Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB’s leadership rules will limit the number of nominees and c

123578

Comments

  • The leaked Trade Deal docs were marked “official sensitive”. That means “might be a bit embarrassing for someone but nothing much to see”. The NI docs appear to have no protective marking, which means they were a pure internal think piece.

    That tells you it was fairly easy for them to end up on Reddit or wherever. They’d have been in wide circulation and either a Labour minded supporter could have done it from within; or it would have been fairly easy for one of the non-attributable Russian orgs to get them.

    However, precisely because they don’t say much, it’s possible no one initially checked they weren’t slightly altered l, if they were close enough on the first pass. A “shall” becomes a “May”. A “will” becomes a “might”. An amber becomes a red.

    This is the new world, and together with altered video and audio, we’d better get used to living in it. Yuck.
  • Lets give the richest demographic triple lock benefits, free tv licenses, travel, and compensate them for retiring EARLIER than their children. Yes those policies make great sense.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,312

    RobD said:

    Re them being fake, why didn't the Government say so? Instead they insisted the NHS was on the table.

    That's a non-denial denial. I took that to mean the documents are legitimate.

    The Government could easily come out now and call them fake, that would be back of the net stuff for them surely, with just days to go. And yet, silence.

    Of course it's all hypocrisy anyway, they're sitting on a report into Russian interference.

    You saw the reaction of the left to Channel 4 effectively saying their own coverage was fake? They wouldn't believe it for a second.
    What does that have to do with anything? If the Government came out and said they were fake, I'd believe them, provided they properly cited the reasons why, or if not because on grounds of national security, that would be convincing.

    What other weirdos on the left choose to do is up to them.
    You might, but a significant fraction of people would say they are crying "fake news" to discredit the story. The reaction to channel 4's retraction is of course relevant, it shows that people believe what they want to believe, not what is actually true.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Re them being fake, why didn't the Government say so? Instead they insisted the NHS was on the table.

    That's a non-denial denial. I took that to mean the documents are legitimate.

    The Government could easily come out now and call them fake, that would be back of the net stuff for them surely, with just days to go. And yet, silence.

    Of course it's all hypocrisy anyway, they're sitting on a report into Russian interference.

    You saw the reaction of the left to Channel 4 effectively saying their own coverage was fake? They wouldn't believe it for a second.
    What does that have to do with anything? If the Government came out and said they were fake, I'd believe them, provided they properly cited the reasons why, or if not because on grounds of national security, that would be convincing.

    What other weirdos on the left choose to do is up to them.
    You might, but a significant fraction of people would say they are crying "fake news" to discredit the story. The reaction to channel 4's retraction is of course relevant, it shows that people believe what they want to believe, not what is actually true.
    If people cry fake news that's really up to them. But those are pretty poor grounds for not calling documents fake - and I suspect you knew that when you made the post.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,155
    RobD said:

    Re them being fake, why didn't the Government say so? Instead they insisted the NHS was on the table.

    That's a non-denial denial. I took that to mean the documents are legitimate.

    The Government could easily come out now and call them fake, that would be back of the net stuff for them surely, with just days to go. And yet, silence.

    Of course it's all hypocrisy anyway, they're sitting on a report into Russian interference.

    You saw the reaction of the left to Channel 4 effectively saying their own coverage was fake? They wouldn't believe it for a second.
    Yet again your are generalising from the reaction of the few to the many.
  • melcfmelcf Posts: 166
    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722
    edited December 2019
    Charles said:

    Just an observation on Rebecca Long-Bailey as successor. Labour would be well advised to look at how the public not only didn't take to Jo Swinson this election -they actively took against her. Long-Bailey has that ability in spades. he more you see of her, the more annoying she becomes. And the more unconvincing she sounds on having answers to today's problems.

    Why are you helping Labour?

    ...unless you are trying to fake them into thinking “the Tories recommend we don’t appoint her do they must really fear her...

    Clever

    🤫
    The unfortunate truth is, if Labour really want a hard left leader their choice is severely limited. There are two very able radical left wing Labour MPs - McDonnell and Trickett. Trickett is probably the more capable - certainly the more experienced - of the two, but was behind the door when charisma wasn’t was handed out. McDonnell, meanwhile, is undoubtedly one of the ablest politicians of his generation and at the same time one of the most reviled for a number of very good reasons which we need not go into. They are also not much younger than Corbyn.

    Meanwhile the younger generation of leaders, with the possible exception of Clive Smith and the slightly more contentious exception of Angela Rayner, are simply not very good, while at the same time coming across as rather smug and entitled - a toxic combination. They remind me of George Osborne, and not in a good way.

    So Labour can opt for younger leadership, capable leadership or ideologically sound leadership. The best they can hope for is two of these three. Realistically to get back to majority government to implement their programme they need somebody who is all three, and that’s not an option.

    Edit - I was tempted to leave that autocorrect slip, but...
  • On a lighter note:

    https://youtu.be/s8rHgv7Qpts
  • Sandpit said:

    What would you do, abolish them?

    I always thought the Labour were in favour of charity, and helping those who fall on hard times?
    How about having a more productive economy and a functioning social safety net so that nobody in twenty first century Britain has to go begging to charities to feed their kids?
    Vote Labour.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Re them being fake, why didn't the Government say so? Instead they insisted the NHS was on the table.

    That's a non-denial denial. I took that to mean the documents are legitimate.

    The Government could easily come out now and call them fake, that would be back of the net stuff for them surely, with just days to go. And yet, silence.

    Of course it's all hypocrisy anyway, they're sitting on a report into Russian interference.

    You saw the reaction of the left to Channel 4 effectively saying their own coverage was fake? They wouldn't believe it for a second.
    What does that have to do with anything? If the Government came out and said they were fake, I'd believe them, provided they properly cited the reasons why, or if not because on grounds of national security, that would be convincing.

    What other weirdos on the left choose to do is up to them.
    You might, but a significant fraction of people would say they are crying "fake news" to discredit the story. The reaction to channel 4's retraction is of course relevant, it shows that people believe what they want to believe, not what is actually true.
    If the government think they’re fake documents then just come out and say so . Of course the silence suggests they’re not .
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,835
    edited December 2019
    Good header. Thanks.

