politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is possible Jeremy Corbyn really hates political bettors

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is possible Jeremy Corbyn really hates political bettors

there would literally be one Leave leader and one Remain leader and I’m not making this up https://t.co/MfyMwtAtB9

Read the full story here

HYUFD

So if Labour lose having lost Leavers to the Brexit Party and the Tories and Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP they now have a cunning plan to accelerate the process

BannedInParis

Can I just say that the 'co-leaders' idea is actually brilliant and Labour should use it. If only for later generations to look back and wonder what the actual f*ck they were thinking.

FrancisUrquhart

Just when you think Labour can't come up with any more stupid ideas....

IanB2

In Mr Johnson, we have a man whom his Tory predecessor as prime minister regards as “morally unfit” to occupy Number 10. Anthony Seldon says this in his absorbing new book about Theresa May’s premiership and I believe it to be true because I’ve previously heard the same from my sources. Tory leaders have often had their differences with their successors, but as much as Ted Heath loathed Margaret Thatcher, I don’t recall him ever suggesting that she was too depraved to hold the office of prime minister.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/10/boris-johnson-versus-jeremy-corbyn-for-number-10-battle-of-unfittest

egg

HYUFD said:

So if Labour lose having lost Leavers to the Brexit Party and the Tories and Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP they now have a cunning plan to accelerate the process

You always give an answer and great rebuttal HY. The latest speculation about the suppressed security report, this time from the Pravda of the BBC, claim Tories suppressed it because Russians named in it are big donors to the Tory party, hence he who pays the piper plays the tune. 😮

What’s the right response? Surely rebutting attack where Labour get their money off unions just adds fuel to the fire as doesn’t actually rebutt?

Black_Rook

Just like the Roman Republic!

Are the two consuls going to fight each other to the death, with the winner appointing a puppet to occupy the empty slot to make it look as if nothing has changed?

Only they already did that with Tom Watson. Boring.

Morris_Dancer

After the Pidcock suggestion yesterday, I happened to see Ladbrokes have dead heat rules applying if there are two Labour leaders.

MattW

FPT:

Noo said:

dyedwoolie said:

Gardenwalker said:

dyedwoolie said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1193466847531802624?s=19

Greta gorn git her!

If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.

(She should have talked about offsetting).

Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics

How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.

Well 10 years of Westminster Pension Pot plus the post-expenses salary, plus 10 years of Euro Parliament Pension plus the MEP expenses for a decade.

Those 2 together should be around a million, plus the 200k+ pension pot we all have from a fully paid up UK Basic Pension. (Using multiple of 35-40, which is what you currently get for cashing a Final Salary pension in).

Suspect that CL is fairly clean on Parliamentary expenses, probably also compared to the average MEP whilst she was there.

Plus whatever she has accumulated from property and savings over 20 years of politics plus 15 years previsouly.

Plus whatever you make off the back of a PhD in Tudor Chick Lit.

£2-3 million?

Not as loaded as say Diane Abbott, but probably a 1-5 per-center.

Minus donations and other she has spent, which may be zero or may be substantial.

Fysics_Teacher

On the subject of PR, I can’t remember if I posted this:

kle4

Bettors are people who trivialise the grand cause by seeking to make money off it. Even if they believe in that same cause of course Corbyn would hate that.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not serious. Though the two leaderplan is pretty dumb.

Luckyguy1983

When JC first became Labour leader, he seemed to have a lot of ideas about democratising the party - like giving different people every week a crack at PMQs. Sensibly applied, some of these ideas could have probably really helped the party to survive its current agonies and some of its Brexit issues too, if whipping was unusual and free votes were more de rigeur. But it's too late now and this looks daft.

Black_Rook

BannedInParis said:

Can I just say that the 'co-leaders' idea is actually brilliant and Labour should use it. If only for later generations to look back and wonder what the actual f*ck they were thinking.

It makes one wonder how this is meant to work if they ever win another election. Will the two leaders be wanting to go to the Queen to resign and ask her to send for their colleague on a daily, weekly or monthly basis?

JBriskinindyref2

I've always liked the Green system of co-leaders Male/Female. (for example when I'm Lord Protector 2 I might co-lead with Ms Briskin)

Labour's idea seems a bit more confused.

Doubt Corby would be as spiteful as to do this just to piss off PBers (Boring market anyway - full of lightweights - no-body has a clue)

HYUFD

egg said:

HYUFD said:

So if Labour lose having lost Leavers to the Brexit Party and the Tories and Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP they now have a cunning plan to accelerate the process

You always give an answer and great rebuttal HY. The latest speculation about the suppressed security report, this time from the Pravda of the BBC, claim Tories suppressed it because Russians named in it are big donors to the Tory party, hence he who pays the piper plays the tune. 😮

What’s the right response? Surely rebutting attack where Labour get their money off unions just adds fuel to the fire as doesn’t actually rebutt?

