Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The spread markets the Tories down a touch but still heading f

2456

Comments

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,777
    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    Sort of interesting that what they're trying to achieve is an enforced STV .

    I recently read a book called 'chaotic elections' by a chap called Donald Saari. It's a bit technical and mathematical and I wouldn't suggest you buy it, nonetheless its an interesting read in that it mainly concludes that all electoral systems have real problems.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited November 2019
    camel said:

    egg said:

    camel said:

    Cookie said:

    Another Labour PPC gone for anti-Semitism. The party is riddled with it.

    So what's that so far? Three for views on the Jews (Cov S, Pudsey and Gordon?) and one for death threats to people deemed insufficiently in favour of transsexuals (Edin SW)? Plus the candidate in Bassetlaw forced out for not being extreme enough? Is that right?
    Are Cov South and Pudsey confirmed binnings, or are they still on the ropes?
    The candidate in Pudsey's comments were hardly egregious. In the clip I heard she absolutely didn't make the comparison between celebrating the death of Blair and Hitler.

    Overblown.
    It’s an election. Everything will be like an Arm after a flu jab.

    8 years ago on social media they liked a fantastic goal, but that was scored by the evil rivals of the constituency they delighted last week to be selected for, in this febrile bubble once that like is discovered they’re toast. 😏
    There was a 12 second gap before she came up with Hitler.

    I like to imagine she was going to say "yeah we had a proper piss up when thatcher died", had second thoughts and conjured up hitler, an individual whose reputation it is literally impossible to traduce.
    So at a moment when her party’s very existence is being threatened by the alleged antisemitism of its current leader, she came up with an especially convoluted way to compare a former leader to Hitler because she didn’t want to mention Thatcher?

    Should be barred from standing for complete lack of judgment. I suppose we’re sure she’s not Justin in disguise?
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    camel said:

    egg said:

    camel said:

    Cookie said:

    Another Labour PPC gone for anti-Semitism. The party is riddled with it.

    So what's that so far? Three for views on the Jews (Cov S, Pudsey and Gordon?) and one for death threats to people deemed insufficiently in favour of transsexuals (Edin SW)? Plus the candidate in Bassetlaw forced out for not being extreme enough? Is that right?
    Are Cov South and Pudsey confirmed binnings, or are they still on the ropes?
    The candidate in Pudsey's comments were hardly egregious. In the clip I heard she absolutely didn't make the comparison between celebrating the death of Blair and Hitler.

    Overblown.
    It’s an election. Everything will be like an Arm after a flu jab.

    8 years ago on social media they liked a fantastic goal, but that was scored by the evil rivals of the constituency they delighted last week to be selected for, in this febrile bubble once that like is discovered they’re toast. 😏
    There was a 12 second gap before she came up with Hitler.

    I like to imagine she was going to say "yeah we had a proper piss up when thatcher died", had second thoughts and conjured up hitler, an individual whose reputation it is literally impossible to traduce.
    Even Hitler had a cult following.

    But yeah, lots of young people who weren’t even born till the nineties had a piss up and dance with the munchkins when Thatch died. They weren’t even around to see how she was the outstanding politician of her era, ran a tight ship and bestrode the commons.

    So where did they get all that?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    Has Roger commented on Richard Tice for Hartlepool yet?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    TudorRose said:

    dr_spyn said:

    BBC points West has Jo Swinson trying explain why there is a pact with The Greens in Bristol West.

    She can't trust Labour on Remain, but avoided explaining why Greens policies are at variance with Lib Dem values.


    And is she a Unionist? I assume she is when in Scotland but not when she's in Wales.
    If you’re genuinely having problems understanding, I’ll try to explain.

    PC and the LDs agree on the undesirability of Brexit; they also agree strongly on the desirability of PR. Both of which issues are of some relevance to the coming election - and one of which is of some urgency.

    They disagree fundamentally on Welsh independence. But since support for it in Wales is somewhere around 30%, it is an issue on which they can agree to disagree without causing huge problems in this particular election.

    An electoral pact is not an ideal choice, but under FPTP it is better than the alternatives.

    Are you a little slow, or just trolling ? I will make no assumptions.
  • nichomar said:

    egg said:

    Facebook: we would let Tories run 'doctored' Starmer video as ad

    Social network says policy of allowing misinformation opens up political debate

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/07/facebook-we-would-let-tories-run-doctored-starmer-video-as-ad

    Yeah nothing improves political debate quite like a load of lies. Social media is killing democracy.
    Social media certainly having impact on society, culture, politics and democracy. Rather like those who stood on bridge at Chernobyl to watch the fire, maybe we don’t appreciate at the time what is happening to us.
    I go through my Facebook feed and delete anybody that posts politics, it’s not there for that and if any of my ‘friends’ think their rant will change my vote they are mistaken. I lost 50% of my social contact base over the referendum and I’m not going down that road again. Don’t talk about it in social settings, keep gob shut, only actually get involved in process technicalities not policies. Life is, socially,to short to fall out over politics. If people revert to type and make racist or homophobic comments I’ll challenge them but not linkedtopolitics but human values.
    I must admit I do have a strict policy of not posting about politics on my FB page. I broke it once the day after the referendum with a simple post thaht I was both relieved and satisfied. Even that I deleted later because I was not interested in alienating Remainer friends.

    I have a great many 'friends' on FB who are more colleagues or contacts for the various hobbies. organisations and jobs I am involved with. A fair few of them post politics and once in a while I get fed up and get into an argument but it never ends well so generally just end up either unfriending or blocking their postings.

    I do have a few PB posters I am friends with including RCS100, SeanT and Nick Palmer. But mostly that is for reasons unconnected with politics.
  • alb1onalb1on Posts: 698
    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Very strange:

    The BBC was apparently happy for Nick Conrad to continue to work for them for 5 years as a radio presenter after his controversial comments.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans

    That's why Sky News are going big on this today.

    All the 'the BBC are monitoring your internet' tinfoil hat nonsense aimed at Kirsty Strickland should have seen him booted out.

    Sky reporting that it came up in the selection meeting, but he still got the nod.

    One of the other candidates was a female Counterterrorism expert, for goodness' sake. Why not pick her over some two bit shock jock with a history of unwise comments on rape cases?
    One of the more broken aspects of our democracy, in a field of stiff competition, is candidate selection.
    Although Conrad's views do seem more aligned to Westminster morality judging by the various sexual scandals in Labour and Conservative parties.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    Sort of interesting that what they're trying to achieve is an enforced STV .

    I recently read a book called 'chaotic elections' by a chap called Donald Saari. It's a bit technical and mathematical and I wouldn't suggest you buy it, nonetheless its an interesting read in that it mainly concludes that all electoral systems have real problems.

    The problem is if I can’t vote for the Liberal Democrats the Greens would not necessarily be my second choice.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,899
    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    It's an error for you and I appreciate that but in any negotiation there has to be some give and take. The idea is to maximise the pro-REMAIN vote where possible and local considerations also count. It may well be the Greens have three members in Cannock Chase and the LDs have two - I don't know.

    It's not easy to tell local campaigners and activists they have to stand aside for another party but if there's no organisation and no one to tell it gets a lot easier.
  • ydoethur said:

    camel said:

    egg said:

    camel said:

    Cookie said:

    Another Labour PPC gone for anti-Semitism. The party is riddled with it.

    So what's that so far? Three for views on the Jews (Cov S, Pudsey and Gordon?) and one for death threats to people deemed insufficiently in favour of transsexuals (Edin SW)? Plus the candidate in Bassetlaw forced out for not being extreme enough? Is that right?
    Are Cov South and Pudsey confirmed binnings, or are they still on the ropes?
    The candidate in Pudsey's comments were hardly egregious. In the clip I heard she absolutely didn't make the comparison between celebrating the death of Blair and Hitler.

    Overblown.
    It’s an election. Everything will be like an Arm after a flu jab.

    8 years ago on social media they liked a fantastic goal, but that was scored by the evil rivals of the constituency they delighted last week to be selected for, in this febrile bubble once that like is discovered they’re toast. 😏
    There was a 12 second gap before she came up with Hitler.

    I like to imagine she was going to say "yeah we had a proper piss up when thatcher died", had second thoughts and conjured up hitler, an individual whose reputation it is literally impossible to traduce.
    So at a moment when her party’s very existence is being threatened by the alleged antisemitism of its current leader, she came up with an especially convoluted was to compare a former leader to Hitler because she didn’t want to mention Thatcher?

