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

123457

Comments

  • 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.
    It's because it is demonstrably correct, but then I guess there is always someone prepared to say that water isn't wet.

    But not in the same league as Blair's lies that resulted in 500,000 dead & injured in Iraq.
    You win today's Whataboutery Award.

    Yes, somewhere in the world there's a bigger liar than Johnson, so everything's ok.
    What is it you think he’s lied about so egregiously? The bus? That wasn’t lies, it was just political messaging. “Do or die”? The same.

    Maybe the reason I don’t feel lied to is that I haven’t felt misled. On those occasions, and so many others, it seemed to me that the line was delivered with a knowing wink and there was no real deception.

    Interesting that perceptions vary so wildly though, because I do understand that many genuinely think he’s a liar.
    Jeez, the list is endless. On the assumption that you're not just acting dumb I'll refer you to this article:

    https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-277588

    There are numerous others available if you care to look.
    M
    The £350 m quoted on the bus was not wrong. Our EU contribution is £19bn so not a lie. Misleading - perhaps - as about a quarter of that money makes its way back to the UK via various EU aid schemes and subsidies. but the claim was that we'd have control of an extra £350m a week which we could choose to spend on the NHS.
  • Had Labour canvassers, but no Conservatives yet. Received multiple pieces of electoral literature from both.
  • I think the 'UK press just hoors itself out to whichever Tory they happen to favour' stuff can be overdone, but fuxake.

    https://twitter.com/frasermatthew/status/1203293175667924992?s=20
  • felix said:

    If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    What happens if Brexit is not a disaster though? It’s not likely I admit, but it could happen. Boris does something stupidly terminal early in 2020, someone sensible takes over... I haven’t thought this through, have I?
    Like most Remainers, I sincerely hope Brexit is a success. If it is, I will be here happily acknowledging it.

    I wonder if our resident Leavers will be equally candid if, as is much more likely, it is a complete clusterfuck.
    We already know the answer. No.

    The measure of success now is it not being talked about and us not going into a recession.

    Nobody is arguing it will increase our growth, nobody is arguing it will be a brave new world. It's now something to be done and ignored as quickly as possible - that is not the measure of something people believe to be a success.

    Brexit is and always has been, a distraction. And any leftists should be frankly embarrassed to support it. They've been hoodwinked since day 1 - and it seems like a lot of Labour voters are about to be hoodwinked again.

    Call me an arrogant Islington Southerner all you want, I frankly don't care anymore. I've had enough abuse throughout this entire process that I don't care anymore.
    Did you move?- I thought you told us the other day you were in Kent.
    No I live in Hampshire. I was just going after the stereotype that anyone who says Brexit is bad is apparently from Islington
  • OllyT said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Tories have to be very careful with pushing this Russian angle, and I suspect are limiting it slightly more than their press for that reason, because they know how easy it is for this to shift the agenda back to the Russia report.

    Yes when told I need to be wary of Russian meddling in the election, my first thought was why cant we see the Russia report! How else am I supposed to be wary?
    Purdah. The Government machinery doesn't publish anything remotely political in the middle of an election campaign.
    This was not the reason the report was not published *before* the campaign, however.
    If Johnson wins a good majority I bet the report will never see the light of day
    "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails Russia report!" :smiley:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,214
    edited December 2019
    Spied a Stafford (Rother Valley) poster on my way to Parkrun today, still no Labour posters seen anywhere.
  • DeClare said:

    geoffw said:

    RobD said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nugget:

    "One reason for the renewed [Tory] confidence is early indications from postal votes in so-called ‘Red Wall’ Tory target seats in the North. Postal voting is not supposed to leak, but at every election there is informed speculation from local officials that often changes the way parties campaign in the final days.

    A message sent by a Labour official in the north to colleagues last week, seen by BuzzFeed News, stated that “postal votes in all Labour seats are bad” and ordered activists to stay in so-called “defensive” seats already held by the party, rather than head to “offensive” target seats held by Tories."
    At what point do postal vote envelopes get opened?

    When all the other votes are counted.

    They'd only know about return figures.
    Thanks. So nonsensical inference reported in the Buzzfeed piece.

    I thought postal ballots were opened earlier for validation?
    Oh! So some officials have prior knowledge of local voting trends?
    p.s. Thanks, @Sandpit, for the explanation.
    Correct - Postal votes are opened in front of witnesses, usually party agents and the like, they are validated, but they are not counted, the papers are put into a sealed bag and after validation of the polling station votes, the seals are removed from the bags, the papers added to the non postal papers and they are all counted together.
    The witnesses are not supposed to talk about what information they may have learned from the postal votes to anyone else but information does leak out.
    I live in a marginal constituency and on Tuesday I spotted a Tory councillor in the pub, I asked him if he'd had any info regarding the postal votes opened so far and he wouldn't say, but he had a big smile and was very upbeat about the election prospects.
    That's a juicy nugget ;)

    Labour or Tory held marginal?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,460

    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.

    Next you will be telling us that Blair who you voted for was not a liar.

    Every politician lies during their careers, However I can't think of one who lies on the industrial scale Bozo does. He has a well earned and widespread reputation as a liar before he even reached office. Off hand I can't think of any senior politician that has been sacked a couple of times already for lying.
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    What happens if Brexit is not a disaster though? It’s not likely I admit, but it could happen. Boris does something stupidly terminal early in 2020, someone sensible takes over... I haven’t thought this through, have I?
    Like most Remainers, I sincerely hope Brexit is a success. If it is, I will be here happily acknowledging it.

    I wonder if our resident Leavers will be equally candid if, as is much more likely, it is a complete clusterfuck.
    We already know the answer. No.

    The measure of success now is it not being talked about and us not going into a recession.

    Nobody is arguing it will increase our growth, nobody is arguing it will be a brave new world. It's now something to be done and ignored as quickly as possible - that is not the measure of something people believe to be a success.

    Brexit is and always has been, a distraction. And any leftists should be frankly embarrassed to support it. They've been hoodwinked since day 1 - and it seems like a lot of Labour voters are about to be hoodwinked again.

    Call me an arrogant Islington Southerner all you want, I frankly don't care anymore. I've had enough abuse throughout this entire process that I don't care anymore.
    To oppose Brexit on economic grounds and then support Corbyn is one of the wildest, most illogical positions it is possible to take.
    He's better than Johnson, that's pretty much the bar for me.

    I think both are crap - my view on Corbyn is he'll never have enough power to actuality do anything. Johnson will.

    I therefore feel happy with the decision I've made to tactically vote Lib Dem.

  • 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.

    The Russian report point is neither here nor there to me. Like many other things Johnson has done, I disagree with him and think he should have published. He has been stupid. I don't expect that opinion to change either going forward. But for me the two overriding reasons for supporting him for this specific election are that he will take Britain out of the EU and he is not Corbyn.

    I have voted Tory twice before in my life as I was too young to vote in 1983 - 1987 and 2001. The first for Thatcher and the second for my local MP as he was a friend. I don't regret the first but I do the second. I will not regret this time as long as we leave the EU and stop Corbyn being PM.
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    What happens if Brexit is not a disaster though? It’s not likely I admit, but it could happen. Boris does something stupidly terminal early in 2020, someone sensible takes over... I haven’t thought this through, have I?
    Like most Remainers, I sincerely hope Brexit is a success. If it is, I will be here happily acknowledging it.

    I wonder if our resident Leavers will be equally candid if, as is much more likely, it is a complete clusterfuck.
    The problem is the definition of clusterfuck. As I have made clear since long before Cameron ever mooted a referendum, for me leaving the EU has nothing to do with economics. In fact I have advocated a far closer economic relationship than we are likely to end up with but for me that was, is and always will be, secondary to the basic principles of self determination and democracy.

    Like many on here on both sides I don't expect Brexit to be either an economic disaster or a great economic boon. The reasons for supporting Brexit are far more fundamental than that.
    Yes, you're right, Richard, but you are not, if I may say so, a typical Leaver.

    Defining clusterfuck is indeed an issue. Personally I start with the exchange rate and international credit rating, both of which have taken quite a knock since the referendum. There are many other indicators though and I will watch them with interest over the years ahead.

    As regards self-determination and democracy, I can buy in to them as values in their own right but unlike you I am pessimistic. Being a vassal state of the USA and led by a distinctly undemocratic Conservative Party with its own ideas about Parliamentary democracy isn't my idea of an improvement. Nevertheless if I am wrong in both respects, I will be happy to acknowledge as much - on here, to you, as elsewhere.

    Please God we both live long enough to witness the outcome. :)
  • novanova Posts: 309
    edited December 2019
    Marcus01 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.
    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.
    It's because it is demonstrably correct, but then I guess there is always someone prepared to say that water isn't wet.

    But not in the same league as Blair's lies that resulted in 500,000 dead & injured in Iraq.
    You win today's Whataboutery Award.

    Yes, somewhere in the world there's a bigger liar than Johnson, so everything's ok.
    What is it you think he’s lied about so egregiously? The bus? That wasn’t lies, it was just political messaging. “Do or die”? The same.

    Maybe the reason I don’t feel lied to is that I haven’t felt misled. On those occasions, and so many others, it seemed to me that the line was delivered with a knowing wink and there was no real deception.

