Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » When I Grow Up I Wanna Be Famous

2

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,050

    kle4 said:

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    I seem to recall some other BBC series in recent years with really bound sound levels, is it some new hip trend? It reminds me of reading a book recently which had no speech marks, and being informed that that is genuinely also a new trend, despite it making it much harder to read. I hope whoever told me that was lying, although it did make me feel like a grumpy old man.
    I'm biased as no one can improve on the Alistair Sim version as far as I am concerned.
    The musical version is on this Christmas, but no version can surpass The Muppet Christmas Carol.

    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,886

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    We turned it off and have put on the Muppets Christmas Carol.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    You mean like William Hague destroyed Tony Blair?
    Boris Johnson is nowhere near as popular as Tony Blair in 1997-2001 plus as a former DPP Sir Keir Starmer QC starts with a lot more credibility than Hague.
    Are you a Conservative or just a Dave Cameron fanboy?
    It's become kind of hard for Cameron fans to venerate his majority as the pinnacle of Conservative success now that's it's been replaced by one 8 times as large. The well-informed should have known that Balliol was always going to beat Brasenose :wink:
    It's painful but I'm sure they will figure out a clever line to take soon. But going back to the question, are they actually Conservatives?
    Yes, unambiguously. In the same sense that Macmillanites were actually Conservatives, then Thatcherites were actually Conservatives, then Cameron's Liberal Conservatives were actually Conservatives, then Boris's New Populist Conservatives are actually Conservatives.

    The British Conservative Party is tribal, NOT principle-based. @HYUFD is exactly right on this. The point is to seize power and hold on to it, and if that means adapting policies that are the exact opposite of the previous incarnation, then that is not a problem. If Boris was standing in 1979, he'd be James Callaghan not Margaret Thatcher.
  • Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080
  • Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    I seem to recall some other BBC series in recent years with really bound sound levels, is it some new hip trend? It reminds me of reading a book recently which had no speech marks, and being informed that that is genuinely also a new trend, despite it making it much harder to read. I hope whoever told me that was lying, although it did make me feel like a grumpy old man.
    I'm biased as no one can improve on the Alistair Sim version as far as I am concerned.
    The musical version is on this Christmas, but no version can surpass The Muppet Christmas Carol.

    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.
    Surely not, the Queen is on in the morning according to Labour's biggest all-time election loser.
  • Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    I seem to recall some other BBC series in recent years with really bound sound levels, is it some new hip trend? It reminds me of reading a book recently which had no speech marks, and being informed that that is genuinely also a new trend, despite it making it much harder to read. I hope whoever told me that was lying, although it did make me feel like a grumpy old man.
    I'm biased as no one can improve on the Alistair Sim version as far as I am concerned.
    The musical version is on this Christmas, but no version can surpass The Muppet Christmas Carol.

    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.
    All time Top 3 Scrooges:

    3) Finney
    2) Sim
    1) Caine
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    That's because they limit you if you have a remotely successful betting history.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/betting-firm-boss-earns-323m-a-year-by-blocking-big-winners-dfnbgd9p7
  • TGOHF666 said:

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    That parable about the dreadful miser eventually repenting - it’s just not woke enough .

    Won’t be surprised if there is no happy ending and Scrooge simply is told he can never make up for his colonial past and is therefore cancelled on Twitter.
    Yes I was thinking that. This Scrooge is irredeemable. Dickens didn’t write him as a murderer. He was just nasty enough whilst being worth saving. But then what did Dickens know about this story?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    viewcode said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    You mean like William Hague destroyed Tony Blair?
    Boris Johnson is nowhere near as popular as Tony Blair in 1997-2001 plus as a former DPP Sir Keir Starmer QC starts with a lot more credibility than Hague.
    Are you a Conservative or just a Dave Cameron fanboy?
    It's become kind of hard for Cameron fans to venerate his majority as the pinnacle of Conservative success now that's it's been replaced by one 8 times as large. The well-informed should have known that Balliol was always going to beat Brasenose :wink:
    It's painful but I'm sure they will figure out a clever line to take soon. But going back to the question, are they actually Conservatives?
    Yes, unambiguously. In the same sense that Macmillanites were actually Conservatives, then Thatcherites were actually Conservatives, then Cameron's Liberal Conservatives were actually Conservatives, then Boris's New Populist Conservatives are actually Conservatives.

