Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Conservative party sweepstake

1235»

Comments

  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    edited May 2019
    Dura_Ace said:





    That'll be the pensions companies she is referring to.
    My father recently supplied the following searing political analysis while watching RLB on TV:

    "I wouldn't like to see her tackle a forkful of chips."
    I hadn’t seen her or heard her speak before this morning. She really didn’t come across as terribly bright.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Comparing the Brexit Party's PR and marketing this campaign to CUK's is like comparing the Ritz to a travelodge

    They’ve got some serious political operators working for TBP. Assuming it was done deliberately, everyone missed it until they saw the logo in the context of a ballot paper.

    One gets the impression that Farage has spent a couple of years planning this campaign in the background - the contrast with the CUKs is massive.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,089
    > @HYUFD said:
    > > @williamglenn said:
    > > https://twitter.com/trevorbmbagency/status/1128244202117185536
    >
    > Comparing the Brexit Party's PR and marketing this campaign to CUK's is like comparing the Ritz to a travelodge

    I wonder if there's a real problem here.
    For most of my voting life, ability to run an election campaign was a reasonable proxy for ability to run a government. Vote Leave, and now the Brexit Party, seem to have broken that link. You can't fault the BP's marketing, but everyone knows that there is nothing and nobody behind it, and that doesn't seem to matter.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Sandpit, the choices the CUKs made do, and did, seem inexplicable.

    Reportedly asking for would-be Conservative defectors to hold off hasn't turned out very well. There's plenty of generals but not much in the way of soldiers. There was a very fair media wind, which they squandered.

    The only significant piece of bad luck they had was Watson keeping others in Labour from jumping (I wonder if he regrets that). Otherwise, their misfortune seems entirely of their own making.

    Nice contrast for the Lib Dems, though.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    > @SquareRoot said:
    > Grretings from Menorca.. overheard in a bar in s'algar.. 4 ex pats plotting to sign up to the brexit party at £25 a pop.

    Immigrants. Not ex-pats. They are not there on a short-term work assignment, they have moved their permanently. Immigrants.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    > @williamglenn said:
    > https://twitter.com/trevorbmbagency/status/1128244202117185536

    Do you think Trevor meant 'mocked' or 'mocked up'. If the latter I hope he's ashamed of himself!

    (For those who don't know TB he's a well known art director known for ads such as 'flying pigs' 'Fagin' and FCUK and among other things.)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    .

    A number of people keep asking, “where do you draw the line?”

    We now know the answer to that: when you kick-up a sufficiently large stink about something on social media.

    It’s a terribly unjust way to make policy and employment decisions, and effectively amounts to virtual mob rule by whoever can shout the loudest, but that’s the world we now live in.
    I'm not on Twitter and haven't been closely following it, but is that what happened in the case of the Jeremy Kyle show? I got the impression that ITV pulled the show without much external pressure. Was there a Twitter campaign against it?

    It does make me wonder exactly what happened in this sad case. The JK has always prided itself on its aftercare (whether rightly or not) - I wonder if that system failed badly?

    I daresay the inquest will tell us more.
    It’s quite amazing that this sort of incident hasn’t happened before, so they must have had a reasonable amount of counselling in place for those who had appeared. One hopes that this support continues as the show gets cancelled, for those who have been involved in previous episodes.

    The last time I remember something like this occurring on a TV show was way back in 1986, when Noel Edmonds’ The Late, Late, Breakfast Show was binned after a stunt went wrong and a member of the public involved in the stunt was killed.
    If they are stupid enough to want to go on these pathetic shows for losers then they are responsible for their own actions. Going on a shit TV show only highlights the problems they already have. No sympathy whatsoever.
    Malcolm, the show subjected a guest to a lie detector test (a device so unreliable its use is admissible in court), the results of which so distressed him that he killed himself. If your show has reached the point where the participants are dying, then it's probably a good point to step back and take stock.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    It's odd that those who rail against descriptions of Leave voters as naive, ill informed suckers, yet think those same Leavers are the type of folk who will vote a particular way because there's a big fat arrow pointing to a box.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Divvie, not really.

    People who want no deal or want to express their dislike of remain/May's deal were very likely to vote BP anyway.

    It's the floating voter who is open to persuasion.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    If I was a Tory, interested above all else in electoral success of the party, I would undoubtedly vote Boris. He is the one I am most "afraid" of as a non tory. Sure his appeal isn't as strong as it once was but he remains pretty much one of the only tories ever to be seen as likable by the general public. Yet I don't think he will make it to the final two, he is too hated by his colleagues
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2019
    Interesting that TBP’s leaflets show the cross in the box to the *left* of their logo. They were clearly waiting for the ballot papers to get printed. Genius.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6h3ABuW0AAk5IV?format=jpg&name=large
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Tonda, not sure he flies in the north.