    Interesting that perceptions vary so wildly though, because I do understand that many genuinely think he’s a liar.
    Jeez, the list is endless. On the assumption that you're not just acting dumb I'll refer you to this article:

    https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-277588

    There are numerous others available if you care to look.
    M
    The £350 m quoted on the bus was not wrong. Our EU contribution is £19bn so not a lie. Misleading - perhaps - as about a quarter of that money makes its way back to the UK via various EU aid schemes and subsidies. but the claim was that we'd have control of an extra £350m a week which we could choose to spend on the NHS.
    The £350m was wrong. Due to the rebate, we pay approx £250m. The extra £100m is never paid, never returned, and effectively doesn't exist. We can't take control of it, or spend it on the NHS because we never pay it in the first place.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    This is interesting - China is introducing a similar regime on passenger vehicle carbon credits to the one in California:
    https://electrek.co/2019/12/06/beijing-shifts-from-ev-subsidies-to-setting-quotas-for-automakers/

    It will have a profound global impact (the immediate short term one is that foreign manufacturers who don’t produce enough EVs will be forced effectively to subsidise Chinese manufacturers who do).

    Bet you they change the regime at the point when it stops benefiting Chinese manufacturers
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,278
    edited December 2019

    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country.

    Boundaries should automatically be updated after every GE, but there is more than a slight whiff of voter suppression to the Tory plans. Particularly so when one considers the removal of parliamentary and judicial restraints on the executive that are also planned. We do not have the balanced powers of a written Constitutional, and we have already seen the contempt that Johnson and Cummings have for our unwritten constitution.
    You've not read the Conservative manifesto on limiting access to, and reducing the power of, the courts?

    You may also have missed @Cyclefree's header, Protecting our Democracy
    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/05/protecting-our-democracy/
    Having reread it, I am really proud of it. Am I allowed to say this? Well I have.

    Once again the polls are showing the undecideds breaking for Corbyn after yesterday's debate.

    Very interesting indeed, I would say.

    Too many unhatched chickens being counted, I feel.

    Anyway, was canvassed by a lovely Labour lady and we had a good chat. She was not in the slightest bit surprised to hear my reasons for not voting Corbyn. She tried to emphasise how independent Tulip Siddiq would be and I told her that, ok as she was an MP, she was deluding the voters if she tried to pretend that voting for her did not mean voting to have Corbyn as PM.

    Tories and Lib Dems out in Fortune Green today: the Tory candidate is young, quite handsome, with an interesting backstory and, as far as I can see, as far away from the Francois, Rees-Mogg, Johnson type of Tories as it is possible to be. Quite what he is doing in the Tory party beats me.

    The Lib Dems - unsurprisingly - say they are second but don’t seem quite as chipper as normal. They are very proud of their candidate, though, who worked on the pupil premium during the coalition years. They agreed that Swinson had disappointed. Friends I was with think she will lose her seat.

    Rory Stewart is doing one of his London speaks sessions tomorrow morning in Hampstead. I may go along and report back.

    Meanwhile the Xmas market is, as usual, full of overpriced crafts and the weather is surprisingly mild for December.

  • OllyT 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.
    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.

    Next you will be telling us that Blair who you voted for was not a liar.

    Every politician lies during their careers, However I can't think of one who lies on the industrial scale Bozo does. He has a well earned and widespread reputation as a liar before he even reached office. Off hand I can't think of any senior politician that has been sacked a couple of times already for lying.
    How do Shapps, Williamson and Patel score on that one? Close but not quite there (yet)??
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,460
    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.

    PB is currently far more Tory than the electorate, I don't honestly see how anyone can dispute that.
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    What happens if Brexit is not a disaster though? It’s not likely I admit, but it could happen. Boris does something stupidly terminal early in 2020, someone sensible takes over... I haven’t thought this through, have I?
    Like most Remainers, I sincerely hope Brexit is a success. If it is, I will be here happily acknowledging it.

    I wonder if our resident Leavers will be equally candid if, as is much more likely, it is a complete clusterfuck.
    The problem is the definition of clusterfuck. As I have made clear since long before Cameron ever mooted a referendum, for me leaving the EU has nothing to do with economics. In fact I have advocated a far closer economic relationship than we are likely to end up with but for me that was, is and always will be, secondary to the basic principles of self determination and democracy.

    Like many on here on both sides I don't expect Brexit to be either an economic disaster or a great economic boon. The reasons for supporting Brexit are far more fundamental than that.
    There are plenty of people for whom Brexit is a matter of identity. The fact of leaving will be enough to make it a success. You would have thought that the fervour of the People's Vote marches would have taught Remainers that this is an identity issue, and economic arguments were of secondary importance, but they just can't let it go.

    I'll be perfectly honest, if the economic evidence, such as it was, pointed to the UK being economically better off out of the EU I would still have voted to Remain, because I support being part of the EU as an end in itself, for cooperation with other countries, for freedom of movement, etc.
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    This is a great election to lose. But I'm starting to worry that Labour might not lose it.
    Are you suggesting an inverse 1992 effect? Why do you think this?

    I stick by my prediction of a Hung Parliament - but in the last day or two I'll be pretty confident (or not) in that outcome. If a 6 point lead or less (which was my original marker) is maintained up to polling day, I will stick with that prediction.
    I should be more precise, I think Labour will lose in the sense of getting fewer votes and seats than the Tories, that is certain. But I think they might achieve a hung parliament and actually have to deal with the mess the Tories have created. This concern is based on the Mori leader approval data. On the other hand as others have noted the mood music is not like 2017 so maybe we will escape having to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck.
  • We've gone beyond Brexit being good for the economy, to being something that needs to be done because of complete misapprehensions about "taking back control" we never lost in the first place because three years ago the Tory Party hoodwinked people that had had five years of awful austerity that voting for it would give real change.

    They were lied to then and they are being lied to now.

    "Get it done" is not a reason to do anything, it is literally the worst reason to do it. I have been watching this debate for three years, I still don't know a single reason to leave the EU that hasn't been debunked, or been deeply hypocritical because we have a far worse problem here that just gets ignored.

    For me, the ideal result of this election would be: Hung Parliament, referendum, we vote to Remain in the EU, we have another election and a vaguely left Government is elected and we can actually start fixing the problems that led to Brexit in the first place.
  • Marcus01 said:

    M
    The £350 m quoted on the bus was not wrong. Our EU contribution is £19bn so not a lie. Misleading - perhaps - as about a quarter of that money makes its way back to the UK via various EU aid schemes and subsidies. but the claim was that we'd have control of an extra £350m a week which we could choose to spend on the NHS.

    Sorry Marcus but even as a completely committed Leaver I am afraid I can't agree with you on that. Our contribution was never £19 billion. The (extremely misnamed) rebate was taken off before a single penny ever left the UK. So our gross contributions were around £15 billion a year. Or £290 million a week. The idea that we would have that extra £60 million a week to spend on something else was entirely false.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    camel said:

    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.
    I reckon you’re biased...

    A camel is a Horse designed by a committee
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    What happens if Brexit is not a disaster though? It’s not likely I admit, but it could happen. Boris does something stupidly terminal early in 2020, someone sensible takes over... I haven’t thought this through, have I?
    Like most Remainers, I sincerely hope Brexit is a success. If it is, I will be here happily acknowledging it.

    I wonder if our resident Leavers will be equally candid if, as is much more likely, it is a complete clusterfuck.
    We already know the answer. No.

    The measure of success now is it not being talked about and us not going into a recession.

    Nobody is arguing it will increase our growth, nobody is arguing it will be a brave new world. It's now something to be done and ignored as quickly as possible - that is not the measure of something people believe to be a success.

    Brexit is and always has been, a distraction. And any leftists should be frankly embarrassed to support it. They've been hoodwinked since day 1 - and it seems like a lot of Labour voters are about to be hoodwinked again.

    Call me an arrogant Islington Southerner all you want, I frankly don't care anymore. I've had enough abuse throughout this entire process that I don't care anymore.
    In fairness, very few serious Leavers have argued that it will be of economic benefit. The argument has generally been more about 'sovereignity' and similar mystical benefits. Semi-religious beliefs tend to dissolve when confronted with harsh realities, but no doubt there will always be some who cling to them long after the bulk of the supporters have drifted away.
    If you think democracy and sovereignty are mystical beliefs, why were you in any way bothered by Johnson's antics over prorogation?
    They don't have to be, but in the context of Brexit they have tended to be. Does that clarify?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,297
    Cyclefree said:

    Tories and Lib Dems out in Fortune Green today: the Tory candidate is young, quite handsome, with an interesting backstory and, as far as I can see, as far away from the Francois, Rees-Mogg, Johnson type of Tories as it is possible to be. Quite what he is doing in the Tory party beats me.

    Because that is representative of the new generation of One Nation Conservatives selected for this election. See our candidate in Totnes - just 30. Top bloke. Last thing he did was helping to end the ivory trade.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042

    DeClare said:

    geoffw said:

    RobD said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nugget:

    "One reason for the renewed [Tory] confidence is early indications from postal votes in so-called ‘Red Wall’ Tory target seats in the North. Postal voting is not supposed to leak, but at every election there is informed speculation from local officials that often changes the way parties campaign in the final days.

    A message sent by a Labour official in the north to colleagues last week, seen by BuzzFeed News, stated that “postal votes in all Labour seats are bad” and ordered activists to stay in so-called “defensive” seats already held by the party, rather than head to “offensive” target seats held by Tories."
    At what point do postal vote envelopes get opened?

    When all the other votes are counted.

    They'd only know about return figures.
    Thanks. So nonsensical inference reported in the Buzzfeed piece.