    The British Conservative Party is tribal, NOT principle-based. @HYUFD is exactly right on this. The point is to seize power and hold on to it, and if that means adapting policies that are the exact opposite of the previous incarnation, then that is not a problem. If Boris was standing in 1979, he'd be James Callaghan not Margaret Thatcher.
    I see it more like a dung beetle, picking up more and more bits, and losing a few bits here and there too. Thatcher has not been forgotten, and much of what Boris does will apply her principles. But they will not be applied universally. Disraeli, Macmillan, Palmerston, Heath, are all still with us in some form.
  • GideonWiseGideonWise Posts: 1,123
    viewcode said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    You mean like William Hague destroyed Tony Blair?
    Boris Johnson is nowhere near as popular as Tony Blair in 1997-2001 plus as a former DPP Sir Keir Starmer QC starts with a lot more credibility than Hague.
    Are you a Conservative or just a Dave Cameron fanboy?
    It's become kind of hard for Cameron fans to venerate his majority as the pinnacle of Conservative success now that's it's been replaced by one 8 times as large. The well-informed should have known that Balliol was always going to beat Brasenose :wink:
    It's painful but I'm sure they will figure out a clever line to take soon. But going back to the question, are they actually Conservatives?
    Yes, unambiguously. In the same sense that Macmillanites were actually Conservatives, then Thatcherites were actually Conservatives, then Cameron's Liberal Conservatives were actually Conservatives, then Boris's New Populist Conservatives are actually Conservatives.

    The British Conservative Party is tribal, NOT principle-based. @HYUFD is exactly right on this. The point is to seize power and hold on to it, and if that means adapting policies that are the exact opposite of the previous incarnation, then that is not a problem. If Boris was standing in 1979, he'd be James Callaghan not Margaret Thatcher.
    Yes I agree. But if someone aligns with a particular version, say because they are a fanboy of the leader, then actively undermines the next iteration, are they actually a Consevative? I'm not sure, I think maybe they are just fanboys.
  • Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    I seem to recall some other BBC series in recent years with really bound sound levels, is it some new hip trend? It reminds me of reading a book recently which had no speech marks, and being informed that that is genuinely also a new trend, despite it making it much harder to read. I hope whoever told me that was lying, although it did make me feel like a grumpy old man.
    I'm biased as no one can improve on the Alistair Sim version as far as I am concerned.
    The musical version is on this Christmas, but no version can surpass The Muppet Christmas Carol.

    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.
    Surely not, the Queen is on in the morning according to Labour's biggest all-time election loser.
    About 9 lol
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    Good for her.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955
    ITV now showing the ultimate Christmas movie.

    Gremlins.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230

    viewcode said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    You mean like William Hague destroyed Tony Blair?
    Boris Johnson is nowhere near as popular as Tony Blair in 1997-2001 plus as a former DPP Sir Keir Starmer QC starts with a lot more credibility than Hague.
    Are you a Conservative or just a Dave Cameron fanboy?
    It's become kind of hard for Cameron fans to venerate his majority as the pinnacle of Conservative success now that's it's been replaced by one 8 times as large. The well-informed should have known that Balliol was always going to beat Brasenose :wink:
    It's painful but I'm sure they will figure out a clever line to take soon. But going back to the question, are they actually Conservatives?
    Yes, unambiguously. In the same sense that Macmillanites were actually Conservatives, then Thatcherites were actually Conservatives, then Cameron's Liberal Conservatives were actually Conservatives, then Boris's New Populist Conservatives are actually Conservatives.

    The British Conservative Party is tribal, NOT principle-based. @HYUFD is exactly right on this. The point is to seize power and hold on to it, and if that means adapting policies that are the exact opposite of the previous incarnation, then that is not a problem. If Boris was standing in 1979, he'd be James Callaghan not Margaret Thatcher.
    I see it more like a dung beetle...
    ...and now I have to wipe the raspberry Pepsi Max from my keyboard. :):)

  • viewcode said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    Good for her.
    Scum
  • ITV now showing the ultimate Christmas movie.

    Gremlins.

    Do you like that film?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    viewcode said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    You mean like William Hague destroyed Tony Blair?
    Boris Johnson is nowhere near as popular as Tony Blair in 1997-2001 plus as a former DPP Sir Keir Starmer QC starts with a lot more credibility than Hague.
    Are you a Conservative or just a Dave Cameron fanboy?
    It's become kind of hard for Cameron fans to venerate his majority as the pinnacle of Conservative success now that's it's been replaced by one 8 times as large. The well-informed should have known that Balliol was always going to beat Brasenose :wink:
    It's painful but I'm sure they will figure out a clever line to take soon. But going back to the question, are they actually Conservatives?
    Yes, unambiguously. In the same sense that Macmillanites were actually Conservatives, then Thatcherites were actually Conservatives, then Cameron's Liberal Conservatives were actually Conservatives, then Boris's New Populist Conservatives are actually Conservatives.