The right response is to ignore it unless the donations were illegal

FrancisUrquhart

Black_Rook said:

BannedInParis said:

Can I just say that the 'co-leaders' idea is actually brilliant and Labour should use it. If only for later generations to look back and wonder what the actual f*ck they were thinking.

It makes one wonder how this is meant to work if they ever win another election. Will the two leaders be wanting to go to the Queen to resign and ask her to send for their colleague on a daily, weekly or monthly basis?

Typical socialists.....increasing inefficiency since 1848

MattW

Not good enough.

They also need a straight woman, a straight man, and one each of all the variations of LGBTIQXYZ.

Whose going to stand as the Genderqueer Gray Asexual Atheist?

On a separate note, Lammy and Long-Bailey would be ... interesting.

Have the Greens not used this type of model, with 4 speakers - following Hari Seldon's Galactic Encyclopaedia Foundation?

Luckyguy1983

IanB2 said:

In Mr Johnson, we have a man whom his Tory predecessor as prime minister regards as “morally unfit” to occupy Number 10. Anthony Seldon says this in his absorbing new book about Theresa May’s premiership and I believe it to be true because I’ve previously heard the same from my sources. Tory leaders have often had their differences with their successors, but as much as Ted Heath loathed Margaret Thatcher, I don’t recall him ever suggesting that she was too depraved to hold the office of prime minister.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/10/boris-johnson-versus-jeremy-corbyn-for-number-10-battle-of-unfittest

In a more deferential society with no internet, the moral terpitude of several PM's probably never made it into the public domain.

MarqueeMark

FrancisUrquhart said:

Just when you think Labour can't come up with any more stupid ideas....

Oh I don't know, the Greens had joint-leaders for a while and they went...

Ah.

kle4

kinabalu said:

dyedwoolie said:

Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy.
I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls

What is the point though?

That if you are a Green politician you should not fly?

Or if you do fly you should not be a Green politician?

That Caroline Lucas can hardly protest if people are judgemental about her actions, even if they are a bit unfair, given how she is very judgemental about the actions of others.

NickPalmer

MattW said:

Well 10 years of Westminster Pension Pot plus the post-expenses salary, plus 10 years of Euro Parliament Pension plus the MEP expenses for a decade.

Those 2 together should be around a million, plus the 200k+ pension pot we all have from a fully paid up UK Basic Pension. (Using multiple of 35-40, which is what you currently get for cashing a Final Salary pension in).

Suspect that CL is fairly clean on Parliamentary expenses, probably also compared to the average MEP whilst she was there.

Plus whatever she has accumulated from property and savings over 20 years of politics plus 15 years previsouly.

Plus whatever you make off the back of a PhD in Tudor Chick Lit.

£2-3 million?

Not as loaded as say Diane Abbott, but probably a 1-5 per-center.

Minus donations and other she has spent, which may be zero or may be substantial.

You appear to be assuming that she has spent nothing on anything ever, not even a vegan Bounty bar?

egg

HYUFD said:

egg said:

HYUFD said:

So if Labour lose having lost Leavers to the Brexit Party and the Tories and Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP they now have a cunning plan to accelerate the process

You always give an answer and great rebuttal HY. The latest speculation about the suppressed security report, this time from the Pravda of the BBC, claim Tories suppressed it because Russians named in it are big donors to the Tory party, hence he who pays the piper plays the tune. 😮

What’s the right response? Surely rebutting attack where Labour get their money off unions just adds fuel to the fire as doesn’t actually rebutt?

The right response is to ignore it unless the donations were illegal

You mean tough it out, despite the security report naming the donors? 🧐

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Just when you think Labour can't come up with any more stupid ideas....

Oh I don't know, the Greens had joint-leaders for a while and they went...

Ah.

They still do, the single leader thing just wasn't for them and they changed back.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, it's faintly amusing that I'm a better green by accident than the hypocritical and smug Caroline Lucas is.

And all without hectoring others to change their lifestyles.

kle4

NickPalmer said:

.You appear to be assuming that she has spent nothing on anything ever, not even a vegan Bounty bar?

True Greens subsist on organically grown cave moss and nothing else.

MattW

NickPalmer said:

MattW said:

Well 10 years of Westminster Pension Pot plus the post-expenses salary, plus 10 years of Euro Parliament Pension plus the MEP expenses for a decade.

Those 2 together should be around a million, plus the 200k+ pension pot we all have from a fully paid up UK Basic Pension. (Using multiple of 35-40, which is what you currently get for cashing a Final Salary pension in).

Suspect that CL is fairly clean on Parliamentary expenses, probably also compared to the average MEP whilst she was there.

Plus whatever she has accumulated from property and savings over 20 years of politics plus 15 years previsouly.

Plus whatever you make off the back of a PhD in Tudor Chick Lit.

£2-3 million?

Not as loaded as say Diane Abbott, but probably a 1-5 per-center.

Minus donations and other she has spent, which may be zero or may be substantial.