    I thought postal ballots were opened earlier for validation?
    Oh! So some officials have prior knowledge of local voting trends?
    p.s. Thanks, @Sandpit, for the explanation.
    Correct - Postal votes are opened in front of witnesses, usually party agents and the like, they are validated, but they are not counted, the papers are put into a sealed bag and after validation of the polling station votes, the seals are removed from the bags, the papers added to the non postal papers and they are all counted together.
    The witnesses are not supposed to talk about what information they may have learned from the postal votes to anyone else but information does leak out.
    I live in a marginal constituency and on Tuesday I spotted a Tory councillor in the pub, I asked him if he'd had any info regarding the postal votes opened so far and he wouldn't say, but he had a big smile and was very upbeat about the election prospects.
    That's a juicy nugget ;)

    Labour or Tory held marginal?
    It’s not a nugget at all, it’s almost certainly crap, as anyone who has actually been to a postal vote verification would know. It is normally impossible to get any worthwhile information since the papers are verified face down. But self important people who like to be “in the know” go round spreading these stories, rather than admit that they wasted their time.
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    What happens if Brexit is not a disaster though? It’s not likely I admit, but it could happen. Boris does something stupidly terminal early in 2020, someone sensible takes over... I haven’t thought this through, have I?
    Like most Remainers, I sincerely hope Brexit is a success. If it is, I will be here happily acknowledging it.

    I wonder if our resident Leavers will be equally candid if, as is much more likely, it is a complete clusterfuck.
    We already know the answer. No.

    The measure of success now is it not being talked about and us not going into a recession.

    Nobody is arguing it will increase our growth, nobody is arguing it will be a brave new world. It's now something to be done and ignored as quickly as possible - that is not the measure of something people believe to be a success.

    Brexit is and always has been, a distraction. And any leftists should be frankly embarrassed to support it. They've been hoodwinked since day 1 - and it seems like a lot of Labour voters are about to be hoodwinked again.

    Call me an arrogant Islington Southerner all you want, I frankly don't care anymore. I've had enough abuse throughout this entire process that I don't care anymore.
    In fairness, very few serious Leavers have argued that it will be of economic benefit. The argument has generally been more about 'sovereignity' and similar mystical benefits. Semi-religious beliefs tend to dissolve when confronted with harsh realities, but no doubt there will always be some who cling to them long after the bulk of the supporters have drifted away.
    If you think democracy and sovereignty are mystical beliefs, why were you in any way bothered by Johnson's antics over prorogation?
    They don't have to be, but in the context of Brexit they have tended to be. Does that clarify?
    No.
  • HenriettaHenrietta Posts: 136
    edited December 2019
    OllyT 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.
    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.

    Next you will be telling us that Blair who you voted for was not a liar.
    Every politician lies during their careers, However I can't think of one who lies on the industrial scale Bozo does. He has a well earned and widespread reputation as a liar before he even reached office. Off hand I can't think of any senior politician that has been sacked a couple of times already for lying.
    There are Gavin Williamson and Priti Patel - sacked for treason leaking state secrets in one case and unauthorised communications with a foreign power in the other - though. (I should add that I think Gavin Williamson may well have been innocent, but that's not what the prime minister of the day said when she sacked him.)
  • argyllrs said:

    Can anyone see a safer bet (albeit only 4% return) than Betfair Tories most seats.

    Presumably a 2% return from betting against a Labour majority is safer given P(Lab win most seats but not a majority) seems a lot higher than P(Lab win majority).
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    This is a great election to lose. But I'm starting to worry that Labour might not lose it.
    Are you suggesting an inverse 1992 effect? Why do you think this?

    I stick by my prediction of a Hung Parliament - but in the last day or two I'll be pretty confident (or not) in that outcome. If a 6 point lead or less (which was my original marker) is maintained up to polling day, I will stick with that prediction.
    I should be more precise, I think Labour will lose in the sense of getting fewer votes and seats than the Tories, that is certain. But I think they might achieve a hung parliament and actually have to deal with the mess the Tories have created. This concern is based on the Mori leader approval data. On the other hand as others have noted the mood music is not like 2017 so maybe we will escape having to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck.
    I kind of feel like this "mood music" stuff has all come out since the result.

    Granted, I wasn't here when this "mood music" was supposed to have happened but I was in a lot of similar places and I was laughed out of the room until the result came in. The Survation poll was widely ridiculed, as was YouGov MRP at the time, from what I recall. All sorts of utter nonsense thrown about that you seem some Labourites doing now, ironically.

    I have a similar gut feeling to 2017 - and that is why I backed Hung Parliament at 5/1. I stood by that decision until the result came in. I didn't have anything to set that off, I didn't use any metrics, etc. I just had a feeling. Maybe I got lucky, I'm sure that is exactly what happens.

    But what is similar, is people are already claiming victory with a week to go. A lot can happen, a lot can change.

    Re the Mori stuff, this is perhaps the most convincing thing I've seen this election that makes my gut feel right some how.

    I'm sure the clutching at straws meme will be along soon. But I don't intend to run away if I am wrong - and I hope most people know that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,978
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is interesting - China is introducing a similar regime on passenger vehicle carbon credits to the one in California:
    https://electrek.co/2019/12/06/beijing-shifts-from-ev-subsidies-to-setting-quotas-for-automakers/

    It will have a profound global impact (the immediate short term one is that foreign manufacturers who don’t produce enough EVs will be forced effectively to subsidise Chinese manufacturers who do).

    Bet you they change the regime at the point when it stops benefiting Chinese manufacturers
    As they always do. Donald Trump is wrong about many things, but he's completely right about China.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,655
    edited December 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    I have to say, while David has written an excellent thread as usual, what a depressing prospect for the country.

    Boundaries should automatically be updated after every GE, but there is more than a slight whiff of voter suppression to the Tory plans. Particularly so when one considers the removal of parliamentary and judicial restraints on the executive that are also planned. We do not have the balanced powers of a written Constitutional, and we have already seen the contempt that Johnson and Cummings have for our unwritten constitution.
    You've not read the Conservative manifesto on limiting access to, and reducing the power of, the courts?

    You may also have missed @Cyclefree's header, Protecting our Democracy
    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/05/protecting-our-democracy/
    Having reread it, I am really proud of it. Am I allowed to say this? Well I have.

    Once again the polls are showing the undecideds breaking for Corbyn after yesterday's debate.

    Very interesting indeed, I would say.

    Too many unhatched chickens being counted, I feel.

    Anyway, was canvassed by a lovely Labour lady and we had a good chat. She was not in the slightest bit surprised to hear my reasons for not voting Corbyn. She tried to emphasise how independent Tulip Siddiq would be and I told her that, ok as she was an MP, she was deluding the voters if she tried to pretend that voting for her did not mean voting to have Corbyn as PM.

    Tories and Lib Dems out in Fortune Green today: the Tory candidate is young, quite handsome, with an interesting backstory and, as far as I can see, as far away from the Francois, Rees-Mogg, Johnson type of Tories as it is possible to be. Quite what he is doing in the Tory party beats me.

    The Lib Dems - unsurprisingly - say they are second but don’t seem quite as chipper as normal. They are very proud of their candidate, though, who worked on the pupil premium during the coalition years. They agreed that Swinson had disappointed. Friends I was with think she will lose her seat.

    Rory Stewart is doing one of his London speaks sessions tomorrow morning in Hampstead. I may go along and report back.

    Meanwhile the Xmas market is, as usual, full of overpriced crafts and the weather is surprisingly mild for December.

    Ridiculous post. Just because you have a particular dislike of some the "names" in the Tory Party does not mean they are all like that. Frankly I think less of you for suggesting this man does not belong in the Tories.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    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.
    It's because it is demonstrably correct, but then I guess there is always someone prepared to say that water isn't wet.
    I think Johnson is someone who doesn’t hesitate to lie when it benefits him, but that’s not the same as a congenital liar....

    (Reminds me of the debate my grandpa and ++Fisher has about whether the “property of God is to be forgiving” meant the same as the “nature of God is to be forgiving”)
  • IanB2 said:

    DeClare said:

    geoffw said:

    RobD said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nugget:

    "One reason for the renewed [Tory] confidence is early indications from postal votes in so-called ‘Red Wall’ Tory target seats in the North. Postal voting is not supposed to leak, but at every election there is informed speculation from local officials that often changes the way parties campaign in the final days.

    A message sent by a Labour official in the north to colleagues last week, seen by BuzzFeed News, stated that “postal votes in all Labour seats are bad” and ordered activists to stay in so-called “defensive” seats already held by the party, rather than head to “offensive” target seats held by Tories."
    At what point do postal vote envelopes get opened?

    When all the other votes are counted.

    They'd only know about return figures.
    Thanks. So nonsensical inference reported in the Buzzfeed piece.

    I thought postal ballots were opened earlier for validation?
    Oh! So some officials have prior knowledge of local voting trends?
    p.s. Thanks, @Sandpit, for the explanation.
    Correct - Postal votes are opened in front of witnesses, usually party agents and the like, they are validated, but they are not counted, the papers are put into a sealed bag and after validation of the polling station votes, the seals are removed from the bags, the papers added to the non postal papers and they are all counted together.
    The witnesses are not supposed to talk about what information they may have learned from the postal votes to anyone else but information does leak out.
    I live in a marginal constituency and on Tuesday I spotted a Tory councillor in the pub, I asked him if he'd had any info regarding the postal votes opened so far and he wouldn't say, but he had a big smile and was very upbeat about the election prospects.
    That's a juicy nugget ;)

    Labour or Tory held marginal?
    It’s not a nugget at all, it’s almost certainly crap, as anyone who has actually been to a postal vote verification would know. It is normally impossible to get any worthwhile information since the papers are verified face down. But self important people who like to be “in the know” go round spreading these stories, rather than admit that they wasted their time.
    Which Tory MP in this climate is going to go "you know what, it's going terribly".

    This is what I was saying about the shy Labour effect.
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    What happens if Brexit is not a disaster though? It’s not likely I admit, but it could happen. Boris does something stupidly terminal early in 2020, someone sensible takes over... I haven’t thought this through, have I?
    Like most Remainers, I sincerely hope Brexit is a success. If it is, I will be here happily acknowledging it.