    Should be barre from standing for complete lack of judgment. I suppose we’re sure she’s not Justin in disguise?
    I believe she was in the SWP until about 5 minutes ago. Yet another extreme left entryist who may become an MP.

    Good work Ed Milliband. Just outstanding.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    egg said:

    camel said:

    egg said:

    camel said:

    Cookie said:

    Another Labour PPC gone for anti-Semitism. The party is riddled with it.

    So what's that so far? Three for views on the Jews (Cov S, Pudsey and Gordon?) and one for death threats to people deemed insufficiently in favour of transsexuals (Edin SW)? Plus the candidate in Bassetlaw forced out for not being extreme enough? Is that right?
    Are Cov South and Pudsey confirmed binnings, or are they still on the ropes?
    The candidate in Pudsey's comments were hardly egregious. In the clip I heard she absolutely didn't make the comparison between celebrating the death of Blair and Hitler.

    Overblown.
    It’s an election. Everything will be like an Arm after a flu jab.

    8 years ago on social media they liked a fantastic goal, but that was scored by the evil rivals of the constituency they delighted last week to be selected for, in this febrile bubble once that like is discovered they’re toast. 😏
    There was a 12 second gap before she came up with Hitler.

    I like to imagine she was going to say "yeah we had a proper piss up when thatcher died", had second thoughts and conjured up hitler, an individual whose reputation it is literally impossible to traduce.
    Even Hitler had a cult following.

    But yeah, lots of young people who weren’t even born till the nineties had a piss up and dance with the munchkins when Thatch died. They weren’t even around to see how she was the outstanding politician of her era, ran a tight ship and bestrode the commons.

    So where did they get all that?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMeL9kqODEU

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    Sort of interesting that what they're trying to achieve is an enforced STV .

    I recently read a book called 'chaotic elections' by a chap called Donald Saari. It's a bit technical and mathematical and I wouldn't suggest you buy it, nonetheless its an interesting read in that it mainly concludes that all electoral systems have real problems.

    The problem is if I can’t vote for the Liberal Democrats the Greens would not necessarily be my second choice.
    The problem is that the current electoral system forces substantially less than ideal options, whether they have an electoral pact or not.
  • nichomar said:

    egg said:

    Facebook: we would let Tories run 'doctored' Starmer video as ad

    Social network says policy of allowing misinformation opens up political debate

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/07/facebook-we-would-let-tories-run-doctored-starmer-video-as-ad

    Yeah nothing improves political debate quite like a load of lies. Social media is killing democracy.
    Social media certainly having impact on society, culture, politics and democracy. Rather like those who stood on bridge at Chernobyl to watch the fire, maybe we don’t appreciate at the time what is happening to us.
    I go through my Facebook feed and delete anybody that posts politics, it’s not there for that and if any of my ‘friends’ think their rant will change my vote they are mistaken. I lost 50% of my social contact base over the referendum and I’m not going down that road again. Don’t talk about it in social settings, keep gob shut, only actually get involved in process technicalities not policies. Life is, socially,to short to fall out over politics. If people revert to type and make racist or homophobic comments I’ll challenge them but not linkedtopolitics but human values.
    I must admit I do have a strict policy of not posting about politics on my FB page. I broke it once the day after the referendum with a simple post thaht I was both relieved and satisfied. Even that I deleted later because I was not interested in alienating Remainer friends.

    I have a great many 'friends' on FB who are more colleagues or contacts for the various hobbies. organisations and jobs I am involved with. A fair few of them post politics and once in a while I get fed up and get into an argument but it never ends well so generally just end up either unfriending or blocking their postings.

    I do have a few PB posters I am friends with including RCS100, SeanT and Nick Palmer. But mostly that is for reasons unconnected with politics.
    SeanT doesn't post on PB :smiley:
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    nichomar said:

    egg said:

    Facebook: we would let Tories run 'doctored' Starmer video as ad

    Social network says policy of allowing misinformation opens up political debate

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/07/facebook-we-would-let-tories-run-doctored-starmer-video-as-ad

    Yeah nothing improves political debate quite like a load of lies. Social media is killing democracy.
    Social media certainly having impact on society, culture, politics and democracy. Rather like those who stood on bridge at Chernobyl to watch the fire, maybe we don’t appreciate at the time what is happening to us.
    I go through my Facebook feed and delete anybody that posts politics, it’s not there for that and if any of my ‘friends’ think their rant will change my vote they are mistaken. I lost 50% of my social contact base over the referendum and I’m not going down that road again. Don’t talk about it in social settings, keep gob shut, only actually get involved in process technicalities not policies. Life is, socially,to short to fall out over politics. If people revert to type and make racist or homophobic comments I’ll challenge them but not linkedtopolitics but human values.
    I must admit I do have a strict policy of not posting about politics on my FB page. I broke it once the day after the referendum with a simple post thaht I was both relieved and satisfied. Even that I deleted later because I was not interested in alienating Remainer friends.

    I have a great many 'friends' on FB who are more colleagues or contacts for the various hobbies. organisations and jobs I am involved with. A fair few of them post politics and once in a while I get fed up and get into an argument but it never ends well so generally just end up either unfriending or blocking their postings.

    I do have a few PB posters I am friends with including RCS100, SeanT and Nick Palmer. But mostly that is for reasons unconnected with politics.
    SeanT doesn't post on PB :smiley:
    Who knew that male modelling involved so much global travel?
  • stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    It's an error for you and I appreciate that but in any negotiation there has to be some give and take. The idea is to maximise the pro-REMAIN vote where possible and local considerations also count. It may well be the Greens have three members in Cannock Chase and the LDs have two - I don't know.

    It's not easy to tell local campaigners and activists they have to stand aside for another party but if there's no organisation and no one to tell it gets a lot easier.
    The problem with this remain single issue pact is that the GE is to elect a HOC for 5 years so how on earth can voters know the various policies. Jo Swinson is anti Independence in Scotland but in a pact with the party of Welsh Independence in Wales
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,777
    edited November 2019
    egg said:


    Even Hitler had a cult following.

    He had very much more than that.

    He wasn't at the time some sort of nutjob - he was the mainstream. The horrors of that time wouldn't matter one jot if it was just a madman. The horrors of that time involved people like us on PB.

    Edit: bad things that madmen do also matter obviously, and the actual facts should haunt us forever. (you have my full agreement on such points)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,254
    FPT: Someone mentioned Gedling vs Ashfield.

    Gedling is like a slice of pie from Central Nottingham out through family-type suburbs (Unis are the other side of the City) and out into villages beyond, which are more a but more prosperous and where pros live type countryside even though there used to be some pits.

    Ashfield is from what are becoming Nottingham outer-suburbs (Hucknall) out into what was mining country. Altogether more gritty.

    Gedling Borough is a Lab majority with Tory, LibDem and a small Indy minority.

    HTH slightly.
  • alb1onalb1on Posts: 698

    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    It's an error for you and I appreciate that but in any negotiation there has to be some give and take. The idea is to maximise the pro-REMAIN vote where possible and local considerations also count. It may well be the Greens have three members in Cannock Chase and the LDs have two - I don't know.

    It's not easy to tell local campaigners and activists they have to stand aside for another party but if there's no organisation and no one to tell it gets a lot easier.
    The problem with this remain single issue pact is that the GE is to elect a HOC for 5 years so how on earth can voters know the various policies. Jo Swinson is anti Independence in Scotland but in a pact with the party of Welsh Independence in Wales
    A minor quibble compared to;

    the quantum brexit policy of Labour (hold all policies simultaneously and a random one decoheres when the question is raised) and

    the question of how you tell if Boris is lying (if his mouth is open).
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    egg said:

    Facebook: we would let Tories run 'doctored' Starmer video as ad

    Social network says policy of allowing misinformation opens up political debate

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/07/facebook-we-would-let-tories-run-doctored-starmer-video-as-ad

    Yeah nothing improves political debate quite like a load of lies. Social media is killing democracy.
    Social media certainly having impact on society, culture, politics and democracy. Rather like those who stood on bridge at Chernobyl to watch the fire, maybe we don’t appreciate at the time what is happening to us.
    I go through my Facebook feed and delete anybody that posts politics, it’s not there for that and if any of my ‘friends’ think their rant will change my vote they are mistaken. I lost 50% of my social contact base over the referendum and I’m not going down that road again. Don’t talk about it in social settings, keep gob shut, only actually get involved in process technicalities not policies. Life is, socially,to short to fall out over politics. If people revert to type and make racist or homophobic comments I’ll challenge them but not linkedtopolitics but human values.
    I must admit I do have a strict policy of not posting about politics on my FB page. I broke it once the day after the referendum with a simple post thaht I was both relieved and satisfied. Even that I deleted later because I was not interested in alienating Remainer friends.