You appear to be assuming that she has spent nothing on anything ever, not even a vegan Bounty bar?

Salary is not even in that calculation, Nick, except for "whatever she has saved".

Black_Rook

It has now occurred to me that Labour's supposed plan contains another critical flaw.

Having one male and one female leader is horribly discriminatory towards non-binary persons. I'm actually surprised that no-one in the Labour movement has called the Greens out on this. Seriously.

Two leaders won't cut it. They'll have to have a Triumvirate.

egg

FrancisUrquhart said:

Black_Rook said:

BannedInParis said:

Can I just say that the 'co-leaders' idea is actually brilliant and Labour should use it. If only for later generations to look back and wonder what the actual f*ck they were thinking.

It makes one wonder how this is meant to work if they ever win another election. Will the two leaders be wanting to go to the Queen to resign and ask her to send for their colleague on a daily, weekly or monthly basis?

Typical socialists.....increasing inefficiency since 1848

I’m keeping your post Francis and will respond to it.

kyf_100

Just imagine if Brown and Blair had been co-leaders. It would have been Game of Thrones within a week.

MarqueeMark

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Just when you think Labour can't come up with any more stupid ideas....

Oh I don't know, the Greens had joint-leaders for a while and they went...

Ah.

They still do, the single leader thing just wasn't for them and they changed back.

Do both leaders get to appear in the TV debates?

Or is it like old-style Saturday afternoon grappling, with the tag team member flying in over the ropes to save their fellow leader being pummelled by Andrew Neil?

AnneJGP

Looking ahead, what happens with a two-LOTO opposition, or a two-PM government? I like the possibilities - job-sharing is common these days, and arguably these days the role of PM is too much for a single individual.

PMQs would take on a different nature, too, if a single PM has to cope with two LOTOs.

Or we could have one PM/LOTO who's good at actually being the PM/LOTO and the other PM/LOTO who's good at the PR.

Neat idea.

egg

kyf_100 said:

Just imagine if Brown and Blair had been co-leaders. It would have been Game of Thrones within a week.

With a better ending.

Peter_the_Punter

On the subject of Spartans, what news of Baker and Francois - Snowflakes now?

Fysics_Teacher

NickPalmer said:

MattW said:

Well 10 years of Westminster Pension Pot plus the post-expenses salary, plus 10 years of Euro Parliament Pension plus the MEP expenses for a decade.

Those 2 together should be around a million, plus the 200k+ pension pot we all have from a fully paid up UK Basic Pension. (Using multiple of 35-40, which is what you currently get for cashing a Final Salary pension in).

Suspect that CL is fairly clean on Parliamentary expenses, probably also compared to the average MEP whilst she was there.

Plus whatever she has accumulated from property and savings over 20 years of politics plus 15 years previsouly.

Plus whatever you make off the back of a PhD in Tudor Chick Lit.

£2-3 million?

Not as loaded as say Diane Abbott, but probably a 1-5 per-center.

Minus donations and other she has spent, which may be zero or may be substantial.

You appear to be assuming that she has spent nothing on anything ever, not even a vegan Bounty bar?

She is unlikely to have spent her pension pots yet. Those alone are probably north of £1 million in total.
I’m on a final salary pension myself so I know that they would cost a lot to replicate with a savings pot.

Edit for typos.

Ishmael_Z

Black_Rook said:

It has now occurred to me that Labour's supposed plan contains another critical flaw.

Having one male and one female leader is horribly discriminatory towards non-binary persons. I'm actually surprised that no-one in the Labour movement has called the Greens out on this. Seriously.

Two leaders won't cut it. They'll have to have a Triumvirate.

I can't believe you wrote triumvirate for triumfeminate. Gender Nazi.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Egg, it's interesting to contemplate how Antipater and Craterus would've gotten along had Craterus not fallen prey to a combination of Eumenes' skill and the misinformation supplied by an idiot whose name escapes me (been a little while since I read about the Diadochi, but he was encourage to attack and it turned out to be rather a mistake).

Black_Rook

Ishmael_Z said:

Black_Rook said:

It has now occurred to me that Labour's supposed plan contains another critical flaw.

Having one male and one female leader is horribly discriminatory towards non-binary persons. I'm actually surprised that no-one in the Labour movement has called the Greens out on this. Seriously.

Two leaders won't cut it. They'll have to have a Triumvirate.

I can't believe you wrote triumvirate for triumfeminate. Gender Nazi.

Forgive me, Pangendered Supreme Being, for I have sinned.

Fysics_Teacher

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

.You appear to be assuming that she has spent nothing on anything ever, not even a vegan Bounty bar?

True Greens subsist on organically grown cave moss and nothing else.

Though, to be fair, organic cave moss is hideously expensive if you get the sustainable brands...

Cyclefree

Black_Rook said:

It has now occurred to me that Labour's supposed plan contains another critical flaw.

Having one male and one female leader is horribly discriminatory towards non-binary persons. I'm actually surprised that no-one in the Labour movement has called the Greens out on this. Seriously.

