'm just a random poster, but hearing a betting view is great.

    The next Republican nominee market is a bit more liquid. Mike has, I think, had a few views there, and it seems a better place to gauge sentiment.

    I think almost a certainty Mueller comes this year. How damaging will it be?
    That's hard to know but I lean towards worse than people currently think given what has unraveled already.

    Even if there isn't damning evidence, it seems likely the media will react pretty heavily. With democratic candidates posturing for 2020, I imagine a reasonable number will call for impeachment which should also affect the odds.
    I don't disagree, but Trump will be a thousand years old before any of this gets through the process.

    Impeachment is meaningless as far as I can see unless its likely to get approval.

    I am betting against Trump, but doing so only on a sea-change candidate - Gabbard. Otherwise in the Next Pres market he's my best outcome.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Charles said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Bad night to stop sniffing glue.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1101581150542270465

    How old will Corbyn be in 20 years!
    90.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    dr_spyn said:

    Charles said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Bad night to stop sniffing glue.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1101581150542270465

    How old will Corbyn be in 20 years!
    90.
    Depending on the circumstances, it's quite possible that Labour, or the Tories, or both won't survive 20 days after March 29th, let alone 20 years.

    Certainly, Letwin's predictions have no more (and quite possibly a lot less) validity than the Treasury's economic forecasts. He's got no more idea than any of the rest of us as to how all of this is going to play out.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The political scandal engulfing the Canadian prime minister has outed him as not quite the hero we all believed he was

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/01/justin-trudeau-disgrace-unicorn-political-scandal-canadian

    Guardian dumping their hero worship of Trudeau faster than their previous love-in of Julian wikileaks.

    Pretty much. Now in the process of canonizing Shameless Shamima as a holy martyr instead.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,902
    The_Taxman said:


    I always remember in the 1980s it was received wisdom by political commentators that 3 million+ unemployed would mean the Tories would not win again. Then 1983 came along and the Tories got in again with an increased majority in a landslide, 3 million were still out of work and 1987 occurred with a landslide Tory majority (Not as great as 1983 but a pretty sound victory all the same). The thing about Brexit is the older age groups who tended to support Brexit also support the Tories, so even in a No Deal it is not a forgone conclusion that the Tories will suffer. I say this as someone who opposes Brexit.

    After Major won in 1992 the Times election digest famously described the Conservatives as the "natural Party of Government" and Labour as the "natural Party of Opposition". Major had won despite a poor economic background and it seemed Labour would never win again.

    We all know what happened in 1997.

    IF there's a shambolic No Deal and the country descends into chaos, the Conservatives will pay the electoral price and deservedly so. Whether Labour, TIG or the LDs are the net beneficiaries is impossible to say but I don't see a Blair-style landslide for Labour under Corbyn.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,780
    Black_Rook said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Charles said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Bad night to stop sniffing glue.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1101581150542270465

    How old will Corbyn be in 20 years!
    90.
    Depending on the circumstances, it's quite possible that Labour, or the Tories, or both won't survive 20 days after March 29th, let alone 20 years.

    Certainly, Letwin's predictions have no more (and quite possibly a lot less) validity than the Treasury's economic forecasts. He's got no more idea than any of the rest of us as to how all of this is going to play out.
    Letwin's predictions just beggar belief. It's almost the one thing we know won't happen, and most certainly so if you have any inclination Tory economics thinking.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    tlg86 said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Bad night to stop sniffing glue.

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1101581150542270465

    If Labour are in power for 20 years, that would suggest that they have done a good job. Or they've abolished elections. One of those two.
    I could see them using the Civil Contingencies Act to say elections had to postponed because if the Tories won there s a risk somebody could die as a result.

    Of course if the loathsome and dishonest Formby gets near power far more will probably die but they were only Jews, Fascists and sensible people. Nobody in Labour cares about them now.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Political science tends to agree that big events matter. When an issue is salient and a symbolically damaging event occurs that challenges the government’s competence they can lose their ownership of an issue. The Tories with economic competence after Black Friday is a good example.
    If there is a no deal outcome, something big and symbolic could sink the Tories remaining economic credibility.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,149
    Tomorrows Weekend I paper reporting Brexiteers softening their stance and the DUP seeking a compromise

    TM deal slowly becoming a real possibilty of passing
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited March 2019
    stodge said:

    The_Taxman said:


    I always remember in the 1980s it was received wisdom by political commentators that 3 million+ unemployed would mean the Tories would not win again. Then 1983 came along and the Tories got in again with an increased majority in a landslide, 3 million were still out of work and 1987 occurred with a landslide Tory majority (Not as great as 1983 but a pretty sound victory all the same). The thing about Brexit is the older age groups who tended to support Brexit also support the Tories, so even in a No Deal it is not a forgone conclusion that the Tories will suffer. I say this as someone who opposes Brexit.