    The British Conservative Party is tribal, NOT principle-based. @HYUFD is exactly right on this. The point is to seize power and hold on to it, and if that means adapting policies that are the exact opposite of the previous incarnation, then that is not a problem. If Boris was standing in 1979, he'd be James Callaghan not Margaret Thatcher.
    Yes I agree. But if someone aligns with a particular version, say because they are a fanboy of the leader, then actively undermines the next iteration, are they actually a Consevative? I'm not sure, I think maybe they are just fanboys.
    I agree that it's deeply irritating, although in fairness undermining the next iteration is itself a venerable Conservative traditition...
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230

    viewcode said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    Good for her.
    Scum
    Me or her? :)
  • viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    Good for her.
    Scum
    Me or her? :)
    That thing who the report claims to be a woman.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955

    ITV now showing the ultimate Christmas movie.

    Gremlins.

    Do you like that film?
    It has one of the greatest self-referential scenes in history - when the cinema full of Gremlins fall silent in wonder when the movie starts up.....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    The online betting company whose boss paid herself £323 million last year has been accused of making money by using data modelling to limit winning customers’ ability to bet.

    A former employee of Bet365 has said that the company uses “backdoor algorithms” to identify accounts that threaten its profits and blocks them or limits the stakes they can bet to limit their potential winnings.


    This is brand new information!
  • ITV now showing the ultimate Christmas movie.

    Gremlins.

    Do you like that film?
    It has one of the greatest self-referential scenes in history - when the cinema full of Gremlins fall silent in wonder when the movie starts up.....
    There you are now, most cinemas in the UK are full of 6 foot gremlins....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    I seem to recall some other BBC series in recent years with really bound sound levels, is it some new hip trend? It reminds me of reading a book recently which had no speech marks, and being informed that that is genuinely also a new trend, despite it making it much harder to read. I hope whoever told me that was lying, although it did make me feel like a grumpy old man.
    I'm biased as no one can improve on the Alistair Sim version as far as I am concerned.
    The musical version is on this Christmas, but no version can surpass The Muppet Christmas Carol.

    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.
    I recently saw almost all the Carry On films - gods they got hornier and hornier as the years went on.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542
    I was going to comment further on the previous thread on why Johnson's record on homelessness was so dire as Mayor of London. It fits the theme of this header. I don't think Johnson is actually callous. People like Rees-Mogg fill that role. Johnson is snake oil rather than snake. He wants people to be happy. Johnson thinks, I make a pledge, repeat a snappy soundbite, get a photo op - job done!

    If you are the mayor of a city and want to do something about homelessness, you need to understand why people are homeless, get the various agencies working to a plan, knock heads together and follow up. Johnson did none of these things and so he wasted large amounts of money .and opportunity not dealing with homelessness.

    It will be the same with Brexit and the other things he deals with as prime minister.

    FF43 said:

    He can't resist a chance to don a pinny can he? Shoot me, but it's endearing.
    A politician who has shown very little interest in homelessness over a long career gets a photo-op with his oligarch friend at a homeless shelter.
    You do not like Boris but to be fair he has hit the right notes with his address to our British Jews and the homeless. It is Christmas, and maybe time to be joyful rather than cynical
    I think I am pretty factual. It clearly is a photo-op and actually he has shown little interest in homelessness compared with other politicians. He did run a couple of half-hearted schemes when he was Mayor of London, for an area that was a key part of his remit. Homelessness in London rose very substantially on his watch and he didn't show much concern to do anything meaningful about it.


  • kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    I seem to recall some other BBC series in recent years with really bound sound levels, is it some new hip trend? It reminds me of reading a book recently which had no speech marks, and being informed that that is genuinely also a new trend, despite it making it much harder to read. I hope whoever told me that was lying, although it did make me feel like a grumpy old man.
    I'm biased as no one can improve on the Alistair Sim version as far as I am concerned.
    The musical version is on this Christmas, but no version can surpass The Muppet Christmas Carol.

    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.
    I recently saw almost all the Carry On films - gods they got hornier and hornier as the years went on.
    The one about the rival taxi companies is good.

    They surely did.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    Floater said:
    If he offers that lady from Pakistan a safe haven, it will be a little more than words, though heaven knows she won't accept it now.
  • The chances of him changing other countries are absolute zero.

    There's more chance in Stalin becoming the next leader of Germany....
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Floater said:
    If he offers that lady from Pakistan a safe haven, it will be a little more than words, though heaven knows she won't accept it now.
    I thought Mrs May turned her down because taking her might upset community relations....
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    Floater said:

    Floater said:
    If he offers that lady from Pakistan a safe haven, it will be a little more than words, though heaven knows she won't accept it now.
    I thought Mrs May turned her down because taking her might upset community relations....
    That's exactly what happened. Reversing that would at least have symbolic value.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    Foxy said:


    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.

    Quite agree...my favourite 'Carry on' film.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    SunnyJim said:

    Foxy said:


    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.

    Quite agree...my favourite 'Carry on' film.
    Carry on up the Khyber is one of my favourites. Obviously would now be banned for cultural appropriation and blacking up.
  • TGOHF666 said:


    SunnyJim said:

    Foxy said:


    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.

