Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on what we are not allowed to talk about and news of 2
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on what we are not allowed to talk about and news of 2 PB gatherings
Thanks once again to Fat Steve for making the arrangements. The next PB gathering will be at the Dirty Dicks pub just across the road from Liverpool Street Station in London from 1830 on Wednesday November 20th. These have become very much a tradition and a good time is generally had by all.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Just appreciate the irony of the cartoon, without comment.
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6371662#.UnPbY7NSI7g.twitter
Are we allowed to say 'good cartoon, Marf'?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24779368
LOL
It often surprises me that convenience (such as easy parking) is rated so mutch higher than clinicalcare, but it is a consistent finding...
July 8th is a tuesday, If it were a Sunday, I could get there. Bar Tat, of course!
Nick Sutton
@suttonnick
Independent - "The water bill torture: Government action on rip-off price rises" #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/ylRkeQjQ4Z
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05399983/HOW-TO-CORP-LIMITED
We are all Marxists now, comrade.
@Life_ina_marketing_town
Given that there is not, and has never been such as thing as 'Britain's National Health Service', the poll is based on a false premise.
I remember Stefano Pessina telling me once that the second most trusted healthcare professional in the UK is the "Boots nurse".
Unfortunately they don't exist...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10421143/Dont-be-fooled-Labour-would-increase-your-energy-bills.html
I am sure I never knew that up until now. I was always under the assumption that Brown waitied and waited (under civil service instruction, and as a point of constitutional etiquette) until Cameron indicated he would form a government.
The fact that Brown went before a deal is interesting because if the haggling had gone on longer, perhaps Clegg would've extracted more from Cameron, and by now the Tory backbenchers would be proper frothing.
In my opinion the best comedy episode ever written.
It's famed for Del Boy falling through the bar but the episode is just fabulous. John Sullivan, a man with no education, should've been knighted prior to his death. An extraordinary talent.
First they shot the Brazilian electrician ...
I'm not convinced Brown staying a few more hours would have made much difference. The numbers were never there for a non-Con government; the only question was whether it would be a minority Con or a Con-LD coalition. By the time Brown went, that was pretty clear to everyone so the dynamics would have been relatively similar had Cameron been negotiating as an opposition leader rather than PM.
If you're going to Ilkley Moor don't forget your hat.
I fear it'll be difficult to persuade the hound to leave the house tonight, due to all the fireworks.
If Clegg asked Brown, on that fateful Tuesday, to "give me more time" and said "they have longer to negotiate coalitions" in Europe, then I deduce from that that Clegg wasn't entirely happy with Cameron's comprehensive offer and took a lesser deal than he actually wanted. It also makes Clegg and the Lib Dems like a bunch of shamelessly slippery buggers too. Using Brown and Cameron at the same time (though you can't blame them for this!).
Speaking of onanists: Sir Edric's Temple is now up on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Temple-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/10421246/Swedish-parenting-has-created-nation-of-brats.html
Aside, obviously, from Labour and the unions?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10422189/Stephen-Hammond-Conservative-ministers-offshore-deal-cuts-tax-bill.html
The “toxic” trade union leader at the centre of the Grangemouth crisis has given his strongest backing yet for Alex Salmond’s independence campaign.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10421506/Len-McCluskey-praises-seductive-Scottish-independence.html
You've made a couple of comments this evening which could land Mike Smithson in trouble.
Please confirm you understand this instruction.
I also see that Tim ignores the last paragraph of the article quoting a UK expert.
""This is good research, but not good advice," he said. "This looks to me like an attempt to explain the differences (in attainment) between private and state schools. There is a big difference in outcomes, although this can be explained by the difference in (schools') intake.
"This is interesting from a research point of view, but it doesn't alter the fact that the independent schools do have the best results.""
http://www.robertjenrick.com/
The political class really don't want even the faintest possibility of a whiff of a by-election.
My boyhood home, which the Tour passes on day 2, is only a mile or so away, so Ilkley is a place I knew well.
I'm still pondering a trip to the UK next year, so I might actually turn up....