    After Major won in 1992 the Times election digest famously described the Conservatives as the "natural Party of Government" and Labour as the "natural Party of Opposition". Major had won despite a poor economic background and it seemed Labour would never win again.

    We all know what happened in 1997.

    IF there's a shambolic No Deal and the country descends into chaos, the Conservatives will pay the electoral price and deservedly so. Whether Labour, TIG or the LDs are the net beneficiaries is impossible to say but I don't see a Blair-style landslide for Labour under Corbyn.

    I agree but I suppose it depends on who the No Deal fallout affects and its distribution over the UK as a whole. If for instance the worst economic blow hits Labour seats or industries in Labour inclined areas like in the 1980s, then the Tories might be relatively unscathed.

    Older voters are less likely to work, so they are likely to stick with Brexit and the Tories unless the UK enters a depression. I suspect London, the Home Counties and the South East in general might feel little of the pain, which is good for Tory prospects.

    I doubt even if things are bad Labour has the potential to pick up many seats outside London in the Tory shires. The LD or Tig might do better at picking up seats in usually reliable Tory areas but they are held back due to their ability to target more than a handful of seats at anyone time in a serious and sustainable way.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,902
    The_Taxman said:


    I agree but I suppose it depends on who the No Deal fallout affects and its distribution over the UK as a whole. If for instance the worst economic blow hits Labour seats or industries in Labour inclined areas like in the 1980s, then the Tories might be relatively unscathed.

    Older voters are less likely to work, so they are likely to stick with Brexit and the Tories unless the UK enters a depression. I suspect London, the Home Counties and the South East in general might feel little of the pain, which is good for Tory prospects.

    I doubt even if things are bad Labour has the potential to pick up many seats outside London in the Tory shires. The LD or Tig might do better at picking up seats in usually reliable Tory areas but they are held back due to their ability to target more than a handful of seats at anyone time in a serious and sustainable way.

    A lot will depend on the nature of what happens and whether it is temporary or longer lasting. The fuel crisis of 2000 saw the Conservatives re-take a poll lead but when life returned to normal so did the polls and Hague was crushed in 2001.

    A recession or worse will have a political impact but the Conservatives won't lose Sevenoaks or Surrey Heath or Spelthorne but they aren't the seats that matter.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,252
    Well, new favourite politician for me. It's been Michael Gove for some time but no longer. Been tracking a guy for a few months, a guy who's been growing on me, creeping up on the rails as it were, and he has now got there. He's number one. Good brain, heart of gold, always on the verge of exploding but somehow not quite doing so. Barry Gardiner. If he's on I drop everything.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    The_Taxman said:

    stodge said:

    The_Taxman said:


    I always remember in the 1980s it was received wisdom by political commentators that 3 million+ unemployed would mean the Tories would not win again. Then 1983 came along and the Tories got in again with an increased majority in a landslide, 3 million were still out of work and 1987 occurred with a landslide Tory majority (Not as great as 1983 but a pretty sound victory all the same). The thing about Brexit is the older age groups who tended to support Brexit also support the Tories, so even in a No Deal it is not a forgone conclusion that the Tories will suffer. I say this as someone who opposes Brexit.

    After Major won in 1992 the Times election digest famously described the Conservatives as the "natural Party of Government" and Labour as the "natural Party of Opposition". Major had won despite a poor economic background and it seemed Labour would never win again.

    We all know what happened in 1997.

    IF there's a shambolic No Deal and the country descends into chaos, the Conservatives will pay the electoral price and deservedly so. Whether Labour, TIG or the LDs are the net beneficiaries is impossible to say but I don't see a Blair-style landslide for Labour under Corbyn.

    I agree but I suppose it depends on who the No Deal fallout affects and its distribution over the UK as a whole. If for instance the worst economic blow hits Labour seats or industries in Labour inclined areas like in the 1980s, then the Tories might be relatively unscathed.

    Older voters are less likely to work, so they are likely to stick with Brexit and the Tories unless the UK enters a depression. I suspect London, the Home Counties and the South East in general might feel little of the pain, which is good for Tory prospects.