    Being mayor of London means parties such as the SNP, Plaid, or the Yorkshire Party [latter is very small currently but we've seen how quickly things can change] could point at Boris as someone who'll be a London-centric leader.

    A question is also whether said leader would face Corbyn or someone else.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    .

    A number of people keep asking, “where do you draw the line?”

    We now know the answer to that: when you kick-up a sufficiently large stink about something on social media.

    It’s a terribly unjust way to make policy and employment decisions, and effectively amounts to virtual mob rule by whoever can shout the loudest, but that’s the world we now live in.
    I'm not on Twitter and haven't been closely following it, but is that what happened in the case of the Jeremy Kyle show? I got the impression that ITV pulled the show without much external pressure. Was there a Twitter campaign against it?

    It does make me wonder exactly what happened in this sad case. The JK has always prided itself on its aftercare (whether rightly or not) - I wonder if that system failed badly?

    I daresay the inquest will tell us more.
    It’s quite amazing that this sort of incident hasn’t happened before, so they must have had a reasonable amount of counselling in place for those who had appeared. One hopes that this support continues as the show gets cancelled, for those who have been involved in previous episodes.

    The last time I remember something like this occurring on a TV show was way back in 1986, when Noel Edmonds’ The Late, Late, Breakfast Show was binned after a stunt went wrong and a member of the public involved in the stunt was killed.
    If they are stupid enough to want to go on these pathetic shows for losers then they are responsible for their own actions. Going on a shit TV show only highlights the problems they already have. No sympathy whatsoever.
    That might be true - and it is of course your prerogative to feel no sympathy.

    However, it cannot absolve those involved in the program of responsibility for their actions. Which the producers appear to have recognised.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Betting Bollocks.

    Any thoughts on the Womens World Cup? I think France at 7/2 and Australia at 14/1 are both decent value.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535





    That'll be the pensions companies she is referring to.
    I would guess that most working people have a private pension, and almost all of them are going to have some UK utilities or railways stock. So Labour are basically proposing to take property from UK pensioners, and pay them less than it is worth. If the Tories were even half competent they ought to be able to beat the crap out of Labour with that.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    It's odd that those who rail against descriptions of Leave voters as naive, ill informed suckers, yet think those same Leavers are the type of folk who will vote a particular way because there's a big fat arrow pointing to a box.

    The initial complaint wasn't the "Leavers are stupid and will simply follow the arrow", it was that all people have a subconcious bias towards such symbols.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Is this the proposed definition of islamaphobia ?
    Took quite a bit of rooting through the report...

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c3d2febbd1a90cffdd8a9/t/5bfd1ea3352f531a6170ceee/1543315109493/Islamophobia+Defined.pdf
    ISLAMOPHOBIA IS ROOTED IN RACISM AND IS A TYPE OF RACISM THAT TARGETS EXPRESSIONS OF MUSLIMNESS OR PERCEIVED MUSLIMNESS.
    The proposed definition of Islamophobia can be illustrated by a range of guidelines and examples rather than a list of essential features, which we feel would confine a prescriptiveness to its understanding to the detriment of contextual and fluid factors which continue to inform and shape manifestations of Islamophobia.
    We found the IHRA explanatory notes and examples both helpful and informative and it inspired much of the thinking of Parliamentarians engaged in this process of proposing a working definition of Islamophobia. The explanatory notes provided under the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism could, in all fairness, be adopted in their entirety to Islamophobia...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    contd.

    Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
    • Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/ fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.
    • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.
    • Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.
    • Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
    • Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
    • Denying Muslim populations the right to self- determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of
    an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.
    • Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, eg loyalty tests.
    • Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.
    • Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Nigelb said:

    contd.

    (Snip)

    • Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.
    • Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
    • Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
    • Denying Muslim populations the right to self- determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of
    an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.
    • Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, eg loyalty tests.
    • Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.
    • Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic....

    Thanks, that's very useful. Some of those are reasonable IMO; others less so. for example: "• Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims." would seem to give Muslim majority states the ability to invent or exaggerate cases of Islamaphobia without being able to criticise them.

    or:

    "• Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies." would hopefully not disallow criticism of ISIS wrt (say) the Syrian Assyrian population or the Yazidis, or of criticising the grooming gangs (though IMO that's more a cultural event than a religious one).

    As ever, a massive problem is when people take things done by some of a group and say that the whole group are like it. "Some Muslims are terrorists," is mostly a reasonable comment. "All Muslims are terrorists," is not.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    > @HYUFD said:

    > > @williamglenn said:

    > >



    >

    > Comparing the Brexit Party's PR and marketing this campaign to CUK's is like comparing the Ritz to a travelodge



    I wonder if there's a real problem here.