Two leaders won't cut it. They'll have to have a Triumvirate.

As in France at the fag end of the Revolution. Then one of them can come out on top, become the new Napoleon and declare war on the rest of Europe and finally end up in St Helena where Governor Rees-Mogg will be there to welcome him/her and take him/her to their new home in the Governor’s barouche.

It is a fantastic idea and I am beside myself with excitement at the prospect!

Ave_it

LOL

Just had the LDs calling on me (Ruislip Northwood and Pinner)

I was very nice to them and wished them good luck in this constituency as they need it!

Ishmael_Z

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

In Mr Johnson, we have a man whom his Tory predecessor as prime minister regards as “morally unfit” to occupy Number 10. Anthony Seldon says this in his absorbing new book about Theresa May’s premiership and I believe it to be true because I’ve previously heard the same from my sources. Tory leaders have often had their differences with their successors, but as much as Ted Heath loathed Margaret Thatcher, I don’t recall him ever suggesting that she was too depraved to hold the office of prime minister.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/10/boris-johnson-versus-jeremy-corbyn-for-number-10-battle-of-unfittest

In a more deferential society with no internet, the moral terpitude of several PM's probably never made it into the public domain.

But haven't we redefined moral turpitude since then? There's all sorts of sexual wickedness in the world (see under metoo) but Johnson isn't accused of any of it, just of getting his knob out on an entirely consensual basis more than most of us manage to. 1950s curtain twitching is what I'd expect from Mrs May, but not really from anyone else.

TheScreamingEagles

A thread featuring the alternative vote system and a classical history lesson.

I spoil you all so much.

SquareRoot

kyf_100 said:

Just imagine if Brown and Blair had been co-leaders. It would have been Game of Thrones within a week.

It was anyway without Brown being PM.

FrancisUrquhart

egg said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Black_Rook said:

BannedInParis said:

Can I just say that the 'co-leaders' idea is actually brilliant and Labour should use it. If only for later generations to look back and wonder what the actual f*ck they were thinking.

It makes one wonder how this is meant to work if they ever win another election. Will the two leaders be wanting to go to the Queen to resign and ask her to send for their colleague on a daily, weekly or monthly basis?

Typical socialists.....increasing inefficiency since 1848

I’m keeping your post Francis and will respond to it.

You know, I am joking right?

Black_Rook

AnneJGP said:

Looking ahead, what happens with a two-LOTO opposition, or a two-PM government? I like the possibilities - job-sharing is common these days, and arguably these days the role of PM is too much for a single individual.

PMQs would take on a different nature, too, if a single PM has to cope with two LOTOs.

Or we could have one PM/LOTO who's good at actually being the PM/LOTO and the other PM/LOTO who's good at the PR.

Neat idea.

Three leaders - one for the economy, one for public services, one for defence and foreign policy. They govern as a committee, with one holding the title of Prime Minister for one year in each Parliament (which would last for three years, as in Australia.)

And if they fall out, they all raise armies and wage war until one eliminates the others and becomes Emperor.

Morris_Dancer

The triumvirates of Rome were periods of such stability...

Black_Rook

TheScreamingEagles said:

A thread featuring the alternative vote system and a classical history lesson.

I spoil you all so much.

I still think Roman consuls would've made a better illustrative example than Spartan kings.

Black_Rook

Morris_Dancer said:

The triumvirates of Rome were periods of such stability...

Strong and Stable Government in the Patrician Interest

TheScreamingEagles

Black_Rook said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A thread featuring the alternative vote system and a classical history lesson.

I spoil you all so much.

I still think Roman consuls would've made a better illustrative example than Spartan kings.

If only the ERG had called themselves the Optimates.

MattW

NickPalmer said:

You appear to be assuming that she has spent nothing on anything ever, not even a vegan Bounty bar?

AFAICS salary is not even in that calculation, Nick, except for "whatever she has saved". It is purely capital.

The whole lot post-pension post-mortgage payments could be spent on whatever, and afaics it would make essentially little difference.

Happy to have my (very broad brush) estimates demolished, however. I would say that the numbers are fairly reasonable for any well-paid professional earning 50-100k with a reasonably sized London property over a couple of decades.

MarqueeMark

My wife has just sent me a picture of her cuddling up to Samuel L. Jackson.

That will take some explaining.....

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Rook, Julius Caesar might not agree with that.

The consuls are somewhat comparable to the diarchy of Sparta but there are massive differences, not least the one year terms.

Floater

No surprise here - but posted because they have the gist of it right

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/11/10/vote-tories-can-stop-labour-nightmare/

Fysics_Teacher

A little more recently than the Spartans or Romans, what about William and Mary? They even had the required gender balance.

Black_Rook

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Rook, Julius Caesar might not agree with that.

The consuls are somewhat comparable to the diarchy of Sparta but there are massive differences, not least the one year terms.