    I doubt even if things are bad Labour has the potential to pick up many seats outside London in the Tory shires. The LD or Tig might do better at picking up seats in usually reliable Tory areas but they are held back due to their ability to target more than a handful of seats at anyone time in a serious and sustainable way.
    I strongly suspect that the effect of the Falklands victory in 1982 was to bestow credibility on the entire range of Thatcher's policies for several years thereafter. Many who had been critical of her economic policies in 1980/1981 became much more inclined to give her the benefit of the doubts previously held , and it was this indirect spinoff which propelled her to the 1983 landslide win. Had it not been for the Falkands conflict the 3 million unemployed would likely have proved a much heavier burden for Thatcher in seeking a second term.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,725
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Tomorrows Weekend I paper reporting Brexiteers softening their stance and the DUP seeking a compromise

    TM deal slowly becoming a real possibilty of passing

    Based on this article I wouldn’t bet on that.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/03/01/eu-smells-fear-thinks-biddable-time-walk-room/
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited March 2019
    Freggles said:

    Political science tends to agree that big events matter. When an issue is salient and a symbolically damaging event occurs that challenges the government’s competence they can lose their ownership of an issue. The Tories with economic competence after Black Friday is a good example.
    If there is a no deal outcome, something big and symbolic could sink the Tories remaining economic credibility.

    I think sometimes, maybe once in a generation, an event runs counterintuitive to logic. The Falklands war was one of these events where you would think a Government that allows an invasion of part of its territory would get utterly annihilated, then add into the equation an economy rocked by a recession that made over 3 million unemployed. How did the Tories get away with it in the 1980s!

    I am starting to think Brexit (I oppose and would rather stay in the EU), even a No Deal might be the same sort of event that uncouples the normal cycle of politics. When you add in the Labour split and FPTP a range of unlikely prospects beckon!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,149
    kinabalu said:

    Well, new favourite politician for me. It's been Michael Gove for some time but no longer. Been tracking a guy for a few months, a guy who's been growing on me, creeping up on the rails as it were, and he has now got there. He's number one. Good brain, heart of gold, always on the verge of exploding but somehow not quite doing so. Barry Gardiner. If he's on I drop everything.

    Really - he is so patronising and inept. Sorry do not want to upset you
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    The_Taxman said:

    Freggles said:

    Political science tends to agree that big events matter. When an issue is salient and a symbolically damaging event occurs that challenges the government’s competence they can lose their ownership of an issue. The Tories with economic competence after Black Friday is a good example.
    If there is a no deal outcome, something big and symbolic could sink the Tories remaining economic credibility.

    I think sometimes, maybe once in a generation, an event runs counterintuitive to logic. The Falklands war was one of these events where you would think a Government that allows an invasion of part of its territory would get utterly annihilated, then add into the equation an economy rocked by a recession that made over 3 million unemployed. How did the Tories get away with it in the 1980s!

    I am starting to think Brexit (I oppose and would rather stay in the EU), even a No Deal might be the same sort of event that uncouples the normal cycle of politics. When you add in the Labour split and FPTP a range of unlikely prospects beckon!
    But had the Falklands war become a much more extended conlict that dragged on into 1983 with mounting losses and casualty lists . Thatcher would almost certainly have paid a very heavy price.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    kinabalu said:

    Well, new favourite politician for me. It's been Michael Gove for some time but no longer. Been tracking a guy for a few months, a guy who's been growing on me, creeping up on the rails as it were, and he has now got there. He's number one. Good brain, heart of gold, always on the verge of exploding but somehow not quite doing so. Barry Gardiner. If he's on I drop everything.

    Really - he is so patronising and inept. Sorry do not want to upset you
    He is a bit hit and miss - though he had a pretty good 2017 election campaign.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,149
    williamglenn said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Tomorrows Weekend I paper reporting Brexiteers softening their stance and the DUP seeking a compromise

    TM deal slowly becoming a real possibilty of passing

    Based on this article I wouldn’t bet on that.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/03/01/eu-smells-fear-thinks-biddable-time-walk-room/
    I know you do not want it to go through but I am relaxed now no deal is going nowhere
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,149
    justin124 said:

    The_Taxman said:

    Freggles said:

    Political science tends to agree that big events matter. When an issue is salient and a symbolically damaging event occurs that challenges the government’s competence they can lose their ownership of an issue. The Tories with economic competence after Black Friday is a good example.
    If there is a no deal outcome, something big and symbolic could sink the Tories remaining economic credibility.

    I think sometimes, maybe once in a generation, an event runs counterintuitive to logic. The Falklands war was one of these events where you would think a Government that allows an invasion of part of its territory would get utterly annihilated, then add into the equation an economy rocked by a recession that made over 3 million unemployed. How did the Tories get away with it in the 1980s!