    Quite agree...my favourite 'Carry on' film.
    Carry on up the Khyber is one of my favourites. Obviously would now be banned for cultural appropriation and blacking up.
    Carry on Screaming is a gem as well.
  • Is there a Xmas Carry on film?
  • TGOHF666 said:


    SunnyJim said:

    Foxy said:


    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.

    Quite agree...my favourite 'Carry on' film.
    Carry on up the Khyber is one of my favourites. Obviously would now be banned for cultural appropriation and blacking up.
    Still hilarious though :lol:
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,909
    edited December 2019

    TGOHF666 said:


    SunnyJim said:

    Foxy said:


    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.

    Quite agree...my favourite 'Carry on' film.
    Carry on up the Khyber is one of my favourites. Obviously would now be banned for cultural appropriation and blacking up.
    Carry on Screaming is a gem as well.
    I just watch it for Fenella Fielding :blush:
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052

    TGOHF666 said:


    SunnyJim said:

    Foxy said:


    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.

    Quite agree...my favourite 'Carry on' film.
    Carry on up the Khyber is one of my favourites. Obviously would now be banned for cultural appropriation and blacking up.
    Still hilarious though :lol:
    The French Revolution one is another great - and with a socialist woke message.
  • TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:


    SunnyJim said:

    Foxy said:


    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.

    Quite agree...my favourite 'Carry on' film.
    Carry on up the Khyber is one of my favourites. Obviously would now be banned for cultural appropriation and blacking up.
    Still hilarious though :lol:
    The French Revolution one is another great - and with a socialist woke message.
    Carry on Cleo is another good one!
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,182
    kle4 said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    The online betting company whose boss paid herself £323 million last year has been accused of making money by using data modelling to limit winning customers’ ability to bet.

    A former employee of Bet365 has said that the company uses “backdoor algorithms” to identify accounts that threaten its profits and blocks them or limits the stakes they can bet to limit their potential winnings.


    This is brand new information!
    While I find it frustrating when I get banned or limited to paltry sums, I don't resent the betting companies doing so. Customers get to choose whether to make bets or not; betting companies should be able to do so too AFAIAC. If they didn't, well, there wouldn't be much of a gambling industry left.
  • Is there a Xmas Carry on film?

    Just TV shows:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_On_Christmas_Specials
  • Is there a Xmas Carry on film?

    There is Carry On Christmas
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    kle4 said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    The online betting company whose boss paid herself £323 million last year has been accused of making money by using data modelling to limit winning customers’ ability to bet.

    A former employee of Bet365 has said that the company uses “backdoor algorithms” to identify accounts that threaten its profits and blocks them or limits the stakes they can bet to limit their potential winnings.


    This is brand new information!
    If only there was a PBer who used to be very senior at Bet365...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    viewcode said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    Good for her.
    To be fair, she's not paid £323m for being CEO. She's paid £323m because it's her company.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    The online betting company whose boss paid herself £323 million last year has been accused of making money by using data modelling to limit winning customers’ ability to bet.

    A former employee of Bet365 has said that the company uses “backdoor algorithms” to identify accounts that threaten its profits and blocks them or limits the stakes they can bet to limit their potential winnings.


    This is brand new information!
    If only there was a PBer who used to be very senior at Bet365...
    Indeed. Preferably one in the lower echelons of British political power with good future prospects. Where would we find such a paragon... :)
  • rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    Good for her.
    To be fair, she's not paid £323m for being CEO. She's paid £323m because it's her company.
    She'll be having a horrible Christmas then with that low amount of cash.
  • rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    Good for her.
    To be fair, she's not paid £323m for being CEO. She's paid £323m because it's her company.
    In terms of high Street, bookies are almost finished. There will be lots closing before 2021 I'd assume.
  • It was predicted a quarter of bookies would close, how many are actually shut so far?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721
    edited December 2019
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    I seem to recall some other BBC series in recent years with really bound sound levels, is it some new hip trend? It reminds me of reading a book recently which had no speech marks, and being informed that that is genuinely also a new trend, despite it making it much harder to read. I hope whoever told me that was lying, although it did make me feel like a grumpy old man.
    I'm biased as no one can improve on the Alistair Sim version as far as I am concerned.
    The musical version is on this Christmas, but no version can surpass The Muppet Christmas Carol.

    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.
    Carry on Abroad is in my top 10 films. I think the whole lot are on over Christmas.

    The Muppet Christmas Carol not far behind!
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721
    Someone wants £97 at 280 D Miliband to be next Labour leader
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    I seem to recall some other BBC series in recent years with really bound sound levels, is it some new hip trend? It reminds me of reading a book recently which had no speech marks, and being informed that that is genuinely also a new trend, despite it making it much harder to read. I hope whoever told me that was lying, although it did make me feel like a grumpy old man.
    I'm biased as no one can improve on the Alistair Sim version as far as I am concerned.
    The musical version is on this Christmas, but no version can surpass The Muppet Christmas Carol.