    I have a great many 'friends' on FB who are more colleagues or contacts for the various hobbies. organisations and jobs I am involved with. A fair few of them post politics and once in a while I get fed up and get into an argument but it never ends well so generally just end up either unfriending or blocking their postings.

    I do have a few PB posters I am friends with including RCS100, SeanT and Nick Palmer. But mostly that is for reasons unconnected with politics.
    I suppose in many ways politics has either enhanced/ruined my life, cemented/destroyed potential friendships etc/etc would I do the same again? I don’t think so I would have given that time to my family and my job but hindsight is great. I was always bored arguing about football etc and needed something more challenging. Life is what it is and nobody knows what is round the corner. The anonymous arguments here are harmless and pass the lonely hours but taking it out into the real word is a no no
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    alb1on said:

    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    It's an error for you and I appreciate that but in any negotiation there has to be some give and take. The idea is to maximise the pro-REMAIN vote where possible and local considerations also count. It may well be the Greens have three members in Cannock Chase and the LDs have two - I don't know.

    It's not easy to tell local campaigners and activists they have to stand aside for another party but if there's no organisation and no one to tell it gets a lot easier.
    The problem with this remain single issue pact is that the GE is to elect a HOC for 5 years so how on earth can voters know the various policies. Jo Swinson is anti Independence in Scotland but in a pact with the party of Welsh Independence in Wales
    A minor quibble compared to;

    the quantum brexit policy of Labour (hold all policies simultaneously and a random one decoheres when the question is raised) and

    the question of how you tell if Boris is lying (if his mouth is open).
    That’s unfair. He’s fully literate and can therefore write his lies down with his mouth fully closed as well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    Sort of interesting that what they're trying to achieve is an enforced STV .

    I recently read a book called 'chaotic elections' by a chap called Donald Saari. It's a bit technical and mathematical and I wouldn't suggest you buy it, nonetheless its an interesting read in that it mainly concludes that all electoral systems have real problems.

    The problem is if I can’t vote for the Liberal Democrats the Greens would not necessarily be my second choice.
    The problem is that the current electoral system forces substantially less than ideal options, whether they have an electoral pact or not.
    Yes, but my concern is this electoral pact seems likely to make that worse, not better.
  • alb1onalb1on Posts: 698
    ydoethur said:

    alb1on said:

    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    It's an error for you and I appreciate that but in any negotiation there has to be some give and take. The idea is to maximise the pro-REMAIN vote where possible and local considerations also count. It may well be the Greens have three members in Cannock Chase and the LDs have two - I don't know.

    It's not easy to tell local campaigners and activists they have to stand aside for another party but if there's no organisation and no one to tell it gets a lot easier.
    The problem with this remain single issue pact is that the GE is to elect a HOC for 5 years so how on earth can voters know the various policies. Jo Swinson is anti Independence in Scotland but in a pact with the party of Welsh Independence in Wales
    A minor quibble compared to;

    the quantum brexit policy of Labour (hold all policies simultaneously and a random one decoheres when the question is raised) and

    the question of how you tell if Boris is lying (if his mouth is open).
    That’s unfair. He’s fully literate and can therefore write his lies down with his mouth fully closed as well.
    You are quite right. I had forgotten all that experience he gained at the Telegraph.
  • TudorRose said:

    dr_spyn said:

    BBC points West has Jo Swinson trying explain why there is a pact with The Greens in Bristol West.

    She can't trust Labour on Remain, but avoided explaining why Greens policies are at variance with Lib Dem values.


    And is she a Unionist? I assume she is when in Scotland but not when she's in Wales.
    An LD being different things to different people? Has this ever happened before?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,254
    egg said:

    camel said:

    egg said:

    camel said:

    Cookie said:

    Another Labour PPC gone for anti-Semitism. The party is riddled with it.

    So what's that so far? Three for views on the Jews (Cov S, Pudsey and Gordon?) and one for death threats to people deemed insufficiently in favour of transsexuals (Edin SW)? Plus the candidate in Bassetlaw forced out for not being extreme enough? Is that right?
    Are Cov South and Pudsey confirmed binnings, or are they still on the ropes?
    The candidate in Pudsey's comments were hardly egregious. In the clip I heard she absolutely didn't make the comparison between celebrating the death of Blair and Hitler.

    Overblown.
    It’s an election. Everything will be like an Arm after a flu jab.

    8 years ago on social media they liked a fantastic goal, but that was scored by the evil rivals of the constituency they delighted last week to be selected for, in this febrile bubble once that like is discovered they’re toast. 😏
    There was a 12 second gap before she came up with Hitler.

    I like to imagine she was going to say "yeah we had a proper piss up when thatcher died", had second thoughts and conjured up hitler, an individual whose reputation it is literally impossible to traduce.
    Even Hitler had a cult following.

    But yeah, lots of young people who weren’t even born till the nineties had a piss up and dance with the munchkins when Thatch died. They weren’t even around to see how she was the outstanding politician of her era, ran a tight ship and bestrode the commons.

    So where did they get all that?
    Constant repetition of "no such thing as society" (a misquote) and similar linked with casual blamings for everything under the sun. "Mandela was a terrorist" (also a misquote) etc.
  • Reflecting on the weather today and the forecast ahead with dark early nights, I do not see the walkabouts or door knocking at anything like normal GE levels and it begs the question whether this GE will be won on social media and the TV debates, or even just Boris 's charisma above all else

    We do need someone to preach a positive and optimistic messagge, unlike Corbyn' s non stop misery and doom, the election 'Grinch'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    It is interesting to note when I was in Malta, everyone including the French described Macron as a twat.

    This sort of thing is why:

    Nato alliance experiencing brain death, says Macron
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50335257

    He’s rapidly turning into Trump with a better hairdresser.
  • AndyJS said:

    Very strange:

    The BBC was apparently happy for Nick Conrad to continue to work for them for 5 years as a radio presenter after his controversial comments.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans

    That's why Sky News are going big on this today.

    All the 'the BBC are monitoring your internet' tinfoil hat nonsense aimed at Kirsty Strickland should have seen him booted out.

    Sky reporting that it came up in the selection meeting, but he still got the nod.

    One of the other candidates was a female Counterterrorism expert, for goodness' sake. Why not pick her over some two bit shock jock with a history of unwise comments on rape cases?
    We are now in the age of two bit shock jocks, the age of experts (including female Counterterrorism ones) has passed.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,899


    The problem with this remain single issue pact is that the GE is to elect a HOC for 5 years so how on earth can voters know the various policies. Jo Swinson is anti Independence in Scotland but in a pact with the party of Welsh Independence in Wales

    Well, the last Parliament barely got past half way so there's an assumption or two in that. I suspect IF we fail to get a majority Government there will be an election within another 12-18 months.

    If Boris Johnson wants to make this election about getting Brexit done, he can't be surprised when those opposed make it about getting Brexit not done or stopped.

    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    Omnium said:

    egg said:

    egg said:

    So these databases the parties harvest and crunch details about us to target us, how do we actually know they are all legal, Does anyone come in to inspect them to sign certificate that they are playing fair, like an MOT?

    How big a crime is it to steal a General Election through breaking the law?

    Thinking back to how bearings bank went down, a fraudster asking for money when declaring profits much less than what was asking for given the money despite no income coming in from what he was selling, that occurred because the people who should have picked up on it weren’t stupid, it was just a new world to them and they didn’t understand it, they were out of their depths in terms of monitoring and auditing it.

    So what’s stopping betting on and getting involved in GE19 from turning out like a Tour de France, when what you thought was fair and heroic turns out to be unfair and illegal?

    That's not what happened at Barings.