    I wonder if our resident Leavers will be equally candid if, as is much more likely, it is a complete clusterfuck.
    The problem is the definition of clusterfuck. As I have made clear since long before Cameron ever mooted a referendum, for me leaving the EU has nothing to do with economics. In fact I have advocated a far closer economic relationship than we are likely to end up with but for me that was, is and always will be, secondary to the basic principles of self determination and democracy.

    Like many on here on both sides I don't expect Brexit to be either an economic disaster or a great economic boon. The reasons for supporting Brexit are far more fundamental than that.
    There are plenty of people for whom Brexit is a matter of identity. The fact of leaving will be enough to make it a success. You would have thought that the fervour of the People's Vote marches would have taught Remainers that this is an identity issue, and economic arguments were of secondary importance, but they just can't let it go.

    I'll be perfectly honest, if the economic evidence, such as it was, pointed to the UK being economically better off out of the EU I would still have voted to Remain, because I support being part of the EU as an end in itself, for cooperation with other countries, for freedom of movement, etc.
    That is a crackingly good answer. I agree entirely with your reasoning based on your own values and world view. I don't necessarily agree with those of course but that is not a matter for criticism. There are lots of different world views and that is as it should be. They are different, not wrong.
  • novanova Posts: 309
    OllyT 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.
    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.

    Next you will be telling us that Blair who you voted for was not a liar.

    Every politician lies during their careers, However I can't think of one who lies on the industrial scale Bozo does. He has a well earned and widespread reputation as a liar before he even reached office. Off hand I can't think of any senior politician that has been sacked a couple of times already for lying.
    I'm amazed that he gets away with saying things like his Queen's Speech was "blocked" by Parliament, which he's now mentioned numerous times.

    It's clearly not true - Every journalist and MP knows Parliament passed it.

    I think we're going through the same thing that happened when Trump took over in the US, and just told constant, easily provable lies. The media were so unused to it that they didn't know how to respond.
  • IanB2 said:

    DeClare said:

    geoffw said:

    RobD said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nugget:

    "One reason for the renewed [Tory] confidence is early indications from postal votes in so-called ‘Red Wall’ Tory target seats in the North. Postal voting is not supposed to leak, but at every election there is informed speculation from local officials that often changes the way parties campaign in the final days.

    A message sent by a Labour official in the north to colleagues last week, seen by BuzzFeed News, stated that “postal votes in all Labour seats are bad” and ordered activists to stay in so-called “defensive” seats already held by the party, rather than head to “offensive” target seats held by Tories."
    At what point do postal vote envelopes get opened?

    When all the other votes are counted.

    They'd only know about return figures.
    Thanks. So nonsensical inference reported in the Buzzfeed piece.

    I thought postal ballots were opened earlier for validation?
    Oh! So some officials have prior knowledge of local voting trends?
    p.s. Thanks, @Sandpit, for the explanation.
    Correct - Postal votes are opened in front of witnesses, usually party agents and the like, they are validated, but they are not counted, the papers are put into a sealed bag and after validation of the polling station votes, the seals are removed from the bags, the papers added to the non postal papers and they are all counted together.
    The witnesses are not supposed to talk about what information they may have learned from the postal votes to anyone else but information does leak out.
    I live in a marginal constituency and on Tuesday I spotted a Tory councillor in the pub, I asked him if he'd had any info regarding the postal votes opened so far and he wouldn't say, but he had a big smile and was very upbeat about the election prospects.
    That's a juicy nugget ;)

    Labour or Tory held marginal?
    It’s not a nugget at all, it’s almost certainly crap, as anyone who has actually been to a postal vote verification would know. It is normally impossible to get any worthwhile information since the papers are verified face down. But self important people who like to be “in the know” go round spreading these stories, rather than admit that they wasted their time.
    Ha ok fair enough I'm not familiar with the postal vote verification
  • Charles said:

    camel said:

    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.
    I reckon you’re biased...

    A camel is a Horse designed by a committee
    I was designed by a random phrase generator
  • Tories into 1.36 on betfair- think thats their shortest yet
  • nova said:



    The £350m was wrong. Due to the rebate, we pay approx £250m. The extra £100m is never paid, never returned, and effectively doesn't exist. We can't take control of it, or spend it on the NHS because we never pay it in the first place.

    Its actually about £290 million but your principle is spot on.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Alistair said:

    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.
    Their parents also had vastly less wealth.

    The rapid accumulation of wealth by the oldest in society is a recent phenomena that tracks the baby boomers aging exactly.

    It is not some universal iron law, it is a result of shaping society around funneling wealth to the boomers and then ensuring they retain it in old age when it times past the old would have been spending it in their own care.
    The problem with these graphs is that they just track property ownership

    Effectively it reduces to “baby boomers bought houses cheap and they are now expensive”

    This isn’t saying there’s not a problem to be addressed, but I’m not sure this is a helpful analysis
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    This is a great election to lose. But I'm starting to worry that Labour might not lose it.
    Are you suggesting an inverse 1992 effect? Why do you think this?

    I stick by my prediction of a Hung Parliament - but in the last day or two I'll be pretty confident (or not) in that outcome. If a 6 point lead or less (which was my original marker) is maintained up to polling day, I will stick with that prediction.
    I should be more precise, I think Labour will lose in the sense of getting fewer votes and seats than the Tories, that is certain. But I think they might achieve a hung parliament and actually have to deal with the mess the Tories have created. This concern is based on the Mori leader approval data. On the other hand as others have noted the mood music is not like 2017 so maybe we will escape having to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck.
    If you read my earlier post it was about now I detected the loss of support for TM. It was just the odd anecdote or two but became more obvious quite quickly culminating in David's confirmation of it going pear shaped

    If I detect anything similar I will comment on it, but even this morning there has been anecdotal evidence it is not happening this year

    Lets see but time is running out for labour
  • nova said:

    OllyT 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.
    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.

    Next you will be telling us that Blair who you voted for was not a liar.

    Every politician lies during their careers, However I can't think of one who lies on the industrial scale Bozo does. He has a well earned and widespread reputation as a liar before he even reached office. Off hand I can't think of any senior politician that has been sacked a couple of times already for lying.
    I'm amazed that he gets away with saying things like his Queen's Speech was "blocked" by Parliament, which he's now mentioned numerous times.

    It's clearly not true - Every journalist and MP knows Parliament passed it.

    I think we're going through the same thing that happened when Trump took over in the US, and just told constant, easily provable lies. The media were so unused to it that they didn't know how to respond.
    Some people just like being lied to.

    I didn't really believe that until I was talking to somebody the other day about a mistruth Johnson had said about the 40 new hospitals. Their response was "well I know he's lying but Jeremy Corbyn will crash the economy". It's really very strange.
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    This is a great election to lose. But I'm starting to worry that Labour might not lose it.
    Are you suggesting an inverse 1992 effect? Why do you think this?

    I stick by my prediction of a Hung Parliament - but in the last day or two I'll be pretty confident (or not) in that outcome. If a 6 point lead or less (which was my original marker) is maintained up to polling day, I will stick with that prediction.
    I should be more precise, I think Labour will lose in the sense of getting fewer votes and seats than the Tories, that is certain. But I think they might achieve a hung parliament and actually have to deal with the mess the Tories have created. This concern is based on the Mori leader approval data. On the other hand as others have noted the mood music is not like 2017 so maybe we will escape having to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck.
    Much though I love hard data and the Mori series in particular, I think the one thing the approval numbers don't pick up is the Brexit-related frustration, which is at a particular high at this election. In other words, a key electoral segment will vote for Boris not because they think he's a good leader, not because they like or trust him, but just to make the whole thing go sway, rather then spend the next year or two reliving the horror with Corbyn.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,377

    If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    What happens if Brexit is not a disaster though? It’s not likely I admit, but it could happen. Boris does something stupidly terminal early in 2020, someone sensible takes over... I haven’t thought this through, have I?
    Like most Remainers, I sincerely hope Brexit is a success. If it is, I will be here happily acknowledging it.

    I wonder if our resident Leavers will be equally candid if, as is much more likely, it is a complete clusterfuck.
    Given leavers voted leave for quite different reasons to why remainers didn't - by far the most likely scenario is that you will honestly consider it a clusterfuck, and leavers will honestly consider it a success.
  • Marcus01 said:

    M
    The £350 m quoted on the bus was not wrong. Our EU contribution is £19bn so not a lie. Misleading - perhaps - as about a quarter of that money makes its way back to the UK via various EU aid schemes and subsidies. but the claim was that we'd have control of an extra £350m a week which we could choose to spend on the NHS.

    Sorry Marcus but even as a completely committed Leaver I am afraid I can't agree with you on that. Our contribution was never £19 billion. The (extremely misnamed) rebate was taken off before a single penny ever left the UK. So our gross contributions were around £15 billion a year. Or £290 million a week. The idea that we would have that extra £60 million a week to spend on something else was entirely false.
    Richard, I voted Remain and would do so again. However I think it's wrong to say the £350 was a" lie". It was an exaggeration for sure, but theoretically/legally our obligation is £19bn (£20bn this year) - sure, we get the rebate and other money back but the central figure was a supportable fact. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

    All politicians twist numbers to suit their argument. Morally questionable but as old as politics itself. Blatant lies are rare and usually to a public enquiry such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
  • Marcus01 said:

    Marcus01 said:

    M
    The £350 m quoted on the bus was not wrong. Our EU contribution is £19bn so not a lie. Misleading - perhaps - as about a quarter of that money makes its way back to the UK via various EU aid schemes and subsidies. but the claim was that we'd have control of an extra £350m a week which we could choose to spend on the NHS.