    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.
    Carry on Abroad is in my top 10 films. I think the whole lot are on over Christmas.

    The Muppet Christmas Carol not far behind!
    Carry on Brexit is on.

    Sid James plays a natural Johnson, only surpassed by Charles Hawtreys Phwarrbyn.

    You can’t help but feel that Barbara Windsor was miscast as Terry May.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,909
    edited December 2019
    Carry On Labour

    Wilfrid Brambell plays Jezza Corbyn.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721
    edited December 2019
    Jonathan said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    dodrade said:

    I've no idea what this is supposed to be on BBC1 but it certainly isn't Dickens.

    It's garbage tbh.
    As I posted earlier. What a frigging disaster. What the hell are the BBC thinking?

    If you are going to push the artistic envelope to the point where it is too big for the letterbox, at least get the sound levels right and stop the actors muttering to no one in particular.
    I seem to recall some other BBC series in recent years with really bound sound levels, is it some new hip trend? It reminds me of reading a book recently which had no speech marks, and being informed that that is genuinely also a new trend, despite it making it much harder to read. I hope whoever told me that was lying, although it did make me feel like a grumpy old man.
    I'm biased as no one can improve on the Alistair Sim version as far as I am concerned.
    The musical version is on this Christmas, but no version can surpass The Muppet Christmas Carol.

    I see that "Carry on at Your Convenience" is up against the Queen on Christmas Day. The most underrated film of the series. True genius and a look at pre Br-entry Britain.
    Carry on Abroad is in my top 10 films. I think the whole lot are on over Christmas.

    The Muppet Christmas Carol not far behind!
    Carry on Brexit is on.

    Sid James plays a natural Johnson, only surpassed by Charles Hawtreys Phwarrbyn.

    You can’t help but feel that Barbara Windsor was miscast as Terry May.
    If I were a critic of the Tories I’d say the GE verdict was Carry on Muppets!
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836

    Floater said:
    If he offers that lady from Pakistan a safe haven, it will be a little more than words, though heaven knows she won't accept it now.
    One of the best ways for the Tories to show they want Britain to be an internationalist global power post-Brexit would be to offer asylum for those fleeing religious and political persecution faster and quicker than anyone else.

    Given most of the religiously persecuted come from Muslim countries it would also strengthen the demographics in this country that stand up against rising Islamism.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    Gabs3 said:

    Floater said:
    If he offers that lady from Pakistan a safe haven, it will be a little more than words, though heaven knows she won't accept it now.
    One of the best ways for the Tories to show they want Britain to be an internationalist global power post-Brexit would be to offer asylum for those fleeing religious and political persecution faster and quicker than anyone else.

    Given most of the religiously persecuted come from Muslim countries it would also strengthen the demographics in this country that stand up against rising Islamism.
    Given that estimates of the number of Uighur Muslims held in Chinese internment camps range from 800,000 to 3,000,000, wherein they are subject to torture, rape and medical experimentation, such a policy might not produce the counter-Islamist outcome you predict.

    https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-million-people-are-jailed-at-china-s-gulags-i-escaped-here-s-what-goes-on-inside-1.7994216
    https://time.com/5467628/china-uighur-congress-torture/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    viewcode said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Floater said:
    If he offers that lady from Pakistan a safe haven, it will be a little more than words, though heaven knows she won't accept it now.
    One of the best ways for the Tories to show they want Britain to be an internationalist global power post-Brexit would be to offer asylum for those fleeing religious and political persecution faster and quicker than anyone else.

    Given most of the religiously persecuted come from Muslim countries it would also strengthen the demographics in this country that stand up against rising Islamism.
    Given that estimates of the number of Uighur Muslims held in Chinese internment camps range from 800,000 to 3,000,000, wherein they are subject to torture, rape and medical experimentation, such a policy might not produce the counter-Islamist outcome you predict.

    https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-million-people-are-jailed-at-china-s-gulags-i-escaped-here-s-what-goes-on-inside-1.7994216
    https://time.com/5467628/china-uighur-congress-torture/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
    Incredible that not one Islamic country gives a toss about this.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    viewcode said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Floater said:
    If he offers that lady from Pakistan a safe haven, it will be a little more than words, though heaven knows she won't accept it now.
    One of the best ways for the Tories to show they want Britain to be an internationalist global power post-Brexit would be to offer asylum for those fleeing religious and political persecution faster and quicker than anyone else.