    Am I correct that a vote in the next Labour Leadership contest is still available for £3 ?

    *innocent face*

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNO2sSW-mU
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722

    Sandpit said:

    What would you do, abolish them?

    I always thought the Labour were in favour of charity, and helping those who fall on hard times?
    How about having a more productive economy and a functioning social safety net so that nobody in twenty first century Britain has to go begging to charities to feed their kids?
    Vote Labour.
    I can only admire your optimism.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297
    Charles said:

    Just an observation on Rebecca Long-Bailey as successor. Labour would be well advised to look at how the public not only didn't take to Jo Swinson this election -they actively took against her. Long-Bailey has that ability in spades. he more you see of her, the more annoying she becomes. And the more unconvincing she sounds on having answers to today's problems.

    Why are you helping Labour?

    ...unless you are trying to fake them into thinking “the Tories recommend we don’t appoint her do they must really fear her...

    Clever

    🤫
    Damn. Found out.....
  • nico67 said:



    When did they confirm that it was a fake ? I would have thought they would have used that line when they were first published .

    If the government is so concerned about Russian interference they should have published the Russian Report and helped the public to guard against it. So clearly they’re not bothered .

    Sorry but that doesn't wash. Holding up a bunch of papers of dubious origin and then telling the Government to prove they are false is not the burden of proof. If Labour want to use dodgy papers then it is incumbent upon them to prove they are real and unaltered. Which of course they can't do because they just downloaded them off the internet without checking either their provenance or their accuracy. It also means we can doubt the accuracy of any other dodgy files the Labour Party might dig up from some backwater of the web.
  • I honestly think the talent in the Labour Party is really very poor at the moment, I can't think of anyone good.

    Cooper was terrible in the last leadership contest, maybe she'll make a better go of it this time, who knows.

    Starmer is by far the best - but even he is nowhere near what they had in the 90s and early 2000s.

    Depressing.
  • melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
  • ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    @SouthamObserver

    Do you think Pidcock is likely to stand for Deputy Leader instead?

    I think it has to be Long Bailey or Pidcock for the leadership, I don't think both can run. Given that. I'd excpect Long Bailey to get the nod. Unless Corbyn contests any challenge against him. Then it would have to be the pair of them slugging it out to be the far left candidate for the deputy slot.
    Rebecca Long Bailey would be a truly dreadful choice as leader. She is rude, arrogant, lazy and not very bright.

    She would however be a considerably less awful choice than Pidcock.

    Long Bailey is dreadful, Pidcock is worse. Neither is Jeremy Corbyn. That's the only positive thing I can say about either of them. Whoever wins the Labour leadership will be up against someone who is rude, arrogant, lazy and congenitally mendacious. I will leave bright out of it, though I do not see much evidence that Johnson is the ferociously intelligent person we are told he is. Overall, the country loses - but that does not seem to be much of an issue these days!

  • Ignoring for the moment the fact that it s US data, some of this might be down to increasing longevity and the later dates at which children inherit. Many of those baby boomers are still around, but their parents probably died at an earlier age than they did.
  • melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Don't be discouraged. Just Tories being Tories. There are a few of us more enlightened souls still holding out.
  • nico67 said:



    When did they confirm that it was a fake ? I would have thought they would have used that line when they were first published .

    If the government is so concerned about Russian interference they should have published the Russian Report and helped the public to guard against it. So clearly they’re not bothered .

    Sorry but that doesn't wash. Holding up a bunch of papers of dubious origin and then telling the Government to prove they are false is not the burden of proof. If Labour want to use dodgy papers then it is incumbent upon them to prove they are real and unaltered. Which of course they can't do because they just downloaded them off the internet without checking either their provenance or their accuracy. It also means we can doubt the accuracy of any other dodgy files the Labour Party might dig up from some backwater of the web.
    If you're wishing to make political capital out of this as I am sure the Tories are, the best thing to do would be to call them fake. Whether it's the "right" thing to do, doesn't really matter - it works the best politically.

    The fact they haven't to me points to the fact that they can't. Because they're real.

    Let's have a full investigation - and include this in the Russia report. Perhaps Johnson might release it then? He has some political capital to gain from it now.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    I honestly think the talent in the Labour Party is really very poor at the moment.

    Did you mean to say colour?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    The “600 seats” has been dropped, hasn’t it?
    Yes and no.

    The boundary commissions recommendations (which are increasingly out of date) are based around 600 seats. They would need to redo the exercise to get it to 650.

    My understanding was 600 seats was law and unless that is changed the Commission will work on that basis?
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,419
    edited December 2019
    Can we please not attack each other for holding different views, I don't want this to turn into one of those websites.

    Challenge the views and argue them of course but just having posts about "muh Tories" or "muh Labour" really doesn't add much
  • melcfmelcf Posts: 166

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
    Which one from yesterday? There are several, even a one word hint would do.
    Have you read all the posts from everyone? Is there any proof of Russian involvement in the NHS document leak?? Please do let me know
  • Ignoring for the moment the fact that it s US data, some of this might be down to increasing longevity and the later dates at which children inherit. Many of those baby boomers are still around, but their parents probably died at an earlier age than they did.
    Most of it is due to the disruption of the link between earning and house prices, accelerated through QE.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722
    kjohnw1 said:
    That video is quite extraordinary.

    Who would ever have thought Jeremy Clarkson would be a remainer?
  • RobD said:

    Re them being fake, why didn't the Government say so? Instead they insisted the NHS was on the table.

    That's a non-denial denial. I took that to mean the documents are legitimate.

    The Government could easily come out now and call them fake, that would be back of the net stuff for them surely, with just days to go. And yet, silence.

    Of course it's all hypocrisy anyway, they're sitting on a report into Russian interference.

    You saw the reaction of the left to Channel 4 effectively saying their own coverage was fake? They wouldn't believe it for a second.
    What does that have to do with anything? If the Government came out and said they were fake, I'd believe them, provided they properly cited the reasons why, or if not because on grounds of national security, that would be convincing.