    Sorry Marcus but even as a completely committed Leaver I am afraid I can't agree with you on that. Our contribution was never £19 billion. The (extremely misnamed) rebate was taken off before a single penny ever left the UK. So our gross contributions were around £15 billion a year. Or £290 million a week. The idea that we would have that extra £60 million a week to spend on something else was entirely false.
    Richard, I voted Remain and would do so again. However I think it's wrong to say the £350 was a" lie". It was an exaggeration for sure, but theoretically/legally our obligation is £19bn (£20bn this year) - sure, we get the rebate and other money back but the central figure was a supportable fact. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

    All politicians twist numbers to suit their argument. Morally questionable but as old as politics itself. Blatant lies are rare and usually to a public enquiry such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    If you give me £10 and I immediately give you back £5, would you say that it was a lie to say you'd just become £5 richer?
  • If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    What happens if Brexit is not a disaster though? It’s not likely I admit, but it could happen. Boris does something stupidly terminal early in 2020, someone sensible takes over... I haven’t thought this through, have I?
    Like most Remainers, I sincerely hope Brexit is a success. If it is, I will be here happily acknowledging it.

    I wonder if our resident Leavers will be equally candid if, as is much more likely, it is a complete clusterfuck.
    We already know the answer. No.

    The measure of success now is it not being talked about and us not going into a recessios possible - that is not the measure of something people believe to be a success.

    Brexit is and always has been, a distraction. And any leftists should be frankly embarrassed to support it. They've been hoodwinked since day 1 - and it seems like a lot of Labour voters are about to be hoodwinked again.

    Call me an arrogant Islington Southerner all you want, I frankly don't care anymore. I've had enough abuse throughout this entire process that I don't care anymore.
    In fairness, very few serious Leavers have argued that it will be of economic benefit. The argument has generally been more about 'sovereignity' and similar mystical benefits. Semi-religious beliefs tend to dissolve when confronted with harsh realities, but no doubt there will always be some who cling to them long after the bulk of the supporters have drifted away.
    If you think democracy and sovereignty are mystical beliefs, why were you in any way bothered by Johnson's antics over prorogation?
    They don't have to be, but in the context of Brexit they have tended to be. Does that clarify?
    No.
    Lol! I have to go, Richard, but basically sovereignity and democracy are real, and specific, but in the Brexit context they amounted to little more than a wish to tell Johnny Foreigner to fuck off and to regard direct democracy (the referendum) as somehow superior to parliamentary democracy. These are the magical and mysterious notions I had in mind.

    If time permits, happy to return to this later. I really have to go.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Jess Philips for leader? Please God no

    Agree,a very loud airhead.
    She has contributed precisely nothing in the last three years. Nothing.
    I think this is the first time we’ve agreed 😆

    I genuinely don’t understand what people see in here.
  • Charles said:

    Jess Philips for leader? Please God no

    Agree,a very loud airhead.
    She has contributed precisely nothing in the last three years. Nothing.
    I think this is the first time we’ve agreed 😆

    I genuinely don’t understand what people see in here.
    She's not Corbyn.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    edited December 2019

    DeClare said:

    geoffw said:

    RobD said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Nugget:

    "One reason for the renewed [Tory] confidence is early indications from postal votes in so-called ‘Red Wall’ Tory target seats in the North. Postal voting is not supposed to leak, but at every election there is informed speculation from local officials that often changes the way parties campaign in the final days.

    A message sent by a Labour official in the north to colleagues last week, seen by BuzzFeed News, stated that “postal votes in all Labour seats are bad” and ordered activists to stay in so-called “defensive” seats already held by the party, rather than head to “offensive” target seats held by Tories."
    At what point do postal vote envelopes get opened?

    When all the other votes are counted.

    They'd only know about return figures.
    Thanks. So nonsensical inference reported in the Buzzfeed piece.

    I thought postal ballots were opened earlier for validation?
    Oh! So some officials have prior knowledge of local voting trends?
    p.s. Thanks, @Sandpit, for the explanation.
    Correct - Postal votes are opened in front of witnesses, usually party agents and the like, they are validated, but they are not counted, the papers are put into a sealed bag and after validation of the polling station votes, the seals are removed from the bags, the papers added to the non postal papers and they are all counted together.
    The witnesses are not supposed to talk about what information they may have learned from the postal votes to anyone else but information does leak out.
    I live in a marginal constituency and on Tuesday I spotted a Tory councillor in the pub, I asked him if he'd had any info regarding the postal votes opened so far and he wouldn't say, but he had a big smile and was very upbeat about the election prospects.
    That's a juicy nugget ;)

    Labour or Tory held marginal?
    Currently held by Labour who did extraordinarily well here in 2017 but there was something in the air then that I can't explain and I don't detect any of that now.
    There are two seats, the other one is safe Conservative, the councillor I mentioned comes from there but they've all been sent over here to campaign.
    In 2016 we voted leave and the Tory constituency voted remain.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,087
    edited December 2019
    Marcus01 said:

    Marcus01 said:

    M
    The £350 m quoted on the bus was not wrong. Our EU contribution is £19bn so not a lie. Misleading - perhaps - as about a quarter of that money makes its way back to the UK via various EU aid schemes and subsidies. but the claim was that we'd have control of an extra £350m a week which we could choose to spend on the NHS.

    Sorry Marcus but even as a completely committed Leaver I am afraid I can't agree with you on that. Our contribution was never £19 billion. The (extremely misnamed) rebate was taken off before a single penny ever left the UK. So our gross contributions were around £15 billion a year. Or £290 million a week. The idea that we would have that extra £60 million a week to spend on something else was entirely false.
    Richard, I voted Remain and would do so again. However I think it's wrong to say the £350 was a" lie". It was an exaggeration for sure, but theoretically/legally our obligation is £19bn (£20bn this year) - sure, we get the rebate and other money back but the central figure was a supportable fact. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

    All politicians twist numbers to suit their argument. Morally questionable but as old as politics itself. Blatant lies are rare and usually to a public enquiry such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    The point being not whether or not it is a commitment or an obligation but whether or not, as you and the bus originally claimed, the money thus saved would be available to be spent on something else.

    Since the rebate money was never paid out in the first place and its non- payment was taken into account in the public accounts and the money was then spent elsewhere, it is entirely false to claim that additional £60 million a week would be available for additional spending once we left the EU. It would not because it was never being sent, or committed/ringfenced for being sent, in the first place.

    It was also a stupid claim by Leave because putting the real figure "We send £290 million a week to Brussels" would have been just as effective and would not have been open to accusations of lying.
  • Charles 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.
    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.
    It's because it is demonstrably correct, but then I guess there is always someone prepared to say that water isn't wet.
    I think Johnson is someone who doesn’t hesitate to lie when it benefits him, but that’s not the same as a congenital liar....
    "Congenital" is metaphor. But he may be in between the two. Look at how he said "the press aren't here" in that hospital. That seemed to me like a reflex. Sure, he lied because he felt lying would benefit him, but I don't think much reasoning was involved.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    Pulpstar said:

    Spied a Stafford (Rother Valley) poster on my way to Parkrun today, still no Labour posters seen anywhere.

    Iain Dale wrote about the lack of posters. His view was that before the McKinley expenses case posters and boards could be written off over a number of elections, they are reusable. After the court case the full cost has to be allocated to the current election, so they are being rationed. The same is happening with Cabinet member visits, before they were a national expense, now they are a constituency expense. So they are being rationed as well, hence the lack of big hitter visits from all parties.
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,662
    OllyT said:

    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.

    PB is currently far more Tory than the electorate, I don't honestly see how anyone can dispute that.
    I don't see how anyone can confirm that until after Thursday.
  • Marcus01 said:

    Marcus01 said:

    M
    The £350 m quoted on the bus was not wrong. Our EU contribution is £19bn so not a lie. Misleading - perhaps - as about a quarter of that money makes its way back to the UK via various EU aid schemes and subsidies. but the claim was that we'd have control of an extra £350m a week which we could choose to spend on the NHS.

    Sorry Marcus but even as a completely committed Leaver I am afraid I can't agree with you on that. Our contribution was never £19 billion. The (extremely misnamed) rebate was taken off before a single penny ever left the UK. So our gross contributions were around £15 billion a year. Or £290 million a week. The idea that we would have that extra £60 million a week to spend on something else was entirely false.
    Richard, I voted Remain and would do so again. However I think it's wrong to say the £350 was a" lie". It was an exaggeration for sure, but theoretically/legally our obligation is £19bn (£20bn this year) - sure, we get the rebate and other money back but the central figure was a supportable fact. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

    All politicians twist numbers to suit their argument. Morally questionable but as old as politics itself. Blatant lies are rare and usually to a public enquiry such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    The pint being not whether or not it is a commitment or an obligation but whether or not, as you and the bus originally claimed, the money thus saved would be available to be spent on something else.

    Since the rebate money was never paid out in the first place and its non- payment was taken into account in the public accounts and the money was then spent elsewhere, it is entirely false to claim that additional £60 million a week would be available for additional spending once we left the EU. It would not because it was never being sent, or committed/ringfenced for being sent, in the first place.

    It was also a stupid claim by Leave because putting the real figure "We send £290 million a week to Brussels" would have been just as effective and would not have been open to accusations of lying.
    I think hindsight suggests a high probability they chose the higher number specifically to be accused of lying, giving publicity to remainers saying, no, we only give 250/290 million a week to Brussels.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,978

    Marcus01 said:

    Marcus01 said:

    Richard, I voted Remain and would do so again. However I think it's wrong to say the £350 was a" lie". It was an exaggeration for sure, but theoretically/legally our obligation is £19bn (£20bn this year) - sure, we get the rebate and other money back but the central figure was a supportable fact. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

    All politicians twist numbers to suit their argument. Morally questionable but as old as politics itself. Blatant lies are rare and usually to a public enquiry such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    The pint being not whether or not it is a commitment or an obligation but whether or not, as you and the bus originally claimed, the money thus saved would be available to be spent on something else.