    Given most of the religiously persecuted come from Muslim countries it would also strengthen the demographics in this country that stand up against rising Islamism.
    Given that estimates of the number of Uighur Muslims held in Chinese internment camps range from 800,000 to 3,000,000, wherein they are subject to torture, rape and medical experimentation, such a policy might not produce the counter-Islamist outcome you predict.

    https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-million-people-are-jailed-at-china-s-gulags-i-escaped-here-s-what-goes-on-inside-1.7994216
    https://time.com/5467628/china-uighur-congress-torture/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
    The Uighurs are rather religiously moderate. Although there are far more than 3m religiously persecuted in Muslim countries.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    Floater said:

    Labour are insane - they give the job to a bloke who ignored warnings in the past?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7821153/Ex-Labour-MP-Laura-Pidcock-blames-Tony-Blair-election-defeat.html

    Ed Miliband, who led Labour to general election defeat in 2015, will help spearhead a review into why the party was crushed at the ballot box in 2019.

    I thought they'd already decided that it was everybody's fault except theirs?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    Gabs3 said:

    viewcode said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Floater said:
    If he offers that lady from Pakistan a safe haven, it will be a little more than words, though heaven knows she won't accept it now.
    One of the best ways for the Tories to show they want Britain to be an internationalist global power post-Brexit would be to offer asylum for those fleeing religious and political persecution faster and quicker than anyone else.

    Given most of the religiously persecuted come from Muslim countries it would also strengthen the demographics in this country that stand up against rising Islamism.
    Given that estimates of the number of Uighur Muslims held in Chinese internment camps range from 800,000 to 3,000,000, wherein they are subject to torture, rape and medical experimentation, such a policy might not produce the counter-Islamist outcome you predict.

    https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-million-people-are-jailed-at-china-s-gulags-i-escaped-here-s-what-goes-on-inside-1.7994216
    https://time.com/5467628/china-uighur-congress-torture/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
    The Uighurs are rather religiously moderate. Although there are far more than 3m religiously persecuted in Muslim countries.
    Which begs the question: how many people do you envisage being let in?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    TGOHF666 said:

    viewcode said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Floater said:
    If he offers that lady from Pakistan a safe haven, it will be a little more than words, though heaven knows she won't accept it now.
    One of the best ways for the Tories to show they want Britain to be an internationalist global power post-Brexit would be to offer asylum for those fleeing religious and political persecution faster and quicker than anyone else.

    Given most of the religiously persecuted come from Muslim countries it would also strengthen the demographics in this country that stand up against rising Islamism.
    Given that estimates of the number of Uighur Muslims held in Chinese internment camps range from 800,000 to 3,000,000, wherein they are subject to torture, rape and medical experimentation, such a policy might not produce the counter-Islamist outcome you predict.

    https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-million-people-are-jailed-at-china-s-gulags-i-escaped-here-s-what-goes-on-inside-1.7994216
    https://time.com/5467628/china-uighur-congress-torture/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
    Incredible that not one Islamic country gives a toss about this.
    Well we do ignore oppression of Christian churches in South & South East Asia and the Middle East. Plus we were hardly quick off the mark for the Jewish Holocaust, now were we?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    edited December 2019
    viewcode said:



    Well we do ignore oppression of Christian churches in South & South East Asia and the Middle East. Plus we were hardly quick off the mark for the Jewish Holocaust, now were we?

    I think the Hong Kong Chinese should be first in line. They should assimilate well and would be a boon to our economy - they are educated and often English-speaking. Also we have an obligation to them for obvious historical reasons that we don't have to the Uighurs.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    viewcode said:

    Gabs3 said:

    viewcode said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Floater said:
    If he offers that lady from Pakistan a safe haven, it will be a little more than words, though heaven knows she won't accept it now.
    One of the best ways for the Tories to show they want Britain to be an internationalist global power post-Brexit would be to offer asylum for those fleeing religious and political persecution faster and quicker than anyone else.

    Given most of the religiously persecuted come from Muslim countries it would also strengthen the demographics in this country that stand up against rising Islamism.
    Given that estimates of the number of Uighur Muslims held in Chinese internment camps range from 800,000 to 3,000,000, wherein they are subject to torture, rape and medical experimentation, such a policy might not produce the counter-Islamist outcome you predict.

    https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-million-people-are-jailed-at-china-s-gulags-i-escaped-here-s-what-goes-on-inside-1.7994216
    https://time.com/5467628/china-uighur-congress-torture/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
    The Uighurs are rather religiously moderate. Although there are far more than 3m religiously persecuted in Muslim countries.
    Which begs the question: how many people do you envisage being let in?
    Lots.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    FF43 said:

    I was going to comment further on the previous thread on why Johnson's record on homelessness was so dire as Mayor of London. It fits the theme of this header. I don't think Johnson is actually callous. People like Rees-Mogg fill that role. Johnson is snake oil rather than snake. He wants people to be happy. Johnson thinks, I make a pledge, repeat a snappy soundbite, get a photo op - job done!

    If you are the mayor of a city and want to do something about homelessness, you need to understand why people are homeless, get the various agencies working to a plan, knock heads together and follow up. Johnson did none of these things and so he wasted large amounts of money .and opportunity not dealing with homelessness.