    Probably wouldn't convince the Labour Party faithful but it would kill the story for the centre ground. So the fact they haven't to me indicates they are real and the Tories know it.

    What other weirdos on the left choose to do is up to them.
    What if the documents were mostly true but a few key words changed? Also, I seem to remember governments having a policy of not responding to leaks directly though that might not be the case any more.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,419
    edited December 2019
    David Merritt says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me.
  • melcf said:

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
    Which one from yesterday? There are several, even a one word hint would do.
    Have you read all the posts from everyone? Is there any proof of Russian involvement in the NHS document leak?? Please do let me know
    The one changing Boris Johnsons name. No. I have no idea.
  • RobD said:

    Re them being fake, why didn't the Government say so? Instead they insisted the NHS was on the table.

    That's a non-denial denial. I took that to mean the documents are legitimate.

    The Government could easily come out now and call them fake, that would be back of the net stuff for them surely, with just days to go. And yet, silence.

    Of course it's all hypocrisy anyway, they're sitting on a report into Russian interference.

    You saw the reaction of the left to Channel 4 effectively saying their own coverage was fake? They wouldn't believe it for a second.
    What does that have to do with anything? If the Government came out and said they were fake, I'd believe them, provided they properly cited the reasons why, or if not because on grounds of national security, that would be convincing.

    Probably wouldn't convince the Labour Party faithful but it would kill the story for the centre ground. So the fact they haven't to me indicates they are real and the Tories know it.

    What other weirdos on the left choose to do is up to them.
    What if the documents were mostly true but a few key words changed? Also, I seem to remember governments having a policy of not responding to leaks directly though that might not be the case any more.
    Then the Tories should say so, if they have a policy of not responding to them they should say so. But they spent two days calling the allegations rubbish.

    The most logical conclusion is that they know there is no political capital to be gained out of calling legitimate documents fake.
  • I honestly think the talent in the Labour Party is really very poor at the moment, I can't think of anyone good.

    Cooper was terrible in the last leadership contest, maybe she'll make a better go of it this time, who knows.

    Starmer is by far the best - but even he is nowhere near what they had in the 90s and early 2000s.

    Depressing.

    Chin up, the Tories aren’t much better.

    There are some Labour MPs who would be ok I think. The party just has to make sure it swerves the unholy trinity of Long-Bailey, Pidcock and Burgon.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    @SouthamObserver

    Do you think Pidcock is likely to stand for Deputy Leader instead?

    I think it has to be Long Bailey or Pidcock for the leadership, I don't think both can run. Given that. I'd excpect Long Bailey to get the nod. Unless Corbyn contests any challenge against him. Then it would have to be the pair of them slugging it out to be the far left candidate for the deputy slot.
    Rebecca Long Bailey would be a truly dreadful choice as leader. She is rude, arrogant, lazy and not very bright.

    She would however be a considerably less awful choice than Pidcock.

    Long Bailey is dreadful, Pidcock is worse. Neither is Jeremy Corbyn. That's the only positive thing I can say about either of them. Whoever wins the Labour leadership will be up against someone who is rude, arrogant, lazy and congenitally mendacious. I will leave bright out of it, though I do not see much evidence that Johnson is the ferociously intelligent person we are told he is. Overall, the country loses - but that does not seem to be much of an issue these days!

    He got an Upper Second in Greats. I wouldn’t say that’s a top class degree. But then, I don’t particularly rate Oxford as a top university for the liberal arts anyway.
  • Ignoring for the moment the fact that it s US data, some of this might be down to increasing longevity and the later dates at which children inherit. Many of those baby boomers are still around, but their parents probably died at an earlier age than they did.
    I was thinking the same thing. Nobody loves hating on the boomers more than me, but a lot of this is down to the bastards refusing to die more than anything else. The real problem is that the elderly are increasingly disconnected from the rest of society and so problems that affect the rest of us like work life balance, cost and quality of education, commuting, rights at work aren't addressed by politicians reliant on the grey voting bloc. Not to mention the climate emergency that a lot of boomers prefer to ignore as something in the far distant future. It doesn't feel that way to my kids!
  • I honestly think the talent in the Labour Party is really very poor at the moment, I can't think of anyone good.

    Cooper was terrible in the last leadership contest, maybe she'll make a better go of it this time, who knows.

    Starmer is by far the best - but even he is nowhere near what they had in the 90s and early 2000s.

    Depressing.

    The same is true of all the parties. Hopefully the next generation will adapt better to the media pressures of the day, but social media and 24hr news have created a very poor group of political leaders.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,155
    edited December 2019
    Sandpit said:

    What would you do, abolish them?

    I always thought the Labour were in favour of charity, and helping those who fall on hard times?
    In very broad terms "the right" supports charity enabling wealthy people to donate their low taxed wealth to areas where they like, so lots of childrens charities, but not much towards helping people who have just left prison.

    In very broad terms "the left" aims to remove the need for charity, so everyone has a job which brings in enough to feed and house them, This is of course mostly funded by taxing wealthy people. Elected national and local governments choose where to direct the money to rather than wealthy individuals having the choice.
  • https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/sam-gyimah-on-radio-4-today-1-6413742

    Are the Lib Dems trying to ensure the remaining Labour voters they have, desert them en masse?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,312

    Can we please not attack each other for holding different views, I don't want this to turn into one of those websites.

    Challenge the views and argue them of course but just having posts about "muh Tories" or "muh Labour" really doesn't add much

    It always get more like that in the run up to elections.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722

    David Merritt says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me.

    Do you mean, CHB, that you were considering voting Tory before this?

    Because if so, you hid it incredibly well...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722

    I honestly think the talent in the Labour Party is really very poor at the moment, I can't think of anyone good.

    Cooper was terrible in the last leadership contest, maybe she'll make a better go of it this time, who knows.

    Starmer is by far the best - but even he is nowhere near what they had in the 90s and early 2000s.

    Depressing.

    Chin up, the Tories aren’t much better.

    There are some Labour MPs who would be ok I think. The party just has to make sure it swerves the unholy trinity of Long-Bailey, Pidcock and Burgon.
    Surely even Labour wouldn’t elect Richard Burgon?
  • ydoethur said:

    David Merritt says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me.