2010 election — results for each English region:
Eastern:
Con: 1,356,740 (47.12%)
LD: 692,932 (24.07%)
Lab: 564,581 (19.61%)
UKIP: 123,177 (4.28%)
BNP: 59,505 (2.07%)
Green: 42,677 (1.48%)
Eng Dem: 8,390 (0.29%)
Others: 31,055 (1.08%)
East Midlands:
Con: 915,933 (41.18%)
Lab: 661,869 (29.76%)
LD: 463,068 (20.82%)
UKIP: 72,659 (3.27%)
BNP: 69,706 (3.13%)
Green: 11,667 (0.52%)
Eng Dem: 8,641 (0.39%)
Others: 20,736 (0.93%)
Greater London:
Lab: 1,245,627 (36.62%)
Con: 1,174,568 (34.53%)
LD: 751,571 (22.10%)
UKIP: 59,452 (1.75%)
Green: 54,316 (1.60%)
BNP: 52,095 (1.53%)
Eng Dem: 9,076 (0.27%)
Others: 54,491 (1.60%)
North East:
Lab: 518,261 (43.23%)
Con: 282,347 (23.55%)
LD: 280,468 (23.39%)
BNP: 51,940 (4.33%)
UKIP: 32,196 (2.69%)
Green: 3,787 (0.32%)
Eng Dem: 1,456 (0.12%)
Others: 28,504 (2.38%)
North West:
Lab: 1,289,978 (39.41%)
Con: 1,038,767 (31.74%)
LD: 707,770 (21.62%)
UKIP: 103,782 (3.17%)
BNP: 70,032 (2.14%)
Green: 17,046 (0.52%)
Eng Dem: 4,533 (0.14%)
Others: 41,122 (1.26%)
South East:
Con: 2,118,035 (49.32%)
LD: 1,124,786 (26.19%)
Lab: 697,567 (16.24%)
UKIP: 177,260 (4.13%)
Green: 62,120 (1.45%)
BNP: 30,618 (0.71%)
Eng Dem: 15,442 (0.36%)
Others: 68,399 (1.59%)
South West:
Con: 1,187,637 (42.82%)
LD: 962,954 (34.72%)
Lab: 426,910 (15.39%)
UKIP: 123,975 (4.47%)
Green: 31,517 (1.14%)
BNP: 20,866 (0.75%)
Eng Dem: 3,277 (0.12%)
Others: 16,307 (0.59%)
West Midlands:
Con: 1,044,081 (39.68%)
Lab: 808,104 (30.71%)
LD: 540,290 (20.53%)
UKIP: 105,685 (4.02%)
BNP: 73,394 (2.79%)
Green: 14,996 (0.57%)
Eng Dem: 2,289 (0.09%)
Others: 42,710 (1.62%)
Yorkshire & The Humber:
Lab: 826,537 (34.36%)
Con: 790,062 (32.84%)
LD: 551,740 (22.94%)
BNP: 104,167 (4.33%)
UKIP: 68,378 (2.84%)
Green: 20,824 (0.87%)
Eng Dem: 11,722 (0.49%)
Others: 32,139 (1.34%)
France deserves Hollande.
Germany deserves Merkel.
The Yookay deserves Cameron.
Sweden deserves Reinfeldt.
Scotland deserves Salmond.
France and the Yookay are clearly in masochistic moods, whereas Germany, Sweden and Scotland are in far more positive phases of their histories.
And when you consider the list of prime ministers before Cameron, you have to conclude that the Yookay has been in masochistic mood for a very long time. Such long-term self-hatred has serious consequences.
Edit - oops I meant The Cresent, don't know where The Regent came from! Too early, not woken up yet
The UK has been in self-hate mode since the 70s and probably before with the denigration and diminishing of all things thought to be British by a certain political thought process and a preference for anything but Britishness - so leading to the rise of BNP, British jobs for British people, Eng Dems and UKIP. It also has led to near imposition of political correctness and thought control by certain political movements and so from fighting for freedom of thought in WW2and during the Cold War to near thought and speech legal suppression today.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2483837.
Jonathan Roberts said Unite’s militant leader Len McCluskey was putting the entire union movement at risk.
He said that ‘picketing the family homes of company bosses and intimidating their children’ was not a ‘decent’ way of representing workers, and claimed the Unite leadership no longer represents the interests of members.
He is so disgusted with the ‘depressing, devious and combative way’ that Unite runs its operations that he has now torn up his membership card.
Writing on the Labour Uncut website, Mr Roberts said: ‘I’m sure in person he is an affable man, but in my view there is no greater threat to the hope of strong, responsible, decent and successful trade unionism than Len McCluskey and his most loyal supporters.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483875/Labour-man-quits-union-disgust-Daily-Mail-revelations-bullying-leverage-tactics.html#ixzz2jT7MD5xG
Kevin Brennan MP is Labour’s shadow schools minister
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/11/01/under-cameron-it’s-easier-to-become-a-teacher-than-to-get-a-job-in-a-burger-bar/#more-17428
I do hope some of our male members (fnah fnah) are participating in Movember. I did for the first time last year and my wife donated a handsome sum to the charity to get me to shave it off!