Well, of course, the nobles who were on the wrong side during the civil wars did rather tend to die, but most of the wealthy elite did very well indeed out of that period.

You will hopefully note that I went on to propose a leadership triumvirate who would rotate the top job on an annual basis? At least until they got fed up and started trying to kill each other.

Floater

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, it's faintly amusing that I'm a better green by accident than the hypocritical and smug Caroline Lucas is.

And all without hectoring others to change their lifestyles.

That death star didn't just build itself Mr Dancer.....

Black_Rook

Fysics_Teacher said:

A little more recently than the Spartans or Romans, what about William and Mary? They even had the required gender balance.

A partnership in which the duo were nominally equal, but all the executive authority was wielded by the man? Yeah, that sounds about right for Labour.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Rook, the patricians lost the civil war.

There's a book I wish I could remember the number of, a fantasy, whereby the ruler is immortal and splintered his soul into three pieces, rotating leadership as each (temporarily) died. One of them decides to try and hold onto the throne forever. Interesting little backstory.

There are no gods, but there are angels, but I can't remember much else about it off the top of my head.

kle4

Floater said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, it's faintly amusing that I'm a better green by accident than the hypocritical and smug Caroline Lucas is.

And all without hectoring others to change their lifestyles.

That death star didn't just build itself Mr Dancer.....

Say what you will about them, but Darth Vader and the Emperor were excellent motivators, and great organisers of major projects. Heck, the people who tried to replace them got their arses kicked by Empire wannabes for crying out loud.

stodge

Afternoon all

I suspect a lot of people remain less than engaged from the GE at this point but the overnight polling was obviously very good for the Conservatives and a 40% vote share against a split opposition guarantees a landslide majority.

We now seem to be in a unseemly dutch auction between the Conservative and Labour Parties to determine which of the two can try and buy the greater number of votes with un-costed campaign spending pledges.

The problem with the hundreds of millions of spending pledges is they will have to be paid for and today's borrowing becomes tomorrow's tax rises - whichever of the two old dinosaur parties ends up in Government can say what it likes now but taxes will ultimately rise and rise considerably to meet the spending pledges.

We are being bribed with our own money and of course there will be a payback down the road.

We also have targeted campaign pledges for each and every day from the Conservative "tsunami of Tory ideas". The Veterans' Railcard - who could possibly object to that? Well, Veterans already enjoy free or heavily discounted travel in London courtesy of the Veterans Oyster Card and armed forces personnel in uniform travel free.

The truth of many of the campaign pledges is they are often far less than they appear but that isn't of course the point.

MattW

Fysics_Teacher said:

NickPalmer said:

MattW said:

Well 10 years of Westminster Pension Pot plus the post-expenses salary, plus 10 years of Euro Parliament Pension plus the MEP expenses for a decade.

Those 2 together should be around a million, plus the 200k+ pension pot we all have from a fully paid up UK Basic Pension. (Using multiple of 35-40, which is what you currently get for cashing a Final Salary pension in).

Suspect that CL is fairly clean on Parliamentary expenses, probably also compared to the average MEP whilst she was there.

Plus whatever she has accumulated from property and savings over 20 years of politics plus 15 years previsouly.

Plus whatever you make off the back of a PhD in Tudor Chick Lit.

£2-3 million?

Not as loaded as say Diane Abbott, but probably a 1-5 per-center.

Minus donations and other she has spent, which may be zero or may be substantial.

You appear to be assuming that she has spent nothing on anything ever, not even a vegan Bounty bar?

She is unlikely to have spent her pension pots yet. Those alone are probably north of £1 million in total.
I’m on a final salary pension myself so I know that they would cost a lot to replicate with a savings pot.

Edit for typos.

Actually I think I may have underestimated :-) .

But I am already far enough down this rabbithole for today.

I stand by my estimate, subject to more detailed information.

Polruan

The two leader plan just sounds like a formal recognition of the Johnson-Cummings way of doing things: one leader says the things they are obliged to say (e.g. representations to courts, recognition that they will obey the law) and then the other one says the populist opposite in order to retain the support of voters with two sets of opposing views. It’s the perfect structure for post-truth politics.

geoffw

If they're Spartans can we look forward to nude wrestling for the joint leadership?

Black_Rook

Alternatively, we could seek some inspiration (at least up to a point) from classical Athens. How about electing Parliament by lot, and the Executive separately by ballot?

OldKingCole

geoffw said:

If they're Spartans can we look forward to nude wrestling for the joint leadership?

Might rule out some of the possibles, if only on the grounds of public decency.

RobD

Isn't this just the natural extension of their policy to negotiate a fantastic Brexit deal and then campaign against it?

FrancisUrquhart

I think some PBers might like this...

Don't forget your Poppy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8d8WX4tyfk

BannedInParis

Polruan said:

The two leader plan just sounds like a formal recognition of the Johnson-Cummings way of doing things: one leader says the things they are obliged to say (e.g. representations to courts, recognition that they will obey the law) and then the other one says the populist opposite in order to retain the support of voters with two sets of opposing views. It’s the perfect structure for post-truth politics.

BWWWWAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPP

cutting political satire KLAXON

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1193549390193004544?s=21

rottenborough

afternoon all,

Checking in, to find most of this thread seems to be about Caroline Lucas's pension pot.

Have I missed something?

OldKingCole

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1193549390193004544?s=21

Tp be honest, I'm surprised 'None of them' isn't much higher.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Borough, just run of the mill hypocrisy from a self-righteous politician.

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1193549390193004544?s=21

twenty three minutes to save the NHS not cutting through?

Charles

@TheScreamingEagles

I doubt that they would give the job to the top 2 in AV (applying the deadbeat rule)

I suspect you would end up with slates and the winning skate would attract the full bet

Charles

BannedInParis said:

Can I just say that the 'co-leaders' idea is actually brilliant and Labour should use it. If only for later generations to look back and wonder what the actual f*ck they were thinking.

I love the “greens with less than 10% of the vote and no chance of being PM make it work” line

Polruan

BannedInParis said:

Polruan said:

The two leader plan just sounds like a formal recognition of the Johnson-Cummings way of doing things: one leader says the things they are obliged to say (e.g. representations to courts, recognition that they will obey the law) and then the other one says the populist opposite in order to retain the support of voters with two sets of opposing views. It’s the perfect structure for post-truth politics.

BWWWWAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPP

cutting political satire KLAXON

That’s a great klaxon.

Black_Rook

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1193549390193004544?s=21

twenty three minutes to save the NHS not cutting through?

The election is in over a month, not tomorrow.

Give Labour time, the sods will come back. It would be too easy otherwise.

rottenborough

Charles said:

BannedInParis said:

Can I just say that the 'co-leaders' idea is actually brilliant and Labour should use it. If only for later generations to look back and wonder what the actual f*ck they were thinking.

I love the “greens with less than 10% of the vote and no chance of being PM make it work” line

It is clear who is going to be the Green PM.

RobD

Black_Rook said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1193549390193004544?s=21

twenty three minutes to save the NHS not cutting through?

The election is in over a month, not tomorrow.

Give Labour time, the sods will come back. It would be too easy otherwise.

The destruction of the NHS at the hands of the Tories is practically the only thing Labour talks about.

Black_Rook

RobD said:

Black_Rook said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1193549390193004544?s=21

twenty three minutes to save the NHS not cutting through?

The election is in over a month, not tomorrow.

Give Labour time, the sods will come back. It would be too easy otherwise.

The destruction of the NHS at the hands of the Tories is practically the only thing Labour talks about.

Because it works. "X days to save the NHS" is the activation command for the Labour androids.

The fact that they've been saying the same thing since Thatcher and yet the health service remains stubbornly unprivatised goes entirely unnoticed.

kle4

Black_Rook said:

RobD said:

Black_Rook said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1193549390193004544?s=21

twenty three minutes to save the NHS not cutting through?

The election is in over a month, not tomorrow.

Give Labour time, the sods will come back. It would be too easy otherwise.

The destruction of the NHS at the hands of the Tories is practically the only thing Labour talks about.

Because it works. "X days to save the NHS" is the activation command for the Labour androids.

The fact that they've been saying the same thing since Thatcher and yet the health service remains stubbornly unprivatised goes entirely unnoticed.

Everyone has some stock lines that work. Not perfectly or with the same effect each time, but they work.

kle4

Well this would go just fine, I'm sure:

Labour chiefs mull plan to replace top civil servants with political appointees

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-chiefs-mull-plan-replace-20852711.amp?__twitter_impression=true

I don't even remember it coming up during the coalition years as it says it did.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1193544474695274499

Andrew

Spreads gradually nudging their way towards what the polls are saying - 320ish midpoint a week ago, now 332. Still very tentative though, and one or two poor polls might see a rampage down.

rottenborough

kle4 said:

Well this would go just fine, I'm sure:

Labour chiefs mull plan to replace top civil servants with political appointees

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-chiefs-mull-plan-replace-20852711.amp?__twitter_impression=true

I don't even remember it coming up during the coalition years as it says it did.

Yeh, well, no doubt John McDonnell doesn't want to have to listen to the top treasury bod telling him that his plan to nationalise without compensation is illegal or whatever.

I guess we can expect Seamus to be the top man at Downing Street with complete control over who speaks to Corbyn.

FrancisUrquhart

kle4 said:

Well this would go just fine, I'm sure:

Labour chiefs mull plan to replace top civil servants with political appointees

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-chiefs-mull-plan-replace-20852711.amp?__twitter_impression=true

I don't even remember it coming up during the coalition years as it says it did.

Johnny Mac has already said they will all be sent for re-education.

Floater

FrancisUrquhart said:

kle4 said:

Well this would go just fine, I'm sure:

Labour chiefs mull plan to replace top civil servants with political appointees

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-chiefs-mull-plan-replace-20852711.amp?__twitter_impression=true

I don't even remember it coming up during the coalition years as it says it did.