    Do you mean, CHB, that you were considering voting Tory before this?

    Because if so, you hid it incredibly well...
    No, it just justifies my already made decision more :)
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 8,358
    edited December 2019
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    What would you do, abolish them?

    I always thought the Labour were in favour of charity, and helping those who fall on hard times?
    How about having a more productive economy and a functioning social safety net so that nobody in twenty first century Britain has to go begging to charities to feed their kids?
    Vote Labour.
    I can only admire your optimism.
    Hope dies last.
  • melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
    Quite. I refer regularly to Johnson as a liar and a charlatan. I have yet to encounter a dissenting voice.

    This is not because there are no Conservatives posting here.
  • What do we expect the polls to say this evening?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297

    The future is:

    DICK BURGON

    Bring on the burgon.

    We could have a book on how quickly we'd see the first headline after appointment that says "BURGON - BEGONE!"
  • Ignoring for the moment the fact that it s US data, some of this might be down to increasing longevity and the later dates at which children inherit. Many of those baby boomers are still around, but their parents probably died at an earlier age than they did.
    Most of it is due to the disruption of the link between earning and house prices, accelerated through QE.
    Is that as much of a problem in the US as it is here?
  • Am I also right in saying that YouGov will update the MRP several times between now and they release it? Are they updating it once a day?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Ignoring for the moment the fact that it s US data, some of this might be down to increasing longevity and the later dates at which children inherit. Many of those baby boomers are still around, but their parents probably died at an earlier age than they did.
    Some of it probably is. Doesn't make it less of a problem
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
    Quite. I refer regularly to Johnson as a liar and a charlatan. I have yet to encounter a dissenting voice.

    This is not because there are no Conservatives posting here.
    It's because - what's the point? Won't stop you saying it, believing it. The only thing that will change opinions is a couple of terms as PM.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722
    edited December 2019

    ydoethur said:

    David Merritt says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me.

    Do you mean, CHB, that you were considering voting Tory before this?

    Because if so, you hid it incredibly well...
    No, it just justifies my already made decision more :)
    Well, fair play.

    I have no idea who David Merritt is, but that’s your choice.

    In my last rounds of voting I voted as follows:

    Green
    Liberal Democrat
    Conservative
    Labour
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative
    Liberal Democrat
    Plaid Cymru
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative

    So I flatter myself I am a swing voter.

    For the first time in the 18 years I have had the vote, including parish council by elections, I will be spoiling my ballot paper at this election.
  • nico67 said:



    When did they confirm that it was a fake ? I would have thought they would have used that line when they were first published .

    If the government is so concerned about Russian interference they should have published the Russian Report and helped the public to guard against it. So clearly they’re not bothered .

    Sorry but that doesn't wash. Holding up a bunch of papers of dubious origin and then telling the Government to prove they are false is not the burden of proof. If Labour want to use dodgy papers then it is incumbent upon them to prove they are real and unaltered. Which of course they can't do because they just downloaded them off the internet without checking either their provenance or their accuracy. It also means we can doubt the accuracy of any other dodgy files the Labour Party might dig up from some backwater of the web.
    If you're wishing to make political capital out of this as I am sure the Tories are, the best thing to do would be to call them fake. Whether it's the "right" thing to do, doesn't really matter - it works the best politically.

    The fact they haven't to me points to the fact that they can't. Because they're real.

    Let's have a full investigation - and include this in the Russia report. Perhaps Johnson might release it then? He has some political capital to gain from it now.
    As has already been pointed out they don't have to be false, just subtly altered. Do you know that didn't happen? If you can not say for sure then, given their origins in Russian groups, any sensible person would say they are unreliable. Certainly you wouldn't be dumb enough to stand up and make a huge deal of them without thoroughly checking.... unless you are Jeremy Corbyn apparently.

    And of course I mentioned people being sensible so I can see why Mr Corbyn was taken in.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,371
    On the subject of Dawn Butler, has her interview on LBC been mentioned here?
    Apparently 65pc of the country’s rough sleepers live in Brent.
    And these 3,000 people seemingly need 8,000 houses

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCwFLUt6zgE

    Many of the left's hopes of the next generation seem to make Jeremy Corbyn look like Albert Einstein.

    On the subject of Grimsby, meanwhile, the town is turning a corner. Offshore wind is turning Grimsby into the next Aberdeen.
    The retail heart of the town is still depressing, mind, but that is true of 80% of towns in the country. The death of retail need is a separate issue entirely.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,018

    Am I also right in saying that YouGov will update the MRP several times between now and they release it? Are they updating it once a day?

    It looks like they're just updating it once at 10pm on Tuesday.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
    Quite. I refer regularly to Johnson as a liar and a charlatan. I have yet to encounter a dissenting voice.

    This is not because there are no Conservatives posting here.
    How could anyone dispute that?

    It would be like disputing that England’s batsmen are bit shit.
  • nico67 said:



    When did they confirm that it was a fake ? I would have thought they would have used that line when they were first published .

    If the government is so concerned about Russian interference they should have published the Russian Report and helped the public to guard against it. So clearly they’re not bothered .

    Sorry but that doesn't wash. Holding up a bunch of papers of dubious origin and then telling the Government to prove they are false is not the burden of proof. If Labour want to use dodgy papers then it is incumbent upon them to prove they are real and unaltered. Which of course they can't do because they just downloaded them off the internet without checking either their provenance or their accuracy. It also means we can doubt the accuracy of any other dodgy files the Labour Party might dig up from some backwater of the web.
    If you're wishing to make political capital out of this as I am sure the Tories are, the best thing to do would be to call them fake. Whether it's the "right" thing to do, doesn't really matter - it works the best politically.

    The fact they haven't to me points to the fact that they can't. Because they're real.

    Let's have a full investigation - and include this in the Russia report. Perhaps Johnson might release it then? He has some political capital to gain from it now.
    As has already been pointed out they don't have to be false, just subtly altered. Do you know that didn't happen? If you can not say for sure then, given their origins in Russian groups, any sensible person would say they are unreliable. Certainly you wouldn't be dumb enough to stand up and make a huge deal of them without thoroughly checking.... unless you are Jeremy Corbyn apparently.