    He made huge profits on unauthorised trades, then eventually it went bad, then he made it worse by trying to cover the loss.
    He was declaring imaginary profits, asking for more money, what he claimed he had sold wasn’t bring in income, but that’s not my point, he got away with the crime because trading like that was new way of doing things for old style bank, and those monitoring and auditing in back office were out of their depths for new fangled things.

    Is there fairness and legality in the harvesting and use of data on us, the people, in this election? Are those policing the law around these databases and systems out of their depth in what is going on?
    TSE was succinct in what he said about Barings, and essentially right. Other comments above aren't right, and the original poster is very far from right.

    Of course there's fairness in harvesting data. Everything you see, hear, or feel is available to you to make decisions. If you had an army of scribes stick that in a database then that'd be fine.

    We're just not used to people having total recollection of what happened last night. (Or on the shopping trip, or whether you went for large fries)



    The original poster was me. 😄 As well as the comments above.

    Happy to take you on on this one, because I am confident I know what went on and the lesson to draw from it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhcpcuZvV4

    And I have described it quite succinctly and related it to crimes being got away with today for a very similar reason.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,236
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    Sort of interesting that what they're trying to achieve is an enforced STV .

    I recently read a book called 'chaotic elections' by a chap called Donald Saari. It's a bit technical and mathematical and I wouldn't suggest you buy it, nonetheless its an interesting read in that it mainly concludes that all electoral systems have real problems.

    The problem is if I can’t vote for the Liberal Democrats the Greens would not necessarily be my second choice.
    The problem is that the current electoral system forces substantially less than ideal options, whether they have an electoral pact or not.
    Yes, but my concern is this electoral pact seems likely to make that worse, not better.
    Well that is a more reasonable objection than any that have so far been raised.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Reflecting on the weather today and the forecast ahead with dark early nights, I do not see the walkabouts or door knocking at anything like normal GE levels and it begs the question whether this GE will be won on social media and the TV debates, or even just Boris 's charisma above all else

    We do need someone to preach a positive and optimistic messagge, unlike Corbyn' s non stop misery and doom, the election 'Grinch'

    Boris Johnson calling his opponents "yoke mates of destruction" is positive is it? Numpty.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533
    MattW said:

    FPT: Someone mentioned Gedling vs Ashfield.

    Gedling is like a slice of pie from Central Nottingham out through family-type suburbs (Unis are the other side of the City) and out into villages beyond, which are more a but more prosperous and where pros live type countryside even though there used to be some pits.

    Ashfield is from what are becoming Nottingham outer-suburbs (Hucknall) out into what was mining country. Altogether more gritty.

    Gedling Borough is a Lab majority with Tory, LibDem and a small Indy minority.

    HTH slightly.

    Yes, I agree with that description. It's the nortern suburbs, while Rushcliffe (Ken Clarke) is the southern suburbs and Broxtowe is the western suburbs. Rushcliffe is a bit more socially divided than Broxtowe - there are some very wealthy bits and some very poor bits. Broxtowe is a bit of everything - one street is one of the 10 richest in Britain, but there is also an edge of the old coalfield with retired miners. But Broxtowe is more middle-class overall - the reason it's competitive is the huge number of university people there - not so much students as staff.

    Vernon is an excellent constituency MP and a good fit to the constituency, but I was impressed by the poll on the last thread, showing a swing of only 2.5% to the Tories.
  • stodge said:


    The problem with this remain single issue pact is that the GE is to elect a HOC for 5 years so how on earth can voters know the various policies. Jo Swinson is anti Independence in Scotland but in a pact with the party of Welsh Independence in Wales

    Well, the last Parliament barely got past half way so there's an assumption or two in that. I suspect IF we fail to get a majority Government there will be an election within another 12-18 months.

    If Boris Johnson wants to make this election about getting Brexit done, he can't be surprised when those opposed make it about getting Brexit not done or stopped.

    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.
    Now then. I did not say I see Boris as a Macron figure

    I said that for Boris to gain a workable majority, he has to become a Macron type figure and capture the nation

    They are not the same
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    Sort of interesting that what they're trying to achieve is an enforced STV .

    I recently read a book called 'chaotic elections' by a chap called Donald Saari. It's a bit technical and mathematical and I wouldn't suggest you buy it, nonetheless its an interesting read in that it mainly concludes that all electoral systems have real problems.

    The problem is if I can’t vote for the Liberal Democrats the Greens would not necessarily be my second choice.
    The problem is that the current electoral system forces substantially less than ideal options, whether they have an electoral pact or not.
    Yes, but my concern is this electoral pact seems likely to make that worse, not better.
    Well that is a more reasonable objection than any that have so far been raised.
    Basically, unless Grahame Wiggin stands as an independent I am now left with a choice of voting for the Greens, who are Corbyn with a different colour rosette, the Tories, who are scarcely better, or not voting at all, which not being by nature somebody who backs out of things is even less appealing.

    I do not see that as progress.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    stodge said:


    The problem with this remain single issue pact is that the GE is to elect a HOC for 5 years so how on earth can voters know the various policies. Jo Swinson is anti Independence in Scotland but in a pact with the party of Welsh Independence in Wales

    Well, the last Parliament barely got past half way so there's an assumption or two in that. I suspect IF we fail to get a majority Government there will be an election within another 12-18 months.

    If Boris Johnson wants to make this election about getting Brexit done, he can't be surprised when those opposed make it about getting Brexit not done or stopped.

    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.
    Now then. I did not say I see Boris as a Macron figure

    I said that for Boris to gain a workable majority, he has to become a Macron type figure and capture the nation

    They are not the same
    I don’t see what the objection is to comparing Macron to Johnson. They’re both shallow populists who ratted on their former colleagues to massage their own egos and have no clue what they’re doing.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,899

    stodge said:


    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.

    Now then. I did not say I see Boris as a Macron figure

    I said that for Boris to gain a workable majority, he has to become a Macron type figure and capture the nation

    They are not the same
    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Just seen the list of remain alliance seats. The LDs standing down in Exeter is fantastic news for Ben Bradshaw. He must be ecstatically happy.

    Yes although he was very unlikely to lose the seat anyway.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I can see the Greens getting two seats (although one is presumably more likely). I don't see how they could get the four seats needed for you to not lose money.

    The Bristol one does look hopeful for them
    I can't think of any scenarios in which Thangam Debbonaire would lose her seat.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    stodge said:

    stodge said:


    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.

    Now then. I did not say I see Boris as a Macron figure

    I said that for Boris to gain a workable majority, he has to become a Macron type figure and capture the nation

    They are not the same
    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Sad we are in such a position, is there an alternative that isn’t a lunatic socialist or a amoral pathological liar?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited November 2019
    nichomar said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:


    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.

    Now then. I did not say I see Boris as a Macron figure

    I said that for Boris to gain a workable majority, he has to become a Macron type figure and capture the nation

    They are not the same
    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Sad we are in such a position, is there an alternative that isn’t a lunatic socialist or a amoral pathological liar?
    Not in Cannock Chase, annoyingly.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    stodge said:

    stodge said:


    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.

    Now then. I did not say I see Boris as a Macron figure

    I said that for Boris to gain a workable majority, he has to become a Macron type figure and capture the nation

    They are not the same
    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Your final sentence sums up this election

    Those are the only 2 who will become pm and by god it can't be Corbyn.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,777
    egg said:

    Omnium said:

    egg said:



    That's not what happened at Barings.

    He made huge profits on unauthorised trades, then eventually it went bad, then he made it worse by trying to cover the loss.

    He was declaring imaginary profits, asking for more money, what he claimed he had sold wasn’t bring in income, but that’s not my point, he got away with the crime because trading like that was new way of doing things for old style bank, and those monitoring and auditing in back office were out of their depths for new fangled things.

    Is there fairness and legality in the harvesting and use of data on us, the people, in this election? Are those policing the law around these databases and systems out of their depth in what is going on?
    TSE was succinct in what he said about Barings, and essentially right. Other comments above aren't right, and the original poster is very far from right.

    Of course there's fairness in harvesting data. Everything you see, hear, or feel is available to you to make decisions. If you had an army of scribes stick that in a database then that'd be fine.

    We're just not used to people having total recollection of what happened last night. (Or on the shopping trip, or whether you went for large fries)



    The original poster was me. 😄 As well as the comments above.