    I am starting to think Brexit (I oppose and would rather stay in the EU), even a No Deal might be the same sort of event that uncouples the normal cycle of politics. When you add in the Labour split and FPTP a range of unlikely prospects beckon!
    But had the Falklands war become a much more extended conlict that dragged on into 1983 with mounting losses and casualty lists . Thatcher would almost certainly have paid a very heavy price.
    But it didn't
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    justin124 said:

    The_Taxman said:

    stodge said:

    The_Taxman said:


    I always remember in the 1980s it was received wisdom by political commentators that 3 million+ unemployed would mean the Tories would not win again. Then 1983 came along and the Tories got in again with an increased majority in a landslide, 3 million were still out of work and 1987 occurred with a landslide Tory majority (Not as great as 1983 but a pretty sound victory all the same). The thing about Brexit is the older age groups who tended to support Brexit also support the Tories, so even in a No Deal it is not a forgone conclusion that the Tories will suffer. I say this as someone who opposes Brexit.


    I agree but I suppose it depends on who the No Deal fallout affects and its distribution over the UK as a whole. If for instance the worst economic blow hits Labour seats or industries in Labour inclined areas like in the 1980s, then the Tories might be relatively unscathed.

    Older voters are less likely to work, so they are likely to stick with Brexit and the Tories unless the UK enters a depression. I suspect London, the Home Counties and the South East in general might feel little of the pain, which is good for Tory prospects.

    I doubt even if things are bad Labour has the potential to pick up many seats outside London in the Tory shires. The LD or Tig might do better at picking up seats in usually reliable Tory areas but they are held back due to their ability to target more than a handful of seats at anyone time in a serious and sustainable way.
    I strongly suspect that the effect of the Falklands victory in 1982 was to bestow credibility on the entire range of Thatcher's policies for several years thereafter. Many who had been critical of her economic policies in 1980/1981 became much more inclined to give her the benefit of the doubts previously held , and it was this indirect spinoff which propelled her to the 1983 landslide win. Had it not been for the Falkands conflict the 3 million unemployed would likely have proved a much heavier burden for Thatcher in seeking a second term.
    I think the Tory press were likely to be the main reason for her Falklands success (In terms of the people back home being propelled into a nationalistic fervour). Looking back on it I am surprised the Argentine invasion was not a death knell to the Thatcher Government as it showed some serious ineptness. Defence was a big deal in 1983 in that Nuclear weapons were a major theme of that campaign.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    justin124 said:

    The_Taxman said:

    Freggles said:

    Political science tends to agree that big events matter. When an issue is salient and a symbolically damaging event occurs that challenges the government’s competence they can lose their ownership of an issue. The Tories with economic competence after Black Friday is a good example.
    If there is a no deal outcome, something big and symbolic could sink the Tories remaining economic credibility.

    I think sometimes, maybe once in a generation, an event runs counterintuitive to logic. The Falklands war was one of these events where you would think a Government that allows an invasion of part of its territory would get utterly annihilated, then add into the equation an economy rocked by a recession that made over 3 million unemployed. How did the Tories get away with it in the 1980s!

    I am starting to think Brexit (I oppose and would rather stay in the EU), even a No Deal might be the same sort of event that uncouples the normal cycle of politics. When you add in the Labour split and FPTP a range of unlikely prospects beckon!
    But had the Falklands war become a much more extended conlict that dragged on into 1983 with mounting losses and casualty lists . Thatcher would almost certainly have paid a very heavy price.
    But it didn't
    Indeed - which was why it proved to be of great benefit to her. It was far from inevitable though - had a few more of the Argentinian shells actually exploded the military outcome might have been rather different.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,902
    Big_G_NorthWales said:


    I know you do not want it to go through but I am relaxed now no deal is going nowhere

    You've been saying this for months as well as grasping every half-positive headline about May's Deal rather like a man in the water grasps for a lifebelt.

    Nothing has changed since Christmas - either the Deal is ratified or we leave without a Deal. There's talk of an extension but it's hard to see your Party agreeing to 24 months of remaining in the EU hoping to come up with some words to satisfy Arlene Foster.

    Parliament voting against No Deal is meaningless - if nothing has been agreed, it remains the default position as of four weeks tonight.

    The question now is what May will do if her WA is voted down again on March 12th.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,676
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Tomorrows Weekend I paper reporting Brexiteers softening their stance and the DUP seeking a compromise

    TM deal slowly becoming a real possibilty of passing

    How many times have we heard that one?
This discussion has been closed.