    And of course I mentioned people being sensible so I can see why Mr Corbyn was taken in.
    I don't know - and neither do you. But we do know the Government/Tory Party has never played this card, which seems to be a good one to play.

    Keep avoiding the Russian report point - it just shows the hypocrisy of the entire situation.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,312
    Andy_JS said:

    Am I also right in saying that YouGov will update the MRP several times between now and they release it? Are they updating it once a day?

    It looks like they're just updating it once at 10pm on Tuesday.
    They might publish a chart of the lead in the days running up to Tuesday though. I think they did that last time?
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 19,419
    edited December 2019
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    David Merritt says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me.

    Do you mean, CHB, that you were considering voting Tory before this?

    Because if so, you hid it incredibly well...
    No, it just justifies my already made decision more :)
    Well, fair play.

    I have no idea who David Merritt is, but that’s your choice.

    In my last rounds of voting I voted as follows:

    Green
    Liberal Democrat
    Conservative
    Labour
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative
    Liberal Democrat
    Plaid Cymru
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative

    So I flatter myself I am a swing voter.

    For the first time in the 18 years I have had the vote, including parish council by elections, I will be spoiling my ballot paper at this election.
    He is the father of one of the people murdered during the terrorist attack. He's attacked the Government response to it at length. If he says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me. A decent man and a tragically lost son being on my side makes me feel better about my decision.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,148
    ydoethur said:

    kjohnw1 said:
    That video is quite extraordinary.

    Who would ever have thought Jeremy Clarkson would be a remainer?
    Clarkson`s friend AA Gill always used to say that Clarkson doesn`t actually believe a lot of things that he says.

    I would expect him to be a Leaver in public and Remainer in private.

    He`s done a U-Turn on climate change recently.
  • Ignoring for the moment the fact that it s US data, some of this might be down to increasing longevity and the later dates at which children inherit. Many of those baby boomers are still around, but their parents probably died at an earlier age than they did.
    Most of it is due to the disruption of the link between earning and house prices, accelerated through QE.
    Is that as much of a problem in the US as it is here?
    Yes in the cities with the good jobs at least. It is a global asset boom, so the vast majority of cities with a decent economy have seen house prices soar and soar again with QE.
  • melcfmelcf Posts: 166

    melcf said:

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
    Which one from yesterday? There are several, even a one word hint would do.
    Have you read all the posts from everyone? Is there any proof of Russian involvement in the NHS document leak?? Please do let me know
    The one changing Boris Johnsons name. No. I have no idea.
    His name , as per records, is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. His greatgrandfathers name is Ali Kemal Bey. So calling him Boris Ali Kemal Bey Johnson is wrong??????
    Would you feel insulted, to be associated with your great grandfathers name?
    Unless as a extreme right winger, your ashamed that your ancestry is a handicap. So to to fit in and gain power, are happy to spit on your own ancestry and call people letter boxes?? Sort of, to be more Poish than the Pop. How sad and pathetic is that?. All that I have written is in the public domain.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,018

    What do we expect the polls to say this evening?

    I think the average probably won't change much from the current 43/33/13 situation.
  • Ignoring for the moment the fact that it s US data, some of this might be down to increasing longevity and the later dates at which children inherit. Many of those baby boomers are still around, but their parents probably died at an earlier age than they did.
    Some of it probably is. Doesn't make it less of a problem
    But harder to solve unless we go all Logan’s Run on them us.
  • OGH off Ian Murray's Christmas card list.
    If it is being done without consulting you, isn't it time you gave the LD GE operation a swift kick in the bollocks?

    https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/status/1203274767517863936?s=20
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    melcf said:

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
    Which one from yesterday? There are several, even a one word hint would do.
    Have you read all the posts from everyone? Is there any proof of Russian involvement in the NHS document leak?? Please do let me know
    The one changing Boris Johnsons name. No. I have no idea.
    These documents?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/07/labours-leaked-nhs-files-came-russia-reddit-reveals/

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722
    Cookie said:

    On the subject of Grimsby, meanwhile, the town is turning a corner. Offshore wind is turning Grimsby into the next Aberdeen.
    The retail heart of the town is still depressing, mind, but that is true of 80% of towns in the country. The death of retail need is a separate issue entirely.

    As I found out in Cannock this morning.
  • I'm in Scotland and my narrator in the video has a Scottish accent. Is it an English accent for those in England, and a Welsh for those in Wales?

    On the YouTube site there's only one version - Scottish accent. Now over 700,000 views.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPjkTCQh3RM
  • Friends of the Earth has scored all the main parties on their environmental policies and found that Labour has the best policies. Ahead of the Greens. And way ahead of the Tories, obvs.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,018
    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Am I also right in saying that YouGov will update the MRP several times between now and they release it? Are they updating it once a day?

    It looks like they're just updating it once at 10pm on Tuesday.
    They might publish a chart of the lead in the days running up to Tuesday though. I think they did that last time?
    I don't know. Didn't realise they did that last time.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    OGH off Ian Murray's Christmas card list.
    If it is being done without consulting you, isn't it time you gave the LD GE operation a swift kick in the bollocks?

    https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/status/1203274767517863936?s=20

    I did say I wondered if he had thought this through

  • ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    What would you do, abolish them?

    I always thought the Labour were in favour of charity, and helping those who fall on hard times?
    How about having a more productive economy and a functioning social safety net so that nobody in twenty first century Britain has to go begging to charities to feed their kids?
    Vote Labour.
    I can only admire your optimism.
    Hope dies last.
    After it's killed you.
  • Friends of the Earth has scored all the main parties on their environmental policies and found that Labour has the best policies. Ahead of the Greens. And way ahead of the Tories, obvs.

    I expect that Green vote will get squeezed further in the final days, as does the LD vote.

    It's conceivable to me, that Labour can gain about three points in the last couple of days with little effort. If the gap is 20 points, that means little. But if it's 6 it means a lot.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    David Merritt says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me.

    Do you mean, CHB, that you were considering voting Tory before this?