Johnny Mac has already said they will all be sent for re-education.

I believe North Korea has the requisite facilities

Floater

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Well this would go just fine, I'm sure:

Labour chiefs mull plan to replace top civil servants with political appointees

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-chiefs-mull-plan-replace-20852711.amp?__twitter_impression=true

I don't even remember it coming up during the coalition years as it says it did.

Yeh, well, no doubt John McDonnell doesn't want to have to listen to the top treasury bod telling him that his plan to nationalise without compensation is illegal or whatever.

I guess we can expect Seamus to be the top man at Downing Street with complete control over who speaks to Corbyn.

Good access for Russia, Cuba and Venezuela then, and Hamas too ......

NickPalmer

FrancisUrquhart said:

I think some PBers might like this...

Don't forget your Poppy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8d8WX4tyfk

Genuine lol!

ydoethur

He hates everybody else, why should political betters be any different?

I suppose the one thing in our favour is he only really hates successful people...

ydoethur

Fysics_Teacher said:

NickPalmer said:

MattW said:

Well 10 years of Westminster Pension Pot plus the post-expenses salary, plus 10 years of Euro Parliament Pension plus the MEP expenses for a decade.

Those 2 together should be around a million, plus the 200k+ pension pot we all have from a fully paid up UK Basic Pension. (Using multiple of 35-40, which is what you currently get for cashing a Final Salary pension in).

Suspect that CL is fairly clean on Parliamentary expenses, probably also compared to the average MEP whilst she was there.

Plus whatever she has accumulated from property and savings over 20 years of politics plus 15 years previsouly.

Plus whatever you make off the back of a PhD in Tudor Chick Lit.

£2-3 million?

Not as loaded as say Diane Abbott, but probably a 1-5 per-center.

Minus donations and other she has spent, which may be zero or may be substantial.

You appear to be assuming that she has spent nothing on anything ever, not even a vegan Bounty bar?

She is unlikely to have spent her pension pots yet. Those alone are probably north of £1 million in total.
I’m on a final salary pension myself so I know that they would cost a lot to replicate with a savings pot.

Edit for typos.

Really? I thought you were a teacher?

DecrepitJohnL

HYUFD said:

egg said:

HYUFD said:

So if Labour lose having lost Leavers to the Brexit Party and the Tories and Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP they now have a cunning plan to accelerate the process

You always give an answer and great rebuttal HY. The latest speculation about the suppressed security report, this time from the Pravda of the BBC, claim Tories suppressed it because Russians named in it are big donors to the Tory party, hence he who pays the piper plays the tune. 😮

What’s the right response? Surely rebutting attack where Labour get their money off unions just adds fuel to the fire as doesn’t actually rebutt?

The right response is to ignore it unless the donations were illegal

The Russia report should have been published. I doubt there'd have been a voter backlash because there wasn't when George Osborne was found grubbing for Russian millions a decade or so back.

ydoethur

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

egg said:

HYUFD said:

So if Labour lose having lost Leavers to the Brexit Party and the Tories and Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP they now have a cunning plan to accelerate the process

You always give an answer and great rebuttal HY. The latest speculation about the suppressed security report, this time from the Pravda of the BBC, claim Tories suppressed it because Russians named in it are big donors to the Tory party, hence he who pays the piper plays the tune. 😮

What’s the right response? Surely rebutting attack where Labour get their money off unions just adds fuel to the fire as doesn’t actually rebutt?

The right response is to ignore it unless the donations were illegal

The Russia report should have been published. I doubt there'd have been a voter backlash because there wasn't when George Osborne was found grubbing for Russian millions a decade or so back.

Bit difficult for Labour to run with that given Mandelson had been on the same yacht also grubbing for money. This one should have been a free hit, unless of course it implicated Labour too.

trawl

Off topic, West Bromwich East constituency.
This is my hometown constituency and my mom still lives there. It was looking to be colourful until Watson stepped down. Despite everything (Op Midland, Get Brexit Done - it’s very Leave) I was still intending to bet on Labour here. Now the candidates have been selected and Labour have gone for an anti Brexit chap Ibrahim Dogus of Vauxhall, London, the Tories a female councillor Nicola Richards from neighbouring Dudley Council. Dogus has a decent write up, but London Remainer? Hmmm.

ydoethur

trawl said:

Off topic, West Bromwich East constituency.
This is my hometown constituency and my mom still lives there. It was looking to be colourful until Watson stepped down. Despite everything (Op Midland, Get Brexit Done - it’s very Leave) I was still intending to bet on Labour here. Now the candidates have been selected and Labour have gone for an anti Brexit chap Ibrahim Dogus of Vauxhall, London, the Tories a female councillor Nicola Richards from neighbouring Dudley Council. Dogus has a decent write up, but London Remainer? Hmmm.