    Happy to take you on on this one, because I am confident I know what went on and the lesson to draw from it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhcpcuZvV4

    And I have described it quite succinctly and related it to crimes being got away with today for a very similar reason.

    You're just quoting a documentary though. The facts there aren't right.

    What was Leeson selling for example? (He wasn't)

    What you posted is just plain wrong. It's not even a plausible interpretation of the truth. You're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of finance and markets.

    The general gist of what you say though isn't wrong. The particulars most definitely are.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,899
    Floater said:

    stodge said:


    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Your final sentence sums up this election

    Those are the only 2 who will become pm and by god it can't be Corbyn.
    No, it's perfectly possible neither will be PM. The more votes for other parties, the less likely either the Conservatives or Labour will get a majority and under that circumstance, it's very likely BOTH Boris J and Jeremy C will be out.

    It's possible their replacements will be even worse but that's a tough ask.

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:


    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.

    Now then. I did not say I see Boris as a Macron figure

    I said that for Boris to gain a workable majority, he has to become a Macron type figure and capture the nation

    They are not the same
    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Sad we are in such a position, is there an alternative that isn’t a lunatic socialist or a amoral pathological liar?
    Not in Cannock Chase, annoyingly.
    I’ve just sorted our proxy votes for Yeovil where I have actually put some reasonable amounts of cash into the campaign. It’s not in the headlines but they have the organization on the ground, very successful local results, have the cash and a dynamic candidate fighting a Tory with the IQ of a goldfish. But DYOR
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Sort of interesting that what they're trying to achieve is an enforced STV .
    I recently read a book called 'chaotic elections' by a chap called Donald Saari. It's a bit technical and mathematical and I wouldn't suggest you buy it, nonetheless its an interesting read in that it mainly concludes that all electoral systems have real problems.

    The problem is if I can’t vote for the Liberal Democrats the Greens would not necessarily be my second choice.
    The problem is that the current electoral system forces substantially less than ideal options, whether they have an electoral pact or not.
    Yes, but my concern is this electoral pact seems likely to make that worse, not better.
    Well that is a more reasonable objection than any that have so far been raised.
    Basically, unless Grahame Wiggin stands as an independent I am now left with a choice of voting for the Greens, who are Corbyn with a different colour rosette, the Tories, who are scarcely better, or not voting at all, which not being by nature somebody who backs out of things is even less appealing.
    I do not see that as progress.
    I hope all of you are now thoroughly convinced of the merits of STV. Not only is your vote transferable, so that if your first choice does not need it, for whatever reason, you vote can then move on to you next preference. Neither you, nor the political parties, have to guess who is in the running.

    Moreover, you can choose among candidates of the same party. It`s wonderful!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    AndyJS said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I can see the Greens getting two seats (although one is presumably more likely). I don't see how they could get the four seats needed for you to not lose money.

    The Bristol one does look hopeful for them
    I can't think of any scenarios in which Thangam Debbonaire would lose her seat.
    37,336 majority. Can't see The Greens getting close, given the quality of the candidate. Unimpressed by her as a councillor.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    PClipp said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Sort of interesting that what they're trying to achieve is an enforced STV .
    I recently read a book called 'chaotic elections' by a chap called Donald Saari. It's a bit technical and mathematical and I wouldn't suggest you buy it, nonetheless its an interesting read in that it mainly concludes that all electoral systems have real problems.

    The problem is if I can’t vote for the Liberal Democrats the Greens would not necessarily be my second choice.
    The problem is that the current electoral system forces substantially less than ideal options, whether they have an electoral pact or not.
    Yes, but my concern is this electoral pact seems likely to make that worse, not better.
    Well that is a more reasonable objection than any that have so far been raised.
    Basically, unless Grahame Wiggin stands as an independent I am now left with a choice of voting for the Greens, who are Corbyn with a different colour rosette, the Tories, who are scarcely better, or not voting at all, which not being by nature somebody who backs out of things is even less appealing.
    I do not see that as progress.
    I hope all of you are now thoroughly convinced of the merits of STV. Not only is your vote transferable, so that if your first choice does not need it, for whatever reason, you vote can then move on to you next preference. Neither you, nor the political parties, have to guess who is in the running.

    Moreover, you can choose among candidates of the same party. It`s wonderful!
    Not sure of the merits of STV, but I am becoming increasingly convinced of the demerits of the current system.
  • alb1on said:

    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    It's an error for you and I appreciate that but in any negotiation there has to be some give and take. The idea is to maximise the pro-REMAIN vote where possible and local considerations also count. It may well be the Greens have three members in Cannock Chase and the LDs have two - I don't know.

    It's not easy to tell local campaigners and activists they have to stand aside for another party but if there's no organisation and no one to tell it gets a lot easier.
    The problem with this remain single issue pact is that the GE is to elect a HOC for 5 years so how on earth can voters know the various policies. Jo Swinson is anti Independence in Scotland but in a pact with the party of Welsh Independence in Wales
    A minor quibble compared to;

    the quantum brexit policy of Labour (hold all policies simultaneously and a random one decoheres when the question is raised) and

    the question of how you tell if Boris is lying (if his mouth is open).
    Boris was sacked twice for lying:

    In 1988 from The Times, over making up quotes from historian Colin Lucas (his own godfather)

    In 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench, over the Petronella Wyatt affair.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:


    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.

    Now then. I did not say I see Boris as a Macron figure

    I said that for Boris to gain a workable majority, he has to become a Macron type figure and capture the nation

    They are not the same
    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Sad we are in such a position, is there an alternative that isn’t a lunatic socialist or a amoral pathological liar?
    Not in Cannock Chase, annoyingly.
    I’ve just sorted our proxy votes for Yeovil where I have actually put some reasonable amounts of cash into the campaign. It’s not in the headlines but they have the organization on the ground, very successful local results, have the cash and a dynamic candidate fighting a Tory with the IQ of a goldfish. But DYOR
    A goldfish? I thought he had the attention span of a Marcus Fysh?
  • stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    I note that the Liberal Democrats are standing down for the Greens in Cannock Chase.

    I think this is probably for a number of reasons. First off, in 2017 the Greens were ahead of the Liberal Democrats. Admittedly, it was by 815 to 794 but as Churchill said, a majority of one is a majority. Second, the Liberal Democrat organisation round here is only just emerging from years of being effectively moribund. They also hadn’t picked their candidate afaik. Meanwhile the Greens are small, but well-organised, vocal and prominent. They also have in Paul Woodhead a local candidate who will be standing in his third election. Third, the obvious Liberal Democrat targets are all in Birmingham and that is where they will doubtless want to focus local energy (unless they take leave of their senses and target Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield).

    At the same time, I think it’s an error. I would have voted Liberal Democrat without a qualm, but I am almost certainly not going to vote Green, less because of their views than because they have nothing useful to say on a national level. So it is not going to have he effect they hoped.

    It also leaves me with an extremely difficult decision to make.

    It's an error for you and I appreciate that but in any negotiation there has to be some give and take. The idea is to maximise the pro-REMAIN vote where possible and local considerations also count. It may well be the Greens have three members in Cannock Chase and the LDs have two - I don't know.

    It's not easy to tell local campaigners and activists they have to stand aside for another party but if there's no organisation and no one to tell it gets a lot easier.
    The problem with this remain single issue pact is that the GE is to elect a HOC for 5 years so how on earth can voters know the various policies. Jo Swinson is anti Independence in Scotland but in a pact with the party of Welsh Independence in Wales
    Voters cant tell the policies anyway, most of the time we will have a hung parliament where policies will be adapted and traded off between parties. Most of the rest of the time we will have a small majority Tory government who will be subject to the whims of individual MPs to implement the leaderships preferred policies. And that is before we get to the impact of events, which could be very significant with Brexit and its aftermath. And that is before we get to politicians lying or dissembling!

    Far, far better for voters to prioritise values and competence than policy promises, as those are important in a hung parliament or small majority situation.

    The Unite to Remain gang are highlighting their value of being able to work together with others they often disagree with.

    That is something I very much welcome and am fully on board with.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    PClipp said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Sort of interesting that what they're trying to achieve is an enforced STV .
    I recently read a book called 'chaotic elections' by a chap called Donald Saari. It's a bit technical and mathematical and I wouldn't suggest you buy it, nonetheless its an interesting read in that it mainly concludes that all electoral systems have real problems.