I' doing it again this year and as I'm away from home for a while, it will come as an even bigger shock when I get home. Hope the dog recognises me though :-)
Not paying them doesn't work!
"He said that ‘picketing the family homes of company bosses and intimidating their children’ was not a ‘decent’ way of representing workers, and claimed the Unite leadership no longer represents the interests of members."
The irony of The Mail running a story about ruining lives through the intimidation of 'doorstepping' wont be lost on readers of The Daily mail.
Didn't they run just such a campaign on McCluskey himself a few weeks ago?
It seems the hypocrisy of newspaper people and them finally getting their comeuppence makes you wonder whether their is a higher being after all!
But perhaps the answer is for those who want a civilised discussion about politics and all sorts of other things simply to ignore the abuse. Don't even respond to personalised attacks. Yes, interesting. Miliband hasn't been mentioning his shared vision and friendship with Hollande so much recently, has he...?
Mr. Kevin, I think you might be right.
Just checked practice times, and I'll try to get the pre-qualifying piece up shortly after 11am. Oddly, I seem to have quite a lot of chores to do this morning, so it might be slightly delayed.
Bullying is a culture. A culture which can become deeply ingrained in certain institutions (the HoC, armed forces and the media spring to mind). Good headmasters rid the school of it. Weak headmasters let it thrive.
On another subject - as an MP I always found fireworks nuisance to be big deal at this tinme of year - dozens of people would write every year that both they and their pets were terrified by bangs into the early hours every night for weeks. They felt they could have lived with big bangs on ov 5, but the habit had grown to do it for week after week. Maybe it's because I'm out of office but I've not heard anything about it this year. Are people noticing less of it?
They may well be of interest to those planning a punt on the Euros; but also are of interest to those who would be interested in working out what the likely halving of the LibDem vote in 2015 will do regionally. I could see major tory gains in the Southwest on the cards. Also intrresting to see how it really is the English Midlands where elections are decided.
Excuse the snip to fit!
On fireworks: there do seem to be fewer this year. Diwali was quieter than usual (a big event in Leicester)
Is it simply the damp and stormy weather on the particular weekends?
Off to burn a Catholic in effigy tonight myself though! It really is a very non PC event.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483809/Unite-thugs-targeted-60-firms-Militants-unleashed-family-homes-hotels-charity-fun-run.html#ixzz2jTZyRqUA
Not sure it does:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/241
(1)A person commits an offence who, with a view to compelling another person to abstain from doing or to do any act which that person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority—
(a)uses violence to or intimidates that person or his [F1spouse or civil partner]F1 or children, or injures his property.......
(d)watches or besets the house or other place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to any such house or place, or
"The seven-year rule: why Labour doesn't think Cameron will save the Tories in 2015
History shows that after seven years at the top, politicians' ratings go into decline - and Cameron can't afford to lose votes in 2015."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/seven-year-rule-why-labour-doesnt-think-cameron-will-save-tories-2015
"This is one of the least abusive political forums that i know of, perhaps because of the betting slant."
I agree. Anyway give me an abusive poster over a dull whiny one any day.
My objection to the site is the moderator whose user name we're not allowed to know (which is itself Kafkaesque). I understand an internet site can't afford a libel lawyer so erring on the side of caution is understandable.
Nonetheless the moderator on this site is so cautious and illogical that this site is often the only one on the internet not discussing subjects of the moment. It's NOT a difficult judgement call.
All they need to do is tap into the legal advice of bigger organs than Mike's such as any TV station or national newspaper and allow any comment that has appeared in those with a link.
As OGH would say if you are unhappy with his site then you can always take your custom elsewhere.
You ignore the fact that media organisations have lawyers on tap and usually in-house who can advise on the likelihood of being sued for libel - and even they get it wrong sometimes or the proprietor/editor chooses to ignore their advice.
Mike does not have such an expensive luxury and the legal costs of having to defend a libel charge in court would be ruinous to him and his family.
If he did allow a direct quote from a newspaper with the direct link, then no comment on that quote would be allowable as we all know that certain people who constantly inhabit this site are completely unable to control themselves and so get banned. So for Mike it cannot be worth the risk.
Of course, if you were to put up a personal guarantee of say £10m plus the associated disclaimer absolving Mike from all responsibility for what you may say, then things conceivably may be possible - but it is Mike's site. If you are not happy, start up your own and we all can comment on it.