    Because if so, you hid it incredibly well...
    No, it just justifies my already made decision more :)
    Well, fair play.

    I have no idea who David Merritt is, but that’s your choice.

    In my last rounds of voting I voted as follows:

    Green
    Liberal Democrat
    Conservative
    Labour
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative
    Liberal Democrat
    Plaid Cymru
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative

    So I flatter myself I am a swing voter.

    For the first time in the 18 years I have had the vote, including parish council by elections, I will be spoiling my ballot paper at this election.
    He is the father of one of the people murdered during the terrorist attack. He's attacked the Government response to it at length. If he says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me. A decent man and a tragically lost son being on my side makes me feel better about my decision.
    You never were doing anything different.

    Do try to be a little bit honest in your posts.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    David Merritt says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me.

    Do you mean, CHB, that you were considering voting Tory before this?

    Because if so, you hid it incredibly well...
    No, it just justifies my already made decision more :)
    Well, fair play.

    I have no idea who David Merritt is, but that’s your choice.

    In my last rounds of voting I voted as follows:

    Green
    Liberal Democrat
    Conservative
    Labour
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative
    Liberal Democrat
    Plaid Cymru
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative

    So I flatter myself I am a swing voter.

    For the first time in the 18 years I have had the vote, including parish council by elections, I will be spoiling my ballot paper at this election.
    He is the father of one of the people murdered during the terrorist attack. He's attacked the Government response to it at length. If he says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me. A decent man and a tragically lost son being on my side makes me feel better about my decision.
    Thanks for the clarification. Didn’t recognise the name. Got to feel sympathy for him. At the same time his views are not going to make me vote for a party even more manifestly unfit for office.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,371
    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Well, not really. Tot up the posts as you go through and it's not far from the balance of the UK as a whole, if we take the polls as roughly valid. Maybe a few more LDs than the country as a whole, but that shouldn't surprise us given that OGH is a Lib Dem, and if the site is demographically skewed in any way it is probably a lot more middle class than average.

    This isn't meant rudely, but new left-wing posters have come on here before and been quite taken aback at how pro-Tory it is, because it doesn't chime with their experience in which pretty much everyone is left wing.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/sam-gyimah-on-radio-4-today-1-6413742

    Are the Lib Dems trying to ensure the remaining Labour voters they have, desert them en masse?

    Well given the choice on offer that we have been discussing it’s a rather sensible view point.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,859
    edited December 2019

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country. A shower of complete non-entities with the exception of Angela Rayner who has an impressive back story. Hopefully if Boris secures a 69+ majority and completes the boundary changes and seat reductions, Labour Will find a 2023 election beyond them. I am assuming the FTPA will be repealed.

    While I'm completely on board with equalising constituency sizes (although I'd probably go for +/- 7.5% rather than 2.5%), I'm not convinced of the rationale behind 600 seats.
    Surely any number of seats is pretty arbitrary? Most countries have fewer but is the work directly comparable, what other democratic institutions exist in those places at other levels etc? What number is right?

    Boundaries need updating and so long as it's by an independent body than genuine gerrymandering cannot happen easily. The parameters is trickier.

    What I hope is that parties are not competing to propose the most changes to benefit themselves .
    The overall number is very important in relation to the number of MPs given government jobs and therefore subject to collective responsibility.

    I'd be fine with reducing the number of MPs if you also placed in law a reasonable limit on the size of the Executive. If the Executive needs to be large because we've centralised so much governance, then the legislature from which it is drawn needs to be large too.
    Interesting point I hadnt thought of. Particularly pertinent given May ran out of MPs to appoint who hadnt either already been sacked, resigned or had called for her own resignation.
    This link is a bit out of date now, but the broad changes compared with the start of the 20th century will still be valid. If the size of the Commons had grown in tandem with the number of MPs subject to collective responsibility I think we'd have over 2,000 MPs now. You could make every existing Westminster constituency into a 3-member STV constituency and still be short.

    I know MPs are persona non grata, but it would be absurd to cut 50 backbenchers from the Commons.

    EDIT. LINK. https://whorunsbritain.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2013/11/03/the-rise-in-the-payroll-vote/
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,662
    melcf said:

    melcf said:

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
    Which one from yesterday? There are several, even a one word hint would do.
    Have you read all the posts from everyone? Is there any proof of Russian involvement in the NHS document leak?? Please do let me know
    The one changing Boris Johnsons name. No. I have no idea.
    His name , as per records, is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. His greatgrandfathers name is Ali Kemal Bey. So calling him Boris Ali Kemal Bey Johnson is wrong??????
    Would you feel insulted, to be associated with your great grandfathers name?
    Unless as a extreme right winger, your ashamed that your ancestry is a handicap. So to to fit in and gain power, are happy to spit on your own ancestry and call people letter boxes?? Sort of, to be more Poish than the Pop. How sad and pathetic is that?. All that I have written is in the public domain.
    Earlier today you made a specific allegation about Boris - please don't repeat it - which could have led to legal action. I doubt that it would have, but in the event of such action it is the publisher of this website who would be in court. So, to be fair to him, we should all strive to avoid putting him in that position by applying some due care and attention to what we write here.

    I don't think anyone cares whether we say named politicians are useless or incompetent, but when we make specific statements that may not be true we have to remember who bears the consequences.
  • melcf said:

    melcf said:

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
    Which one from yesterday? There are several, even a one word hint would do.
    Have you read all the posts from everyone? Is there any proof of Russian involvement in the NHS document leak?? Please do let me know
    The one changing Boris Johnsons name. No. I have no idea.
    His name , as per records, is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. His greatgrandfathers name is Ali Kemal Bey. So calling him Boris Ali Kemal Bey Johnson is wrong??????
    Would you feel insulted, to be associated with your great grandfathers name?
    Unless as a extreme right winger, your ashamed that your ancestry is a handicap. So to to fit in and gain power, are happy to spit on your own ancestry and call people letter boxes?? Sort of, to be more Poish than the Pop. How sad and pathetic is that?. All that I have written is in the public domain.
    You are perfectly entitled to call him by his full name. I dont understand your motives for mixing in his grandfathers name, however the most logical conclusion would be that it is for xenophobic purposes.
    If you are seeking to point out Johnsons hypocrisy there are far better ways of doing so.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,148
    edited December 2019
    Cookie said:

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Well, not really. Tot up the posts as you go through and it's not far from the balance of the UK as a whole, if we take the polls as roughly valid. Maybe a few more LDs than the country as a whole, but that shouldn't surprise us given that OGH is a Lib Dem, and if the site is demographically skewed in any way it is probably a lot more middle class than average.