    Since the rebate money was never paid out in the first place and its non- payment was taken into account in the public accounts and the money was then spent elsewhere, it is entirely false to claim that additional £60 million a week would be available for additional spending once we left the EU. It would not because it was never being sent, or committed/ringfenced for being sent, in the first place.

    It was also a stupid claim by Leave because putting the real figure "We send £290 million a week to Brussels" would have been just as effective and would not have been open to accusations of lying.
    Wasn't the point that the rebate wasn't an obligation on the EU's part, rather it exists only at their discretion - and they were planning to replace unanimity with QMV over the budget that deals with said rebate?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    edited December 2019

    IanB2 said:

    DeClare said:

    geoffw said:

    RobD said:

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:
    When all the other votes are counted.

    They'd only know about return figures.
    Thanks. So nonsensical inference reported in the Buzzfeed piece.

    I thought postal ballots were opened earlier for validation?
    Oh! So some officials have prior knowledge of local voting trends?
    p.s. Thanks, @Sandpit, for the explanation.
    Correct - Postal votes are opened in front of witnesses, usually party agents and the like, they are validated, but they are not counted, the papers are put into a sealed bag and after validation of the polling station votes, the seals are removed from the bags, the papers added to the non postal papers and they are all counted together.
    The witnesses are not supposed to talk about what information they may have learned from the postal votes to anyone else but information does leak out.
    I live in a marginal constituency and on Tuesday I spotted a Tory councillor in the pub, I asked him if he'd had any info regarding the postal votes opened so far and he wouldn't say, but he had a big smile and was very upbeat about the election prospects.
    That's a juicy nugget ;)

    Labour or Tory held marginal?
    It’s not a nugget at all, it’s almost certainly crap, as anyone who has actually been to a postal vote verification would know. It is normally impossible to get any worthwhile information since the papers are verified face down. But self important people who like to be “in the know” go round spreading these stories, rather than admit that they wasted their time.
    Ha ok fair enough I'm not familiar with the postal vote verification
    Very few people are. We have this conversation (several times!) here every time there’s an election. I have yet to meet anyone either here or in RL that will actually recount going to a PV verification and explaining how they came by anything worthwhile.

    The anecdotes are always second or third hand stories of people met in pubs whose mate is an activist and heard something on the grapevine. It is of course human nature to want to be in the know, and that coupled with the self interest of agents wanting to motivate their helpers or discourage their opponents mean that such stories are rife.

    And of course we punters love a bit of inside info and so want it to be true.
  • Marcus01 said:

    Marcus01 said:

    M
    The £350 m quoted on the bus was not wrong. Our EU contribution is £19bn so not a lie. Misleading - perhaps - as about a quarter of that money makes its way back to the UK via various EU aid schemes and subsidies. but the claim was that we'd have control of an extra £350m a week which we could choose to spend on the NHS.

    Sorry Marcus but even as a completely committed Leaver I am afraid I can't agree with you on that. Our contribution was never £19 billion. The (extremely misnamed) rebate was taken off before a single penny ever left the UK. So our gross contributions were around £15 billion a year. Or £290 million a week. The idea that we would have that extra £60 million a week to spend on something else was entirely false.
    Richard, I voted Remain and would do so again. However I think it's wrong to say the £350 was a" lie". It was an exaggeration for sure, but theoretically/legally our obligation is £19bn (£20bn this year) - sure, we get the rebate and other money back but the central figure was a supportable fact. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

    All politicians twist numbers to suit their argument. Morally questionable but as old as politics itself. Blatant lies are rare and usually to a public enquiry such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    If you give me £10 and I immediately give you back £5, would you say that it was a lie to say you'd just become £5 richer?
    More fundamental than that. If you owe me £10 but I say give me £5 and we call it quits, have I given you a tenner or a fiver?

    This is what those who keep saying the £350 million a week are ignoring. As far as the additional £60 million a week goes we never paid it, we had no commitment to pay it and we spent the money on something else. There was no saving to be made (as far as that additional amount is concerned.)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,835

    Pulpstar said:

    Spied a Stafford (Rother Valley) poster on my way to Parkrun today, still no Labour posters seen anywhere.

    Iain Dale wrote about the lack of posters. His view was that before the McKinley expenses case posters and boards could be written off over a number of elections, they are reusable. After the court case the full cost has to be allocated to the current election, so they are being rationed. The same is happening with Cabinet member visits, before they were a national expense, now they are a constituency expense. So they are being rationed as well, hence the lack of big hitter visits from all parties.
    So if a party stores last times placards in their garage, the value is written off already?
  • Agree on PB being more pro-Tory than many other places - but there's nothing wrong with that. Most people are pleasant, you get the occasional nasty bully but they're quickly ignored.
  • Polls....must have new polls....
  • BluerBlue said:

    If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    This is a great election to lose. But I'm starting to worry that Labour might not lose it.
    Are you suggesting an inverse 1992 effect? Why do you think this?

    I stick by my prediction of a Hung Parliament - but in the last day or two I'll be pretty confident (or not) in that outcome. If a 6 point lead or less (which was my original marker) is maintained up to polling day, I will stick with that prediction.
    I should be more precise, I think Labour will lose in the sense of getting fewer votes and seats than the Tories, that is certain. But I think they might achieve a hung parliament and actually have to deal with the mess the Tories have created. This concern is based on the Mori leader approval data. On the other hand as others have noted the mood music is not like 2017 so maybe we will escape having to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck.
    Much though I love hard data and the Mori series in particular, I think the one thing the approval numbers don't pick up is the Brexit-related frustration, which is at a particular high at this election. In other words, a key electoral segment will vote for Boris not because they think he's a good leader, not because they like or trust him, but just to make the whole thing go sway, rather then spend the next year or two reliving the horror with Corbyn.
    Yes I think that might be right. I would put chances of a hung parliament at about 40% for that reason, not the 50% suggested by the Mori data alone.
    I think from a Labour POV the ideal result is probably Con 325-330. When the public realise that Brexit is in fact far from "done" in January and the Tories start ripping themselves apart over the extension Labour will be in a good place, especially if they get a more effective leader.
  • Agree on PB being more pro-Tory than many other places - but there's nothing wrong with that. Most people are pleasant, you get the occasional nasty bully but they're quickly ignored.

    When I started posting, it was much more Labour leaning.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sandpit said:

    geoffw said:

    Nugget:

    "One reason for the renewed [Tory] confidence is early indications from postal votes in so-called ‘Red Wall’ Tory target seats in the North. Postal voting is not supposed to leak, but at every election there is informed speculation from local officials that often changes the way parties campaign in the final days.

    A message sent by a Labour official in the north to colleagues last week, seen by BuzzFeed News, stated that “postal votes in all Labour seats are bad” and ordered activists to stay in so-called “defensive” seats already held by the party, rather than head to “offensive” target seats held by Tories."
    At what point do postal vote envelopes get opened?

    The envelopes are opened and verified as they arrive, every day for the past couple of weeks. Party workers observe this process and - although the ballot papers themselves stay face down throughout - say they can add up their votes by looking at canvass records or even by looking carefully at the face-down ballots.

    It's illegal to talk specifically about postal ballots if you are an observer, but obviously feedback is given to the campaigns about late targeting based on the observations.

    Personally I'm wary of comments like we see above about Labour held seats, it could be just a way of enthusing the troops on the ground, or it could be that a lot of large majorities are becoming smaller, rather than seats actually changing hands.
    I’d normally be sceptical, but combined with @bigjohnowls comments about redeploying volunteer resources to safe seats it *may* indicate something

    Straws in the wind though
  • BluerBlue said:

    If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    This is a great election to lose. But I'm starting to worry that Labour might not lose it.
    Are you suggesting an inverse 1992 effect? Why do you think this?

    I stick by my prediction of a Hung Parliament - but in the last day or two I'll be pretty confident (or not) in that outcome. If a 6 point lead or less (which was my original marker) is maintained up to polling day, I will stick with that prediction.
    I should be more precise, I think Labour will lose in the sense of getting fewer votes and seats than the Tories, that is certain. But I think they might achieve a hung parliament and actually have to deal with the mess the Tories have created. This concern is based on the Mori leader approval data. On the other hand as others have noted the mood music is not like 2017 so maybe we will escape having to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck.
    Much though I love hard data and the Mori series in particular, I think the one thing the approval numbers don't pick up is the Brexit-related frustration, which is at a particular high at this election. In other words, a key electoral segment will vote for Boris not because they think he's a good leader, not because they like or trust him, but just to make the whole thing go sway, rather then spend the next year or two reliving the horror with Corbyn.
    Yes I think that might be right. I would put chances of a hung parliament at about 40% for that reason, not the 50% suggested by the Mori data alone.
    I think from a Labour POV the ideal result is probably Con 325-330. When the public realise that Brexit is in fact far from "done" in January and the Tories start ripping themselves apart over the extension Labour will be in a good place, especially if they get a more effective leader.
    The best result would surely be the Tories just short of a majority but Labour able to get over the line if needed, with SNP and the LDs. But the LDs backing Johnson which would give Labour enough time to get a new leader, wait for the LD arrangement to collapse and then form a new Government without an election.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    edited December 2019
    MattW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Spied a Stafford (Rother Valley) poster on my way to Parkrun today, still no Labour posters seen anywhere.