    It will be the same with Brexit and the other things he deals with as prime minister.

    FF43 said:

    He can't resist a chance to don a pinny can he? Shoot me, but it's endearing.
    A politician who has shown very little interest in homelessness over a long career gets a photo-op with his oligarch friend at a homeless shelter.
    You do not like Boris but to be fair he has hit the right notes with his address to our British Jews and the homeless. It is Christmas, and maybe time to be joyful rather than cynical
    I think I am pretty factual. It clearly is a photo-op and actually he has shown little interest in homelessness compared with other politicians. He did run a couple of half-hearted schemes when he was Mayor of London, for an area that was a key part of his remit. Homelessness in London rose very substantially on his watch and he didn't show much concern to do anything meaningful about it.


    So Khan , by your reasoning is responsible for all the murders?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    Good for her.
    To be fair, she's not paid £323m for being CEO. She's paid £323m because it's her company.
    She is a pretty smart cookie to get the Co to where it is..,
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Floater said:

    Labour are insane - they give the job to a bloke who ignored warnings in the past?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7821153/Ex-Labour-MP-Laura-Pidcock-blames-Tony-Blair-election-defeat.html

    Ed Miliband, who led Labour to general election defeat in 2015, will help spearhead a review into why the party was crushed at the ballot box in 2019.


    Nandy was just on R4 laying into Labour’s “review”
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    corporeal said:

    kle4 said:

    I know it is not really fair to think so, but I cannot but feel a little that people who deliberately go for the deputy job are lacking in vision or ambition. Particularly when they don't know who will be leader, and who is leader is a rather significant factor in what the deputy leader can and should do.

    Eh, can be a launching pad for a long-term ambitious type I think.
    Really? Here is a list of deputy leaders of the Labour Party:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_leader_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)

    Since 1931, just two have gone on to be full time leader - Attlee and Foot. For the rest, it has proved the pinnacle of their career.

    Not perhaps the best of launchpads.
  • nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited December 2019

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation.
    Really?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,050
    While obviously Johnson is father of so many as to be uncountable, Father of the Nation is a bit of a stretch, even amongst other autocrats. He is widely disliked, only rescued by Corbyn being even less liked.

    It is a bit early for forecasting the 2024 GE. Let's see what happens first.

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    I’ve heard some spin in my time, but The Times reporting Johnson’s plan for a holiday in the Caribbean over the New Year as “an early sign of the Govt’s plan to end austerity” must be up there!
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    In fairness, nine years into government mostly without a majority, riven with splits, facing significant economic pressures and with an untested leadership, they have just won a majority of 80, the second highest number of votes ever recorded at a general election and have reduced Labour to a smoking ruin and stripped it of its longstanding hegemony in the North.

    That is some achievement.

    Where they are going wrong is in thinking that this was due to their brilliance, not to the weaknesses of their opponents and a very particular set of circumstances around policy.

    If they can work this out, they might well be in power until the 2030s. If they can’t, then they might only have five years.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    ydoethur said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation.
    Really?
    I regarded both adjectives as highly questionable.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    It sounds so good, I want to say it again.. having thrashed Corbyn and his cronies decisively...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    ydoethur said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation.
    Really?
    I regarded both adjectives as highly questionable.
    I think he can do avuncular.

    I’ve just never seen any evidence of competence.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    It sounds so good, I want to say it again.. having thrashed Corbyn and his cronies decisively...
    You see what I mean, cocky.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    It sounds so good, I want to say it again.. having thrashed Corbyn and his cronies decisively...
    You see what I mean, cocky.
    We’ve just won an eighty majority and set off a civil war in the opposition. There’s a lot to be cocky about.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    It sounds so good, I want to say it again.. having thrashed Corbyn and his cronies decisively...
    You see what I mean, cocky.
    How else would you describe thrashing Corbyn and his cronies, it is a great feeling mixed with relief that Corbyn will never be PM.
    I am in no way cocky, just exultant that Corbyn was thrashed decisively(boy that sounds good). As a Remainer, I worry about Boris and Brexit, but he may yet surprise us all. We shall see..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    It sounds so good, I want to say it again.. having thrashed Corbyn and his cronies decisively...
    You see what I mean, cocky.
    How else would you describe thrashing Corbyn and his cronies, it is a great feeling mixed with relief that Corbyn will never be PM.
    I am in no way cocky, just exultant that Corbyn was thrashed decisively(boy that sounds good). As a Remainer, I worry about Boris and Brexit, but he may yet surprise us all. We shall see..
    The way you’re repeating it, it sounds positively sadistic, especially given @Jonathan’s repeated reference to cocks.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    It sounds so good, I want to say it again.. having thrashed Corbyn and his cronies decisively...
    You see what I mean, cocky.
    We’ve just won an eighty majority and set off a civil war in the opposition. There’s a lot to be cocky about.
    This is you.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542
    felix said:

    FF43 said:

    I was going to comment further on the previous thread on why Johnson's record on homelessness was so dire as Mayor of London. It fits the theme of this header. I don't think Johnson is actually callous. People like Rees-Mogg fill that role. Johnson is snake oil rather than snake. He wants people to be happy. Johnson thinks, I make a pledge, repeat a snappy soundbite, get a photo op - job done!