    This isn't meant rudely, but new left-wing posters have come on here before and been quite taken aback at how pro-Tory it is, because it doesn't chime with their experience in which pretty much everyone is left wing.
    I think you (melcf) interpret any anti-Labour comment as being "pro-Tory".

    A lot who post here are Lib Dems - so not pro-Tory.
  • Floater said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    David Merritt says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me.

    Do you mean, CHB, that you were considering voting Tory before this?

    Because if so, you hid it incredibly well...
    No, it just justifies my already made decision more :)
    Well, fair play.

    I have no idea who David Merritt is, but that’s your choice.

    In my last rounds of voting I voted as follows:

    Green
    Liberal Democrat
    Conservative
    Labour
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative
    Liberal Democrat
    Plaid Cymru
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative

    So I flatter myself I am a swing voter.

    For the first time in the 18 years I have had the vote, including parish council by elections, I will be spoiling my ballot paper at this election.
    He is the father of one of the people murdered during the terrorist attack. He's attacked the Government response to it at length. If he says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me. A decent man and a tragically lost son being on my side makes me feel better about my decision.
    You never were doing anything different.

    Do try to be a little bit honest in your posts.
    Did I claim as such? Stop putting words in my mouth. I said it made my decision easier, not that it would change it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,722
    Cookie said:

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Well, not really. Tot up the posts as you go through and it's not far from the balance of the UK as a whole, if we take the polls as roughly valid. Maybe a few more LDs than the country as a whole, but that shouldn't surprise us given that OGH is a Lib Dem, and if the site is demographically skewed in any way it is probably a lot more middle class than average.

    This isn't meant rudely, but new left-wing posters have come on here before and been quite taken aback at how pro-Tory it is, because it doesn't chime with their experience in which pretty much everyone is left wing.
    This one’s an obvious troll. Advise not feeding.

    Speaking of trolls, I wonder what JWisemann is doing these days.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,371

    I honestly think the talent in the Labour Party is really very poor at the moment, I can't think of anyone good.

    Cooper was terrible in the last leadership contest, maybe she'll make a better go of it this time, who knows.

    Starmer is by far the best - but even he is nowhere near what they had in the 90s and early 2000s.

    Depressing.

    I'll say this for Yvette Cooper: she isn't a blithering idiot. Her problem last time around was mainly presentational. She's not exactly one to get the blood stirring. But maybe the country and/or Labour Party will have had rather too much of politicians who stir the blood next time around.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    David Merritt says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me.

    Do you mean, CHB, that you were considering voting Tory before this?

    Because if so, you hid it incredibly well...
    No, it just justifies my already made decision more :)
    Well, fair play.

    I have no idea who David Merritt is, but that’s your choice.

    In my last rounds of voting I voted as follows:

    Green
    Liberal Democrat
    Conservative
    Labour
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative
    Liberal Democrat
    Plaid Cymru
    Conservative
    Independent
    Conservative

    So I flatter myself I am a swing voter.

    For the first time in the 18 years I have had the vote, including parish council by elections, I will be spoiling my ballot paper at this election.
    He is the father of one of the people murdered during the terrorist attack. He's attacked the Government response to it at length. If he says vote anti-Tory, that's good enough for me. A decent man and a tragically lost son being on my side makes me feel better about my decision.
    Thanks for the clarification. Didn’t recognise the name. Got to feel sympathy for him. At the same time his views are not going to make me vote for a party even more manifestly unfit for office.
    That's fair enough. My point was that it makes me feel more confident in my decision, to have certain voices on my side. My decision was of course, never going to change and I don't think I've ever denied that being the case.

    Not going to be happy voting Lib Dem of course - but it's the most sensible tactical vote around here.
  • Cookie said:

    On the subject of Dawn Butler, has her interview on LBC been mentioned here?
    Apparently 65pc of the country’s rough sleepers live in Brent.
    And these 3,000 people seemingly need 8,000 houses

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCwFLUt6zgE

    Many of the left's hopes of the next generation seem to make Jeremy Corbyn look like Albert Einstein.

    On the subject of Grimsby, meanwhile, the town is turning a corner. Offshore wind is turning Grimsby into the next Aberdeen.
    The retail heart of the town is still depressing, mind, but that is true of 80% of towns in the country. The death of retail need is a separate issue entirely.


    Did he ask her how her tax payer funded Jacuzzi-style bath is ?
  • Can you block or hide trolls?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    Floater said:

    OGH off Ian Murray's Christmas card list.
    If it is being done without consulting you, isn't it time you gave the LD GE operation a swift kick in the bollocks?

    https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/status/1203274767517863936?s=20

    I did say I wondered if he had thought this through

    OGH has made it clear he dud did not approve these mailings going out.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/sam-gyimah-on-radio-4-today-1-6413742

    Are the Lib Dems trying to ensure the remaining Labour voters they have, desert them en masse?

    Well given the choice on offer that we have been discussing it’s a rather sensible view point.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,835
    edited December 2019
    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    kjohnw1 said:
    That video is quite extraordinary.

    Who would ever have thought Jeremy Clarkson would be a remainer?
    Clarkson`s friend AA Gill always used to say that Clarkson doesn`t actually believe a lot of things that he says.

    I would expect him to be a Leaver in public and Remainer in private.

    He`s done a U-Turn on climate change recently.
    Clarkson took a public Remainer stance before the 2016 Referendum. It seems the Peoples Vote campaign did not cut through.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPz179E7rhA
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,371

    Can we please not attack each other for holding different views, I don't want this to turn into one of those websites.