    For most of my voting life, ability to run an election campaign was a reasonable proxy for ability to run a government. Vote Leave, and now the Brexit Party, seem to have broken that link. You can't fault the BP's marketing, but everyone knows that there is nothing and nobody behind it, and that doesn't seem to matter.
    It's how things work now- presidents good and bad and mediocre are being elected with no experience, sometimes no policies, other than slick marketing and slogans
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    > @kle4 said:
    > > @HYUFD said:
    >
    > > > @williamglenn said:
    >
    > > > https://twitter.com/trevorbmbagency/status/1128244202117185536
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > Comparing the Brexit Party's PR and marketing this campaign to CUK's is like comparing the Ritz to a travelodge
    >
    >
    >
    > I wonder if there's a real problem here.
    >
    > For most of my voting life, ability to run an election campaign was a reasonable proxy for ability to run a government. Vote Leave, and now the Brexit Party, seem to have broken that link. You can't fault the BP's marketing, but everyone knows that there is nothing and nobody behind it, and that doesn't seem to matter.
    >
    > It's how things work now- presidents good and bad and mediocre are being elected with no experience, sometimes no policies, other than slick marketing and slogans

    This is a result of cutting out a lot of middlemen who actually played an important role in democracy but have been disparaged for holding positions of privilege and taking power away from 'the people'.

    If you leave decisions to those who know the candidates and the role best, you inevitably have decisions taken with more consideration (albeit also with more self-interest), than if they're taken by those with little interest in, or knowledge of, the people and their qualities. However, doing that restricts the vote to a small circle.

    Removing those middlemen, even as gatekeepers, enables populism and demagogary to get a lot further.

    Obviously, there's no perfect protection against populism and sloganising and party leaders with MPs and activists have indulged in it since time immemorial but there was at least usually something practical (or believed to be practical) behind those slogans.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    edited May 2019
    viewcode said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    .

    A number of people keep asking, “where do you draw the line?”

    We now know the answer to that: when you kick-up a sufficiently large stink about something on social media.

    It’s a terribly unjust way to make policy and employment decisions, and effectively amounts to virtual mob rule by whoever can shout the loudest, but that’s the world we now live in.
    I'm not on Twitter and haven't been closely following it, but is that what happened in the case of the Jeremy Kyle show? I got the impression that ITV pulled the show without much external pressure. Was there a Twitter campaign against it?

    It does make me wonder exactly what happened in this sad case. The JK has always prided itself on its aftercare (whether rightly or not) - I wonder if that system failed badly?

    I daresay the inquest will tell us more.
    It’s quite amazing that this sort of incident hasn’t happened before, so they must have had a reasonable amount of counselling in place for those who had appeared. One hopes that this support continues as the show gets cancelled, for those who have been involved in previous episodes.

    The last time I remember something like this occurring on a TV show was way back in 1986, when Noel Edmonds’ The Late, Late, Breakfast Show was binned after a stunt went wrong and a member of the public involved in the stunt was killed.
    If they are stupid enough to want to go on these pathetic shows for losers then they are responsible for their own actions. Going on a shit TV show only highlights the problems they already have. No sympathy whatsoever.
    Malcolm, the show subjected a guest to a lie detector test (a device so unreliable its use is admissible in court), the results of which so distressed him that he killed himself. If your show has reached the point where the participants are dying, then it's probably a good point to step back and take stock.
    I do agree but find it hard to believe there is anyone left on the planet who does not know that lie detectors are a total joke.
    I suppose some people need to be saved from themselves.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Nigelb said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    .

    A number of people keep asking, “where do you draw the line?”

    We now know the answer to that: when you kick-up a sufficiently large stink about something on social media.

    It’s a terribly unjust way to make policy and employment decisions, and effectively amounts to virtual mob rule by whoever can shout the loudest, but that’s the world we now live in.
    I'm not on Twitter and haven't been closely following it, but is that what happened in the case of the Jeremy Kyle show? I got the impression that ITV pulled the show without much external pressure. Was there a Twitter campaign against it?

    It does make me wonder exactly what happened in this sad case. The JK has always prided itself on its aftercare (whether rightly or not) - I wonder if that system failed badly?

    I daresay the inquest will tell us more.
    It’s quite amazing that this sort of incident hasn’t happened before, so they must have had a reasonable amount of counselling in place for those who had appeared. One hopes that this support continues as the show gets cancelled, for those who have been involved in previous episodes.

    The last time I remember something like this occurring on a TV show was way back in 1986, when Noel Edmonds’ The Late, Late, Breakfast Show was binned after a stunt went wrong and a member of the public involved in the stunt was killed.
    If they are stupid enough to want to go on these pathetic shows for losers then they are responsible for their own actions. Going on a shit TV show only highlights the problems they already have. No sympathy whatsoever.
    That might be true - and it is of course your prerogative to feel no sympathy.

    However, it cannot absolve those involved in the program of responsibility for their actions. Which the producers appear to have recognised.
    Yes , it is poor that these companies can dupe simple people just so they can be exploited for money. I still reckon that anyone approached by any of these types of programmes should realise they are just cannon fodder. Hopefully the producers are having trouble sleeping at night but I doubt it.
This discussion has been closed.