    Iain Dale wrote about the lack of posters. His view was that before the McKinley expenses case posters and boards could be written off over a number of elections, they are reusable. After the court case the full cost has to be allocated to the current election, so they are being rationed. The same is happening with Cabinet member visits, before they were a national expense, now they are a constituency expense. So they are being rationed as well, hence the lack of big hitter visits from all parties.
    So if a party stores last times placards in their garage, the value is written off already?
    I used to declare a notional rental amount paid by the agent to the local party for hire of things that are re-usable: clipboards, rosettes, poster boards, committee room posters etc. Given their longevity there is no need to declare more than a few £ per ward

    Edit/ I haven’t studied the implications of McKinley and haven’t been an agent since that case.
  • ydoethur said:

    Somebody upthread was talking about age groups and how they break for the Tories.

    It is worth remembering this will vary substantially by area. Round here the Labour members are all ex-miners past retirement age. Some of them were handing out leaflets in Cannock Market this morning and not one was under seventy. Meanwhile those of working age are mostly non-graduates working in light industry. Anecdotal evidence suggests they are breaking for the Tories. This probably goes a long way to explain Labour’s apparent collapse in the Midlands.

    It was also a sad day for me in Cannock Market as I find Cannock’s last butcher and last greengrocer (separate shops) have both closed. Never went into the greengrocer’s because it wasn’t very good, but I will miss the butcher a lot. He was a very nice guy, in his seventies, did good quality meat at very reasonable prices (both cheaper and better quality than the local supermarkets) and knew the names of all his customers. Always a smile and a question. I gather he’s ill, so he can’t continue. Must have been sudden as he looked fine last Saturday. Hope it’s not disastrous.

    And on a personal level, it means I will now shop more often in Lichfield or Brewood.

    One for us all to brood over
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,978
    edited December 2019
    IanB2 said:


    Ha ok fair enough I'm not familiar with the postal vote verification

    Very few people are. We have this conversation (several times!) here every time there’s an election. I have yet to meet anyone either here or in RL that will actually recount going to a PV verification and explaining how they came by anything worthwhile.

    The anecdotes are always second or third hand stories of people met in pubs whose mate is an activist and heard something on the grapevine. It is of course human nature to want to be in the know, and that coupled with the self interest of agents wanting to motivate their helpers or discourage their opponents mean that such stories are rife.

    And of course we punters love a bit of inside info and so want it to be true.
    Former MP Kerry McCarthy did get a police caution in 2010, for publishing what she claimed were postal vote numbers based on observations from the validation process.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/25/labour-mp-election-results-twitter
  • Agree on PB being more pro-Tory than many other places - but there's nothing wrong with that. Most people are pleasant, you get the occasional nasty bully but they're quickly ignored.

    When I started posting, it was much more Labour leaning.
    If it's a Hung Parliament, I expect that will return
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,662

    Agree on PB being more pro-Tory than many other places - but there's nothing wrong with that. Most people are pleasant, you get the occasional nasty bully but they're quickly ignored.

    When I started posting, it was much more Labour leaning.
    Which supports the hypothesis that bodies move to the right as they get older!!
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    Polls....must have new polls....

    You’ll be spoilt this evening ! I’m sure we’ll see the most polls published since the start of the campaign .

    The ones I’m looking out for are the BMG and Opinium .

    Those two last week were miles apart .
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042

    Marcus01 said:

    Marcus01 said:

    M
    The £350 m quoted on the bus was not wrong. Our EU contribution is £19bn so not a lie. Misleading - perhaps - as about a quarter of that money makes its way back to the UK via various EU aid schemes and subsidies. but the claim was that we'd have control of an extra £350m a week which we could choose to spend on the NHS.

    Sorry Marcus but even as a completely committed Leaver I am afraid I can't agree with you on that. Our contribution was never £19 billion. The (extremely misnamed) rebate was taken off before a single penny ever left the UK. So our gross contributions were around £15 billion a year. Or £290 million a week. The idea that we would have that extra £60 million a week to spend on something else was entirely false.
    Richard, I voted Remain and would do so again. However I think it's wrong to say the £350 was a" lie". It was an exaggeration for sure, but theoretically/legally our obligation is £19bn (£20bn this year) - sure, we get the rebate and other money back but the central figure was a supportable fact. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

    All politicians twist numbers to suit their argument. Morally questionable but as old as politics itself. Blatant lies are rare and usually to a public enquiry such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    If you give me £10 and I immediately give you back £5, would you say that it was a lie to say you'd just become £5 richer?
    More fundamental than that. If you owe me £10 but I say give me £5 and we call it quits, have I given you a tenner or a fiver?

    This is what those who keep saying the £350 million a week are ignoring. As far as the additional £60 million a week goes we never paid it, we had no commitment to pay it and we spent the money on something else. There was no saving to be made (as far as that additional amount is concerned.)
    Forget the numbers. The lie was that leaving the EU would leave either the country or the government any better off.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited December 2019
    TudorRose said:

    Agree on PB being more pro-Tory than many other places - but there's nothing wrong with that. Most people are pleasant, you get the occasional nasty bully but they're quickly ignored.

    When I started posting, it was much more Labour leaning.
    Which supports the hypothesis that bodies move to the right as they get older!!
    I think it has as much to do with Labour's drift leftwards. When it was New Labour, Tories and Orange-Book Lib Dems, they were all economically centrist pro-business globalist. The debate here was mainly over social issues like gay marriage, or small changes in various tax rates or how effective a particular benefits scheme might be.

    It is clear a lot of people on here are ABC (anybody but Corbyn) at this election, previously it was they quite liked Cameron compared to Brown. It isn't simply all signed up died in the wool Tories.
  • Nicky Morgan says the government cannot publish the ISC's Russia report right now, because "There has to be a parliament to publish that report to".

    Is it true that the government's hands are legally tied in that way?
  • melcfmelcf Posts: 166

    If Brexit ends up being a disaster - which I think it will - we're almost certainly headed for a Labour Government in 2024. It will either be a landslide with a centrist or a modest win with a leftist, I would think. Up to the Labour Party which they prefer - but I would expect we will have a repeat of 1997 in that case.

    I wonder if this election will turn out as 1992.

    This is a great election to lose. But I'm starting to worry that Labour might not lose it.
    Are you suggesting an inverse 1992 effect? Why do you think this?

    I stick by my prediction of a Hung Parliament - but in the last day or two I'll be pretty confident (or not) in that outcome. If a 6 point lead or less (which was my original marker) is maintained up to polling day, I will stick with that prediction.
    I should be more precise, I think Labour will lose in the sense of getting fewer votes and seats than the Tories, that is certain. But I think they might achieve a hung parliament and actually have to deal with the mess the Tories have created. This concern is based on the Mori leader approval data. On the other hand as others have noted the mood music is not like 2017 so maybe we will escape having to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck.
    If you read my earlier post it was about now I detected the loss of support for TM. It was just the odd anecdote or two but became more obvious quite quickly culminating in David's confirmation of it going pear shaped

    If I detect anything similar I will comment on it, but even this morning there has been anecdotal evidence it is not happening this year

    Lets see but time is running out for labour
    What do you think of North Wales? Overall Labour is up in Wales, but strangely in Wrexham it's 29% vs 44% for Tories? Electoral Calculus calls Wrexham and Vale of Clywd as Labour.
    Have studied quite a few marginal seats in the North. Yes, few shocks, including Grimsby but overall still NOT in Tories bag. I would keep the champagne on ice, till the last vote is counted or even recounted
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,278
    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.
    Neither appear to have any warmth or empathy, unlike Jess Phillips. Though I may be biased since I have met her, had a nice chat with her and really liked her.

    I particularly dislike people like Pidcock saying that they can never be friends with Tories. Prejudging people like that is evidence of a narrow and rigid mind, quite unsuited to persuading people not already on your side to vote for you. One of the things I admire about our own @NickPalmer is that he is prepared to give credit to people in other parties doing good work (eg Gove in Environment) and has personal friendships across the political divide.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483

    Tories into 1.36 on betfair- think thats their shortest yet

    It is and the longest price someone got was 8 which is 7/1 against.
    Dunno when that market started, might have been going since 2017.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,371
    Well quite. But I'd also point out that investigating thw candidates is the right thing to do.
    I just don't get anti-Semitism. I mean, obviously I'm not wild about prejudice of any sort, but I can at least understand how humans might be suspicious of people who are different in any obvious way. But Jews are so non-different to the mainstream British as to be unnoticeable. It must be a prejudice you must really need to work at.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:


    Ha ok fair enough I'm not familiar with the postal vote verification

    Very few people are. We have this conversation (several times!) here every time there’s an election. I have yet to meet anyone either here or in RL that will actually recount going to a PV verification and explaining how they came by anything worthwhile.

    The anecdotes are always second or third hand stories of people met in pubs whose mate is an activist and heard something on the grapevine. It is of course human nature to want to be in the know, and that coupled with the self interest of agents wanting to motivate their helpers or discourage their opponents mean that such stories are rife.

    And of course we punters love a bit of inside info and so want it to be true.
    Former MP Kerry McCarthy did get a police caution in 2010, for publishing what she claimed were postal vote numbers based on observations from the validation process.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/25/labour-mp-election-results-twitter
    So either that verification was extremely sloppy and she was able to see a good number of votes as they were removed from the envelopes (or the verification wasn’t done face down as the law requires), or, being the only person there (very common, since it’s a waste of time) she (or her informant) made up the numbers. Take your pick.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 6,371

    Agree on PB being more pro-Tory than many other places - but there's nothing wrong with that. Most people are pleasant, you get the occasional nasty bully but they're quickly ignored.

    When I started posting, it was much more Labour leaning.
    As was the country as a whole!
  • If it's the case that these seats are as close as the MRP says, is it conceivable that the exit poll could end up having to be quite quickly adjusted one way or the other?
  • novanova Posts: 309

    nova said:



    The £350m was wrong. Due to the rebate, we pay approx £250m. The extra £100m is never paid, never returned, and effectively doesn't exist. We can't take control of it, or spend it on the NHS because we never pay it in the first place.