    The problem is if I can’t vote for the Liberal Democrats the Greens would not necessarily be my second choice.
    The problem is that the current electoral system forces substantially less than ideal options, whether they have an electoral pact or not.
    Yes, but my concern is this electoral pact seems likely to make that worse, not better.
    Well that is a more reasonable objection than any that have so far been raised.
    Basically, unless Grahame Wiggin stands as an independent I am now left with a choice of voting for the Greens, who are Corbyn with a different colour rosette, the Tories, who are scarcely better, or not voting at all, which not being by nature somebody who backs out of things is even less appealing.
    I do not see that as progress.
    I hope all of you are now thoroughly convinced of the merits of STV. Not only is your vote transferable, so that if your first choice does not need it, for whatever reason, you vote can then move on to you next preference. Neither you, nor the political parties, have to guess who is in the running.

    Moreover, you can choose among candidates of the same party. It`s wonderful!
    And also that nice decent person from the party who I don’t normally support can also get a look in. STV multi member constituencies with open lists is the only way forward. If you don’t understand how that works you should be able to vote
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    Far, far better for voters to prioritise values and competence than policy promises

    Which party of the current crop of shysters, racists, drunks, tax evaders and intellectually challenged liars meets this rather exacting criteria of yours?

    Although, in fairness, your username may suggest a clue...
  • Mike Gapes was outside Ilford station handing out leaflets this evening - but I was so surprised to see him campaigning I didn't bother taking one!
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:


    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.

    Now then. I did not say I see Boris as a Macron figure

    I said that for Boris to gain a workable majority, he has to become a Macron type figure and capture the nation

    They are not the same
    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Sad we are in such a position, is there an alternative that isn’t a lunatic socialist or a amoral pathological liar?
    Not in Cannock Chase, annoyingly.
    I’ve just sorted our proxy votes for Yeovil where I have actually put some reasonable amounts of cash into the campaign. It’s not in the headlines but they have the organization on the ground, very successful local results, have the cash and a dynamic candidate fighting a Tory with the IQ of a goldfish. But DYOR
    A goldfish? I thought he had the attention span of a Marcus Fysh?
    Well there was a large pot hole outside Paddy’s house which was just down the road from where we lived that was called the Fysh pond because he could never get it repaired.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    Mike Gapes was outside Ilford station handing out leaflets this evening - but I was so surprised to see him campaigning I didn't bother taking one!

    Who was he campaigning for, now the Tiggers have been unbounced?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,845
    edited November 2019
    stodge said:

    Floater said:

    stodge said:


    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Your final sentence sums up this election

    Those are the only 2 who will become pm and by god it can't be Corbyn.
    No, it's perfectly possible neither will be PM. The more votes for other parties, the less likely either the Conservatives or Labour will get a majority and under that circumstance, it's very likely BOTH Boris J and Jeremy C will be out.

    It's possible their replacements will be even worse but that's a tough ask.

    Smith, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Corybn
    Cameron, May, Johnson

    A long time since one of the big two elected a better leader than their predecessor. Looking through both parties it seems 75% of the time they choose a clearly worse leader and then occassionally stumble on someone good, generally when their party is at or just coming back from rock bottom.

    I do like the idea of both the current two being out however unlikely that may be.
  • ydoethur said:

    Far, far better for voters to prioritise values and competence than policy promises

    Which party of the current crop of shysters, racists, drunks, tax evaders and intellectually challenged liars meets this rather exacting criteria of yours?

    Although, in fairness, your username may suggest a clue...
    It is a relative contest! I probably pay more attention to the calibre and voting record of the individual MP/candidate than most.
  • It is so cold even the Scots are feeling it.

    https://twitter.com/andrewrobertso5/status/1192517653832851456
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Hysterical clapping and cheering in political rallies is not a good development. This is a considered debate not a pop concert. Packed audiences with supporters purporting to be public meetings are a disgrace.i don’t want a stage managed farce that I am watching now it’s a fucking disgrace. Media don’t broadcast it. it doesn’t inform-and just pisses people off.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Interesting thread by Lewis Goodall on the Remain Alliance. Well-worth reading in full IMO.

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1192475588734390272
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    stodge said:

    Floater said:

    stodge said:


    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Your final sentence sums up this election

    Those are the only 2 who will become pm and by god it can't be Corbyn.
    No, it's perfectly possible neither will be PM. The more votes for other parties, the less likely either the Conservatives or Labour will get a majority and under that circumstance, it's very likely BOTH Boris J and Jeremy C will be out.

    It's possible their replacements will be even worse but that's a tough ask.

    Smith, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Corybn
    Cameron, May, Johnson

    A long time since one of the big two elected a better leader than their predecessor. Looking through both parties it seems 75% of the time they choose a clearly worse leader and then occassionally stumble on someone good, generally when their party is at or just coming back from rock bottom.

    I do like the idea of both the current two being out however unlikely that may be.
    Swinson miles better than Farron. This GE is turning into a bit of a no-brainier. If you’re in England, and want competent government LD is the only credible choice. Unless you live in Cannock Chase, of course ...
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited November 2019
    ydoethur said:

    Mike Gapes was outside Ilford station handing out leaflets this evening - but I was so surprised to see him campaigning I didn't bother taking one!

    Who was he campaigning for, now the Tiggers have been unbounced?
    Soubs, Gapes and Leslie are standing as tiggers/indies. The other 2 have thrown in the towel
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    dr_spyn said:
    Was that a comment on Johnson’s policy or Corbyn’s character?
  • stodge said:

    Floater said:

    stodge said:


    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Your final sentence sums up this election

    Those are the only 2 who will become pm and by god it can't be Corbyn.
    No, it's perfectly possible neither will be PM. The more votes for other parties, the less likely either the Conservatives or Labour will get a majority and under that circumstance, it's very likely BOTH Boris J and Jeremy C will be out.

    It's possible their replacements will be even worse but that's a tough ask.

    Smith, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Corybn
    Cameron, May, Johnson

    A long time since one of the big two elected a better leader than their predecessor. Looking through both parties it seems 75% of the time they choose a clearly worse leader and then occassionally stumble on someone good, generally when their party is at or just coming back from rock bottom.

    I do like the idea of both the current two being out however unlikely that may be.
    Swinson miles better than Farron. This GE is turning into a bit of a no-brainier. If you’re in England, and want competent government LD is the only credible choice. Unless you live in Cannock Chase, of course ...
    Agree Swinson a clear improvement on Farron and Uncle Vince, but they are not part of the big 2.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,124
    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:


    I realise you see Boris as some kind of Macron figure (which he isn't) who can unify the country (which he can't) and lead us to a prosperous future (which he won't) and I fear Johnson will win but if he doesn't and we are faced with a NOM Parliament again, the questions I asked earlier in the week would be valid.

    Now then. I did not say I see Boris as a Macron figure

    I said that for Boris to gain a workable majority, he has to become a Macron type figure and capture the nation

    They are not the same
    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Sad we are in such a position, is there an alternative that isn’t a lunatic socialist or a amoral pathological liar?
    Not in Cannock Chase, annoyingly.
    I’ve just sorted our proxy votes for Yeovil where I have actually put some reasonable amounts of cash into the campaign. It’s not in the headlines but they have the organization on the ground, very successful local results, have the cash and a dynamic candidate fighting a Tory with the IQ of a goldfish. But DYOR
    A goldfish? I thought he had the attention span of a Marcus Fysh?
    Well there was a large pot hole outside Paddy’s house which was just down the road from where we lived that was called the Fysh pond because he could never get it repaired.
    This is a PB pun in real life and deserves more likes.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    stodge said:

    Floater said:

    stodge said:


    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Your final sentence sums up this election

    Those are the only 2 who will become pm and by god it can't be Corbyn.
    No, it's perfectly possible neither will be PM. The more votes for other parties, the less likely either the Conservatives or Labour will get a majority and under that circumstance, it's very likely BOTH Boris J and Jeremy C will be out.

    It's possible their replacements will be even worse but that's a tough ask.

    Smith, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Corybn
    Cameron, May, Johnson

    A long time since one of the big two elected a better leader than their predecessor. Looking through both parties it seems 75% of the time they choose a clearly worse leader and then occassionally stumble on someone good, generally when their party is at or just coming back from rock bottom.