    Challenge the views and argue them of course but just having posts about "muh Tories" or "muh Labour" really doesn't add much

    Horse, your polite partisanship does the site credit.
  • Cookie said:

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Well, not really. Tot up the posts as you go through and it's not far from the balance of the UK as a whole, if we take the polls as roughly valid. Maybe a few more LDs than the country as a whole, but that shouldn't surprise us given that OGH is a Lib Dem, and if the site is demographically skewed in any way it is probably a lot more middle class than average.

    This isn't meant rudely, but new left-wing posters have come on here before and been quite taken aback at how pro-Tory it is, because it doesn't chime with their experience in which pretty much everyone is left wing.
    It’s one of the few places where you get a reasonably civilised discussion between people with different views. I’m not sure opinions are often changed, but analysis of the betting odds has to be reasonably dispassionate if people are going to stand a chance of winning any money from Betfair and the like.
  • Am I also right in saying that YouGov will update the MRP several times between now and they release it? Are they updating it once a day?

    At GE2017 they released daily updates to the public. Obviously they're gathering data for it every day, and so could calculate daily updates, but I believe the next the public willl see of the MRP is as a dress rehearsal for the exit poll, at 10pm on the 11th.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 34,892
    Have to say the more I speak to non-politically inclined people the more I think we'll see a polling day swing of 2 point Lab to Con. The "two more years of this" is cutting through and in the polling booth that is what will be going through people's heads imo, "do I really want to live through another two years of this?".
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,621
    edited December 2019

    melcf said:

    Looks like this is a pro Tories betting forum. Anything anti Tories seems to be discouraged.

    Boris Johnson is a lying, untrustworthy PM who will do anything for power.

    No-one will have a problem with that statement being posted (even if they disagree with it), variations of it are posted everyday. I didnt see your post that caused concern today but given your one from yesterday Id imagine the issue is not your being anti Tory.
    Quite. I refer regularly to Johnson as a liar and a charlatan. I have yet to encounter a dissenting voice.

    This is not because there are no Conservatives posting here.
    Boris is a liar and a charlatan.

    It would perhaps have more effect if Boris was the only liar or charlatan, but we have seen over the last few years that such behaviour is endemic in UK politics (e.g., Clegg and tuition fees or Facebook, Blair and Iraq, as well as his business interests with evil regimes after leaving power).

    Once a disease is endemic, it is absolutely normal for new cases to be reported. It is hardly surprising.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    Cookie said:

    On the subject of Dawn Butler, has her interview on LBC been mentioned here?
    Apparently 65pc of the country’s rough sleepers live in Brent.
    And these 3,000 people seemingly need 8,000 houses

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCwFLUt6zgE

    Many of the left's hopes of the next generation seem to make Jeremy Corbyn look like Albert Einstein.

    On the subject of Grimsby, meanwhile, the town is turning a corner. Offshore wind is turning Grimsby into the next Aberdeen.
    The retail heart of the town is still depressing, mind, but that is true of 80% of towns in the country. The death of retail need is a separate issue entirely.

    Is she being advised by Diane Abbott?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,148

    Cookie said:

    On the subject of Dawn Butler, has her interview on LBC been mentioned here?
    Apparently 65pc of the country’s rough sleepers live in Brent.
    And these 3,000 people seemingly need 8,000 houses

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCwFLUt6zgE

    Many of the left's hopes of the next generation seem to make Jeremy Corbyn look like Albert Einstein.

    On the subject of Grimsby, meanwhile, the town is turning a corner. Offshore wind is turning Grimsby into the next Aberdeen.
    The retail heart of the town is still depressing, mind, but that is true of 80% of towns in the country. The death of retail need is a separate issue entirely.


    Did he ask her how her tax payer funded Jacuzzi-style bath is ?
    Honestly, it will be manna from heaven for Tories if Butler, Long-Bailey, Burgon or Pidcock were to become Lab leader.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297
    ydoethur said:

    kjohnw1 said:
    That video is quite extraordinary.

    Who would ever have thought Jeremy Clarkson would be a remainer?
    Neighbour of Dave. Awkward to be a Leaver in his social circle....
  • Cookie said:

    Can we please not attack each other for holding different views, I don't want this to turn into one of those websites.

    Challenge the views and argue them of course but just having posts about "muh Tories" or "muh Labour" really doesn't add much

    Horse, your polite partisanship does the site credit.
    You're most kind but it's really not about me. I've been on many sites like Reddit and so on that I did enjoy contributing to but there was a lot of "muh Labour", "muh Tory" posts on an increasing basis and it was very boring. I'm far more interested in an actual discussion than just waving a flag.

    I'm sure many of you might find this hard to believe - but I am not a member of any party. And I would not rule out voting for any party in any future election. I'm naturally of the left and I wouldn't wish to hide that but that does not mean I will vote Labour - I won't this time that's for sure.

    I think I'm far more anti-Tory than anything else in this election. I'm happy to acknowledge that Labour isn't where I want it to be in terms of its ability to actually win elections.

    Not a big fan of the Lib Dems under Swinson but I see them as a good tactical vote this time around.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297

    Cookie said:

    On the subject of Dawn Butler, has her interview on LBC been mentioned here?
    Apparently 65pc of the country’s rough sleepers live in Brent.
    And these 3,000 people seemingly need 8,000 houses

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCwFLUt6zgE

    Many of the left's hopes of the next generation seem to make Jeremy Corbyn look like Albert Einstein.

    On the subject of Grimsby, meanwhile, the town is turning a corner. Offshore wind is turning Grimsby into the next Aberdeen.
    The retail heart of the town is still depressing, mind, but that is true of 80% of towns in the country. The death of retail need is a separate issue entirely.

    Is she being advised by Diane Abbott?
    Borrowed her abacus at least.....
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    Cookie said:

    Can we please not attack each other for holding different views, I don't want this to turn into one of those websites.

    Challenge the views and argue them of course but just having posts about "muh Tories" or "muh Labour" really doesn't add much

    Horse, your polite partisanship does the site credit.
    Horse's main attribute is enthusiasm. Horse is also unfailingly willing to fess up and apologise when wrong.
This discussion has been closed.