    Its actually about £290 million but your principle is spot on.
    I was using this source.

    https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
  • nico67 said:

    Polls....must have new polls....

    You’ll be spoilt this evening ! I’m sure we’ll see the most polls published since the start of the campaign .

    The ones I’m looking out for are the BMG and Opinium .

    Those two last week were miles apart .

  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,662
    Henrietta said:

    Nicky Morgan says the government cannot publish the ISC's Russia report right now, because "There has to be a parliament to publish that report to".

    Is it true that the government's hands are legally tied in that way?

    What is Nicky Morgan's status? I see she's been used quite a lot in the election as a Tory spokesperson - and of course she is still a Government minister. But I thought she was standing down at this election; is she off to the Lords - or have I misread the situation?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Henrietta said:

    Nicky Morgan says the government cannot publish the ISC's Russia report right now, because "There has to be a parliament to publish that report to".

    Is it true that the government's hands are legally tied in that way?

    More lies from Morgan. The report was ready to go before the election , she’s trying to hide behind purdah rules . The reason the report isn’t being published is because it’s likely to show some attempted interference in the EU ref campaign which the Tories don’t want as they fear it will lead to a surge in Remainer turnout , and also might make Johnson look bad as he fronted Vote Leave .

    If the report showed no interference then surely there was no risk in releasing it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited December 2019
    Cookie said:

    Agree on PB being more pro-Tory than many other places - but there's nothing wrong with that. Most people are pleasant, you get the occasional nasty bully but they're quickly ignored.

    When I started posting, it was much more Labour leaning.
    As was the country as a whole!
    What I don't know is has the country really drifted as far left / right as the parties, or it is that the public's choice is between such.

    Personally, I think what we have seen with the elephant chart that lower middle classes have done very badly over the past 10 years, mainly due to the rise of China and this will only continue, so there is genuine fears over this and how the "social contract" of work hard and you will be much better of then your parents is no longer true.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited December 2019

    If it's the case that these seats are as close as the MRP says, is it conceivable that the exit poll could end up having to be quite quickly adjusted one way or the other?

    If only somebody had code / spreadsheet that would show this ;-)
  • Hope this helps:

    “Sally-Ann Hart, standing in the Tory marginal seat of Hastings, shared a video with an image implying that the billionaire George Soros, who is Jewish, controls the EU,”
    No
    “and she also liked a Nazi slogan on Facebook.”
    Yes

    “Lee Anderson, standing for the Conservatives in Labour-held Ashfield, is an active member of Ashfield Backs Boris, a Facebook group where Soros conspiracy theories have been promoted and which includes supporters of the far-right activist Tommy Robinson.”
    No

    “Richard Short, the candidate for St Helens South and Whiston, is being investigated for asking whether a Jewish journalist was more loyal to Israel than to Britain.”

    Yes. That last one would merit suspension.
  • The man is back for those straw clutchers amongst us

    https://twitter.com/centrist_phone/status/1203305321277640705
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    [deleted].

    This is a great election to lose. But I'm starting to worry that Labour might not lose it.
    Are you suggesting an inverse 1992 effect? Why do you think this?

    I stick by my prediction of a Hung Parliament - but in the last day or two I'll be pretty confident (or not) in that outcome. If a 6 point lead or less (which was my original marker) is maintained up to polling day, I will stick with that prediction.
    I should be more precise, I think Labour will lose in the sense of getting fewer votes and seats than the Tories, that is certain. But I think they might achieve a hung parliament and actually have to deal with the mess the Tories have created. This concern is based on the Mori leader approval data. On the other hand as others have noted the mood music is not like 2017 so maybe we will escape having to deal with the Brexit clusterfuck.
    I kind of feel like this "mood music" stuff has all come out since the result.

    Granted, I wasn't here when this "mood music" was supposed to have happened but I was in a lot of similar places and I was laughed out of the room until the result came in. The Survation poll was widely ridiculed, as was YouGov MRP at the time, from what I recall. All sorts of utter nonsense thrown about that you seem some Labourites doing now, ironically.

    I have a similar gut feeling to 2017 - and that is why I backed Hung Parliament at 5/1. I stood by that decision until the result came in. I didn't have anything to set that off, I didn't use any metrics, etc. I just had a feeling. Maybe I got lucky, I'm sure that is exactly what happens.

    But what is similar, is people are already claiming victory with a week to go. A lot can happen, a lot can change.

    Re the Mori stuff, this is perhaps the most convincing thing I've seen this election that makes my gut feel right some how.

    I'm sure the clutching at straws meme will be along soon. But I don't intend to run away if I am wrong - and I hope most people know that.
    Which constituency are you in, or if you don't want to say, are you N or S of the Severn-Wash line? These days it tends to define 'north and south'. (although I'm not sure about Cornwall).

    I increasingly don't bet on 'far away seats of which I know little', unless tips on this site come from people who seem to have a profitable betting record.

    I wouldn't even bet on Brecon and Radnor this election. I think the odds are about right, i.e. no value. In 2017, it was almost free money.
  • nico67 said:

    Polls....must have new polls....

    You’ll be spoilt this evening ! I’m sure we’ll see the most polls published since the start of the campaign .

    The ones I’m looking out for are the BMG and Opinium .

    Those two last week were miles apart .
    Yes. I’m thinking we’re probably going to end up with a general herding around 8-10%.

    Watch me be completely wrong now.

  • Which constituency are you in, or if you don't want to say, are you N or S of the Severn-Wash line? These days it tends to define 'north and south'. (although I'm not sure about Cornwall).

    I increasingly don't bet on 'far away seats of which I know little', unless tips on this site come from people who seem to have a profitable betting record.

    I wouldn't even bet on Brecon and Radnor this election. I think the odds are about right, i.e. no value. In 2017, it was almost free money.

    Damian Hinds' seat.

    If I was to judge this election on this seat, I'd say the Tories are in real trouble, I've never seen so much Lib Dem activity before and so many Lib Dem posters.

    But of course, that would be ridiculous.
  • melcfmelcf Posts: 166
    Why Republican women men vote Trump??Same principle, why Bjo, great grandson of Ali Kemel Bey calls some letter boxes?? Found an interesting quote
    --In her book Right Wing Women, the feminist Andrea Dworkin wrote that conservative women often conform to the dominant ideologies of the men around them as part of a subconscious survival strategy, hoping that their conservatism will spare them from male hatred and violence. It doesn’t work, she says. They suffer sexist oppression anyway. But the strategy continues. “Most women cannot afford, either materially or psychologically, to recognize that whatever burnt offerings of obedience they bring to beg protection will not appease the angry little gods around them.” Participating in racism does not exempt white women from sexism, as much as they might hope that it will. It merely corrodes their souls in the proce
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,978
    TudorRose said:

    Henrietta said:

    Nicky Morgan says the government cannot publish the ISC's Russia report right now, because "There has to be a parliament to publish that report to".

    Is it true that the government's hands are legally tied in that way?

    What is Nicky Morgan's status? I see she's been used quite a lot in the election as a Tory spokesperson - and of course she is still a Government minister. But I thought she was standing down at this election; is she off to the Lords - or have I misread the situation?
    She's the Secretary of State for DCMS - until she's replaced with a sitting MP following the election.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 71,216
    edited December 2019

    The man is back for those straw clutchers amongst us

    twitter.com/centrist_phone/status/1203305321277640705

    Given the dressing down he got from the YouGov bod the other day, I think we can say he spouts a lot of ill-informed stuff.

    One thing that really spikes his argument. The last debate that basically had the same outcome, small win for Boris, didn't result in any uptick for Labour.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    One thing that puzzles me . If pollsters weight their polls including EU ref result then if the country has changed in terms of that then wouldn’t that leave some bias .

    The polls generally show a small lead for Remain . Interestingly the BMG weighting although including the EU ref does also now weight for new electoral registrations demographics and that impact on the electorate .

    Which maybe why they show a decent lead for Remain on a new EU ref question .
  • TudorRose said:

    Henrietta said:

    Nicky Morgan says the government cannot publish the ISC's Russia report right now, because "There has to be a parliament to publish that report to".

    Is it true that the government's hands are legally tied in that way?

    What is Nicky Morgan's status? I see she's been used quite a lot in the election as a Tory spokesperson - and of course she is still a Government minister. But I thought she was standing down at this election; is she off to the Lords - or have I misread the situation?
    I’m sure I read somewhere the view is that she’s off to the Lords and may become leader of the Tories there.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,042
    nico67 said:

    Henrietta said:

    Nicky Morgan says the government cannot publish the ISC's Russia report right now, because "There has to be a parliament to publish that report to".

    Is it true that the government's hands are legally tied in that way?

    More lies from Morgan. The report was ready to go before the election , she’s trying to hide behind purdah rules . The reason the report isn’t being published is because it’s likely to show some attempted interference in the EU ref campaign which the Tories don’t want as they fear it will lead to a surge in Remainer turnout , and also might make Johnson look bad as he fronted Vote Leave .

    If the report showed no interference then surely there was no risk in releasing it.
    The report will of course point toward Russian influence and Russian money swilling around the 2016 leave campaign. It’ll be interesting whether any Tories are implicated directly or whether we’re simply talking about Farage and Banks.

    This is of course bad news for both the Tories (now the party of Leave) and the Russians. Neither would enjoy being taken apart by the next official opposition (Labour) once the report comes before parliament.

    In their position I would try to find some way of getting Russian fingerprints onto something Labour has done, to muddy the political water and make it difficult for Labour to use the report to score points off the government and tarnish the 2016 referendum result.

    Whether the Russian intelligence service can come up with such a plan, I don’t know?
This discussion has been closed.