    I do like the idea of both the current two being out however unlikely that may be.
    Swinson miles better than Farron. This GE is turning into a bit of a no-brainier. If you’re in England, and want competent government LD is the only credible choice. Unless you live in Cannock Chase, of course ...
    Agree Swinson a clear improvement on Farron and Uncle Vince, but they are not part of the big 2.
    Gawd. I’d already forgotten about Vince!
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    edited November 2019
    I have never turned off any politician in full flow before tonight but Corbyn is beyond belief his rally makes kinnocks Sheffield disaster look like a wake. They, Johnson and Corbyn, should never have been let loose in politics.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Was that a comment on Johnson’s policy or Corbyn’s character?
    There appears to be a video clip on Twitter.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    dr_spyn said:
    What is the point of tweeting that? It is possible that if you were there you could tell by the guy's intonation whether he was calling Corbyn or Johnson a wanker. You can't from a tweet.
  • Amazing documentary on BBC4 about people behind the Berlin Wall writing to the BBC German service, and the Stasi's attempt to track them down.
  • stodge said:

    Floater said:

    stodge said:


    Boris will say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear - that doesn't make him a unifier but a populist.

    Sometimes you have to be pleasant to your opponents and tell your supporters things they don't want to hear. I've not heard a scintilla of compromise toward those of us not on the Conservative side and the continuing contempt for those who voted REMAIN is palpable.

    He's not a trustworthy figure or a figure who inspires faith. He'll probably win the election because he'll be able to fool enough people for long enough to get their vote but I think he will be an appalling Prime Minister.

    Yes I accept Corbyn would be worse on every level.

    Your final sentence sums up this election

    Those are the only 2 who will become pm and by god it can't be Corbyn.
    No, it's perfectly possible neither will be PM. The more votes for other parties, the less likely either the Conservatives or Labour will get a majority and under that circumstance, it's very likely BOTH Boris J and Jeremy C will be out.

    It's possible their replacements will be even worse but that's a tough ask.

    Smith, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Corybn
    Cameron, May, Johnson

    A long time since one of the big two elected a better leader than their predecessor. Looking through both parties it seems 75% of the time they choose a clearly worse leader and then occassionally stumble on someone good, generally when their party is at or just coming back from rock bottom.

    I do like the idea of both the current two being out however unlikely that may be.
    Swinson miles better than Farron. This GE is turning into a bit of a no-brainier. If you’re in England, and want competent government LD is the only credible choice. Unless you live in Cannock Chase, of course ...
    Agree Swinson a clear improvement on Farron and Uncle Vince, but they are not part of the big 2.
    Gawd. I’d already forgotten about Vince!
    Both Farron and Cable very forgettable.
  • Has Roger commented on Richard Tice for Hartlepool yet?

    I did say that Hartlepool was winnable for BrexKIP
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,721

    Has Roger commented on Richard Tice for Hartlepool yet?

    I did say that Hartlepool was winnable for BrexKIP
    Labour hold...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Ishmael_Z said:

    dr_spyn said:
    What is the point of tweeting that? It is possible that if you were there you could tell by the guy's intonation whether he was calling Corbyn or Johnson a wanker. You can't from a tweet.
    Has to be said, whoever the heckler was referring to, s/he was wrong. One of the problems with both of them is that they are prolific and compulsive womanisers rather than wankers.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    Any polls later?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    dr_spyn said:
    What is the point of tweeting that? It is possible that if you were there you could tell by the guy's intonation whether he was calling Corbyn or Johnson a wanker. You can't from a tweet.
    Has to be said, whoever the heckler was referring to, s/he was wrong. One of the problems with both of them is that they are prolific and compulsive womanisers rather than wankers.
    They may be both, it is not mutually exclusive!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Corbyn has Come out in favour of free movement?

    That's rather big isn't it.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2019-jeremy-corbyn-free-movement-of-people-brexit-u-turn-862988
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1192529679456129025
    Well, I would like to think this is true.

    If it is true, Labour are in for an absolute thumping.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    Has Roger commented on Richard Tice for Hartlepool yet?

    I did say that Hartlepool was winnable for BrexKIP
    He seems any even worse fit for Hartlepool than Mandy was, though.
  • Weren't Sky supposed to be doing daily polling?

    We need more polls.
  • alb1on said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Very strange:

    The BBC was apparently happy for Nick Conrad to continue to work for them for 5 years as a radio presenter after his controversial comments.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans

    That's why Sky News are going big on this today.

    All the 'the BBC are monitoring your internet' tinfoil hat nonsense aimed at Kirsty Strickland should have seen him booted out.

    Sky reporting that it came up in the selection meeting, but he still got the nod.

    One of the other candidates was a female Counterterrorism expert, for goodness' sake. Why not pick her over some two bit shock jock with a history of unwise comments on rape cases?
    One of the more broken aspects of our democracy, in a field of stiff competition, is candidate selection.
    Although Conrad's views do seem more aligned to Westminster morality judging by the various sexual scandals in Labour and Conservative parties.
    Given their smaller number of MPs, the Lib Dems and predecessors have had their moments too. One of my earliest memories of a named politician was hearing about the Jeremy Thorpe trial. More seriously there was Cyril Smith of course.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1192529679456129025
    Well, I would like to think this is true.

    If it is true, Labour are in for an absolute thumping.

    I’m beginning to think Labour are in for an absolute pasting - when two of your 2017 intake are openly advocating a vote for the other side, that really is unprecedented. Unfortunately, it almost certainly entails a large Tory majority.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Alistair said:
    It is the right thing to do, but knowing Cummings, the Tories will hammer them over it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited November 2019

    alb1on said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Very strange:

    The BBC was apparently happy for Nick Conrad to continue to work for them for 5 years as a radio presenter after his controversial comments.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans

    That's why Sky News are going big on this today.

    All the 'the BBC are monitoring your internet' tinfoil hat nonsense aimed at Kirsty Strickland should have seen him booted out.

    Sky reporting that it came up in the selection meeting, but he still got the nod.

    One of the other candidates was a female Counterterrorism expert, for goodness' sake. Why not pick her over some two bit shock jock with a history of unwise comments on rape cases?
    One of the more broken aspects of our democracy, in a field of stiff competition, is candidate selection.
    Although Conrad's views do seem more aligned to Westminster morality judging by the various sexual scandals in Labour and Conservative parties.
    Given their smaller number of MPs, the Lib Dems and predecessors have had their moments too. One of my earliest memories of a named politician was hearing about the Jeremy Thorpe trial. More seriously there was Cyril Smith of course.
    Lloyd George, Asquith, Gladstone, Palmerston...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    edited November 2019

    alb1on said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Very strange:

    The BBC was apparently happy for Nick Conrad to continue to work for them for 5 years as a radio presenter after his controversial comments.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans

    That's why Sky News are going big on this today.

    All the 'the BBC are monitoring your internet' tinfoil hat nonsense aimed at Kirsty Strickland should have seen him booted out.

    Sky reporting that it came up in the selection meeting, but he still got the nod.

    One of the other candidates was a female Counterterrorism expert, for goodness' sake. Why not pick her over some two bit shock jock with a history of unwise comments on rape cases?
    One of the more broken aspects of our democracy, in a field of stiff competition, is candidate selection.
    Although Conrad's views do seem more aligned to Westminster morality judging by the various sexual scandals in Labour and Conservative parties.
    Given their smaller number of MPs, the Lib Dems and predecessors have had their moments too. One of my earliest memories of a named politician was hearing about the Jeremy Thorpe trial. More seriously there was Cyril Smith of course.
    I always felt sorry for the dog and the pillow which seemed to suffer more than anybody else.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1192529679456129025
    Well, I would like to think this is true.

    If it is true, Labour are in for an absolute thumping.

    I’m beginning to think Labour are in for an absolute pasting - when two of your 2017 intake are openly advocating a vote for the other side, that really is unprecedented. Unfortunately, it almost certainly entails a large Tory majority.
    Enoch Powell in 1974 is the only similar example I can think of.
  • stodge said:

    Weekend

    Here comes the winter weather with snow in the north

    Here's an early view of the chart for Thursday December 12th at 6pm:

    http://modeles.meteociel.fr/modeles/cfs/runs/2019110706/run1m/cfs-0-852.png?06

    This chart will change A LOT in the next five weeks so don't take as gospel. The short term remains cold and unsettled through next week so not much fun for canvassers or deliverers.
    A deterministic forecast has almost no skill at this lead time. The forecast guidance from the Met Office is that uncertainty in the medium-range forecast is higher than usual.