Um. You’re right, that does feel like a tactical error from Labour.

At the same time, if he loses I don’t think it will matter hugely as what’s left of Labour will be squabbling with the DUP for fourth party status.

alb1on

FrancisUrquhart said:

Just when you think Labour can't come up with any more stupid ideas....

I have never thought that is the case. I am totally confident that both Labour and the Conservatives have an infinite source of stupid ideas.

alb1on

trawl said:

Off topic, West Bromwich East constituency.
This is my hometown constituency and my mom still lives there. It was looking to be colourful until Watson stepped down. Despite everything (Op Midland, Get Brexit Done - it’s very Leave) I was still intending to bet on Labour here. Now the candidates have been selected and Labour have gone for an anti Brexit chap Ibrahim Dogus of Vauxhall, London, the Tories a female councillor Nicola Richards from neighbouring Dudley Council. Dogus has a decent write up, but London Remainer? Hmmm.

I am not a Labour supporter but have come across Dogus. He is one of the few Labour candidates who could tempt me to vote Labour - especially in a constituency like WBE where it is him or the Conservative. One of the good guys.

logical_song

Off topic - Electric Flight, using current technology?
https://insideevs.com/news/381094/zeroavia-hydrogen-powered-planes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+InsideEvs+(Inside+EVs)&utm_content=FeedBurner

trawl

alb1on said:

trawl said:

Off topic, West Bromwich East constituency.
This is my hometown constituency and my mom still lives there. It was looking to be colourful until Watson stepped down. Despite everything (Op Midland, Get Brexit Done - it’s very Leave) I was still intending to bet on Labour here. Now the candidates have been selected and Labour have gone for an anti Brexit chap Ibrahim Dogus of Vauxhall, London, the Tories a female councillor Nicola Richards from neighbouring Dudley Council. Dogus has a decent write up, but London Remainer? Hmmm.

I am not a Labour supporter but have come across Dogus. He is one of the few Labour candidates who could tempt me to vote Labour - especially in a constituency like WBE where it is him or the Conservative. One of the good guys.

Ok, thanks for that alb1on.

DecrepitJohnL

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

egg said:

HYUFD said:

So if Labour lose having lost Leavers to the Brexit Party and the Tories and Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP they now have a cunning plan to accelerate the process

You always give an answer and great rebuttal HY. The latest speculation about the suppressed security report, this time from the Pravda of the BBC, claim Tories suppressed it because Russians named in it are big donors to the Tory party, hence he who pays the piper plays the tune. 😮

What’s the right response? Surely rebutting attack where Labour get their money off unions just adds fuel to the fire as doesn’t actually rebutt?

The right response is to ignore it unless the donations were illegal

The Russia report should have been published. I doubt there'd have been a voter backlash because there wasn't when George Osborne was found grubbing for Russian millions a decade or so back.

Bit difficult for Labour to run with that given Mandelson had been on the same yacht also grubbing for money. This one should have been a free hit, unless of course it implicated Labour too.

The press ran with it. Mandelson was not after the cash, having fallen out with Brown. The chain was that Osborne leaked what Mandelson said about Brown, and then Nat Rothschild leaked that Osborne was grubbing for roubles (illegally, of course). Yet the party and Osborne survived.

Likewise reports about electoral malpractice in 2015 and funding irregularities and Russian activity in the referendum have not overturned Brexit.

Decrepit's first law of politics: things that ought to matter, usually don't.

FrancisUrquhart

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

egg said:

HYUFD said:

So if Labour lose having lost Leavers to the Brexit Party and the Tories and Remainers to the LDs, Greens and SNP they now have a cunning plan to accelerate the process

You always give an answer and great rebuttal HY. The latest speculation about the suppressed security report, this time from the Pravda of the BBC, claim Tories suppressed it because Russians named in it are big donors to the Tory party, hence he who pays the piper plays the tune. 😮

What’s the right response? Surely rebutting attack where Labour get their money off unions just adds fuel to the fire as doesn’t actually rebutt?

The right response is to ignore it unless the donations were illegal

The Russia report should have been published. I doubt there'd have been a voter backlash because there wasn't when George Osborne was found grubbing for Russian millions a decade or so back.

Bit difficult for Labour to run with that given Mandelson had been on the same yacht also grubbing for money. This one should have been a free hit, unless of course it implicated Labour too.

The press ran with it. Mandelson was not after the cash, having fallen out with Brown. The chain was that Osborne leaked what Mandelson said about Brown, and then Nat Rothschild leaked that Osborne was grubbing for roubles (illegally, of course). Yet the party and Osborne survived.

Likewise reports about electoral malpractice in 2015 and funding irregularities and Russian activity in the referendum have not overturned Brexit.

Decrepit's first law of politics: things that ought to matter, usually don't.

Erhhh...you seemed to be misremembering what Mandelson's job was at that time and what the bloke on the yacht's main business was. And unlike Osborne, who went for dinner once, Mandy was being entertained over the summer by him.