    In the CFS system they will have an ensemble of forecasts and the probabilistic prediction is worth looking at, but if you looked at the postage stamp charts you would be able to find one for every type of weather.

    It's completely meaningless to look at a single chart.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1192529679456129025
    Well, I would like to think this is true.

    If it is true, Labour are in for an absolute thumping.

    I’m beginning to think Labour are in for an absolute pasting - when two of your 2017 intake are openly advocating a vote for the other side, that really is unprecedented. Unfortunately, it almost certainly entails a large Tory majority.
    Enoch Powell in 1974 is the only similar example I can think of.
    Any defector could be counted as well..

    So for example the prize prat Quentin Davies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Davies#Move_from_Conservative_Party_to_Labour_Party
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited November 2019

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1192529679456129025
    Well, I would like to think this is true.

    If it is true, Labour are in for an absolute thumping.

    I’m beginning to think Labour are in for an absolute pasting - when two of your 2017 intake are openly advocating a vote for the other side, that really is unprecedented. Unfortunately, it almost certainly entails a large Tory majority.
    Enoch Powell in 1974 is the only similar example I can think of.
    Any defector could be counted as well..

    So for example the prize prat Quentin Davies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Davies#Move_from_Conservative_Party_to_Labour_Party
    I was thinking of those who, having been elected for one party, advised people to vote for an alternative party without joining it. Defectors are a bit different.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,124
    Guido reckons Jess Phillips is going.

    The words "Guido reckons" are doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
  • nichomar said:

    alb1on said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Very strange:

    The BBC was apparently happy for Nick Conrad to continue to work for them for 5 years as a radio presenter after his controversial comments.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans

    That's why Sky News are going big on this today.

    All the 'the BBC are monitoring your internet' tinfoil hat nonsense aimed at Kirsty Strickland should have seen him booted out.

    Sky reporting that it came up in the selection meeting, but he still got the nod.

    One of the other candidates was a female Counterterrorism expert, for goodness' sake. Why not pick her over some two bit shock jock with a history of unwise comments on rape cases?
    One of the more broken aspects of our democracy, in a field of stiff competition, is candidate selection.
    Although Conrad's views do seem more aligned to Westminster morality judging by the various sexual scandals in Labour and Conservative parties.
    Given their smaller number of MPs, the Lib Dems and predecessors have had their moments too. One of my earliest memories of a named politician was hearing about the Jeremy Thorpe trial. More seriously there was Cyril Smith of course.
    I always felt sorry for the dog and the pillow which seemed to suffer more than anybody else.
    Thorpe would have been ok but for the shooting of the dog. There are some things the British Public will not put up with.
  • ydoethur said:

    alb1on said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Very strange:

    The BBC was apparently happy for Nick Conrad to continue to work for them for 5 years as a radio presenter after his controversial comments.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans

    That's why Sky News are going big on this today.

    All the 'the BBC are monitoring your internet' tinfoil hat nonsense aimed at Kirsty Strickland should have seen him booted out.

    Sky reporting that it came up in the selection meeting, but he still got the nod.

    One of the other candidates was a female Counterterrorism expert, for goodness' sake. Why not pick her over some two bit shock jock with a history of unwise comments on rape cases?
    One of the more broken aspects of our democracy, in a field of stiff competition, is candidate selection.
    Although Conrad's views do seem more aligned to Westminster morality judging by the various sexual scandals in Labour and Conservative parties.
    Given their smaller number of MPs, the Lib Dems and predecessors have had their moments too. One of my earliest memories of a named politician was hearing about the Jeremy Thorpe trial. More seriously there was Cyril Smith of course.
    Lloyd George, Asquith, Gladstone, Palmerston...
    I’m too young to remember them...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    The neglected and left behind need somebody desperately to fight for them but it isn’t nationalizing labour or tax reducing Tory. They may actually go for TBP but who can blame them they have been abandoned by both parties.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited November 2019
    Andrew Neil hilarious! Wonderful interview with the hapless Nadim Zahawi

    Worth watching on 'play it again' and again and again and again and again and again and again.....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    ydoethur said:

    alb1on said:

    ydoethur said:

    AndyJS said:

    Very strange:

    The BBC was apparently happy for Nick Conrad to continue to work for them for 5 years as a radio presenter after his controversial comments.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans

    That's why Sky News are going big on this today.

    All the 'the BBC are monitoring your internet' tinfoil hat nonsense aimed at Kirsty Strickland should have seen him booted out.

    Sky reporting that it came up in the selection meeting, but he still got the nod.

    One of the other candidates was a female Counterterrorism expert, for goodness' sake. Why not pick her over some two bit shock jock with a history of unwise comments on rape cases?
    One of the more broken aspects of our democracy, in a field of stiff competition, is candidate selection.
    Although Conrad's views do seem more aligned to Westminster morality judging by the various sexual scandals in Labour and Conservative parties.
    Given their smaller number of MPs, the Lib Dems and predecessors have had their moments too. One of my earliest memories of a named politician was hearing about the Jeremy Thorpe trial. More seriously there was Cyril Smith of course.
    Lloyd George, Asquith, Gladstone, Palmerston...
    I’m too young to remember them...
    Benin’s diaries include a time when he or one of his colleagues was on Anglesey and was introduced to an old man with the words, ‘I’ve been telling him you knew Lloyd George.’ Without a pause, the old man replied, ‘Lloyd George? Ah, he had a prick like a donkey!’

    Some things are never quite forgotten...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,717
    AndyJS said:

    Let's remind ourselves of Labour's 1983 manifesto:

    http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1983/1983-labour-manifesto.shtml

    Hmmm...

    On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.

    Following the publication of the White Paper, we will begin the main negotiations on withdrawal. Later, when appropriate and in the same parliament, we will use our powers to repeal the 1972 Act and abrogate the Treaty of Accession - thus breaking all of our formal links with the Community. Britain will at this point withdraw from the Council of Ministers and from the European Parliament.

    There will need to be a period of transition, to ensure a minimum of disruption - and to phase in any new agreements we might make with the Community. This will enable us to make all the necessary changes in our domestic legislation. Until these changes in UK law have taken place, the status quo as regards particular items of EEC legislation will remain. And this period will, of course, extend beyond the date when we cease, formally, to be members.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited November 2019

    AndyJS said:

    Let's remind ourselves of Labour's 1983 manifesto:

    http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1983/1983-labour-manifesto.shtml

    Hmmm...

    On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.

    Following the publication of the White Paper, we will begin the main negotiations on withdrawal. Later, when appropriate and in the same parliament, we will use our powers to repeal the 1972 Act and abrogate the Treaty of Accession - thus breaking all of our formal links with the Community. Britain will at this point withdraw from the Council of Ministers and from the European Parliament.

    There will need to be a period of transition, to ensure a minimum of disruption - and to phase in any new agreements we might make with the Community. This will enable us to make all the necessary changes in our domestic legislation. Until these changes in UK law have taken place, the status quo as regards particular items of EEC legislation will remain. And this period will, of course, extend beyond the date when we cease, formally, to be members.
    The manifesto Corbyn won an election on for the first time.

    It’s a good job he is a proper politician and changes his views to suit his audience, or we’d be in trouble here.
  • AndyJS said:

    Let's remind ourselves of Labour's 1983 manifesto:

    http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1983/1983-labour-manifesto.shtml

    Hmmm...

    On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.

    Following the publication of the White Paper, we will begin the main negotiations on withdrawal. Later, when appropriate and in the same parliament, we will use our powers to repeal the 1972 Act and abrogate the Treaty of Accession - thus breaking all of our formal links with the Community. Britain will at this point withdraw from the Council of Ministers and from the European Parliament.

    There will need to be a period of transition, to ensure a minimum of disruption - and to phase in any new agreements we might make with the Community. This will enable us to make all the necessary changes in our domestic legislation. Until these changes in UK law have taken place, the status quo as regards particular items of EEC legislation will remain. And this period will, of course, extend beyond the date when we cease, formally, to be members.
    Thank goodness there are no parties offering anything that batshit crazy this time eh!
This discussion has been closed.