    If you are the mayor of a city and want to do something about homelessness, you need to understand why people are homeless, get the various agencies working to a plan, knock heads together and follow up. Johnson did none of these things and so he wasted large amounts of money .and opportunity not dealing with homelessness.

    It will be the same with Brexit and the other things he deals with as prime minister.

    FF43 said:

    He can't resist a chance to don a pinny can he? Shoot me, but it's endearing.
    A politician who has shown very little interest in homelessness over a long career gets a photo-op with his oligarch friend at a homeless shelter.
    You do not like Boris but to be fair he has hit the right notes with his address to our British Jews and the homeless. It is Christmas, and maybe time to be joyful rather than cynical
    I think I am pretty factual. It clearly is a photo-op and actually he has shown little interest in homelessness compared with other politicians. He did run a couple of half-hearted schemes when he was Mayor of London, for an area that was a key part of his remit. Homelessness in London rose very substantially on his watch and he didn't show much concern to do anything meaningful about it.


    So Khan , by your reasoning is responsible for all the murders?
    I mean Johnson claimed at both his mayoral elections that he would get rid of homelessness in London, wasted a sizeable budget given to him for this purpose by central government, due to poor execution. Johnson's lack of interest in the project beyond the slogan and the photo op might have something to do with this.

    Meanwhile, homelessness got a lot worse.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    It sounds so good, I want to say it again.. having thrashed Corbyn and his cronies decisively...
    You see what I mean, cocky.
    We’ve just won an eighty majority and set off a civil war in the opposition. There’s a lot to be cocky about.
    This is you.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
    Well no, we actually won.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    It sounds so good, I want to say it again.. having thrashed Corbyn and his cronies decisively...
    You see what I mean, cocky.
    We’ve just won an eighty majority and set off a civil war in the opposition. There’s a lot to be cocky about.
    This is you.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
    Well no, we actually won.
    So had they, three times in fact.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Interesting header as always by Tomas. The thread, not so much - cockiness is not so much repellent as a waste of time. We'll see how it works out, eh?

    I'm off for a few days with family. Have a lovely Christmas, everyone.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    FF43 said:

    felix said:

    FF43 said:

    I was going to comment further on the previous thread on why Johnson's record on homelessness was so dire as Mayor of London. It fits the theme of this header. I don't think Johnson is actually callous. People like Rees-Mogg fill that role. Johnson is snake oil rather than snake. He wants people to be happy. Johnson thinks, I make a pledge, repeat a snappy soundbite, get a photo op - job done!

    If you are the mayor of a city and want to do something about homelessness, you need to understand why people are homeless, get the various agencies working to a plan, knock heads together and follow up. Johnson did none of these things and so he wasted large amounts of money .and opportunity not dealing with homelessness.

    It will be the same with Brexit and the other things he deals with as prime minister.

    FF43 said:

    He can't resist a chance to don a pinny can he? Shoot me, but it's endearing.
    A politician who has shown very little interest in homelessness over a long career gets a photo-op with his oligarch friend at a homeless shelter.
    You do not like Boris but to be fair he has hit the right notes with his address to our British Jews and the homeless. It is Christmas, and maybe time to be joyful rather than cynical
    I think I am pretty factual. It clearly is a photo-op and actually he has shown little interest in homelessness compared with other politicians. He did run a couple of half-hearted schemes when he was Mayor of London, for an area that was a key part of his remit. Homelessness in London rose very substantially on his watch and he didn't show much concern to do anything meaningful about it.


    So Khan , by your reasoning is responsible for all the murders?
    I mean Johnson claimed at both his mayoral elections that he would get rid of homelessness in London, wasted a sizeable budget given to him for this purpose by central government, due to poor execution. Johnson's lack of interest in the project beyond the slogan and the photo op might have something to do with this.

    Meanwhile, homelessness got a lot worse.
    Long winded way of saying yeah but no but yeah but no...
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    ydoethur said:

    corporeal said:

    kle4 said:

    I know it is not really fair to think so, but I cannot but feel a little that people who deliberately go for the deputy job are lacking in vision or ambition. Particularly when they don't know who will be leader, and who is leader is a rather significant factor in what the deputy leader can and should do.

    Eh, can be a launching pad for a long-term ambitious type I think.
    Really? Here is a list of deputy leaders of the Labour Party:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_leader_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)

    Since 1931, just two have gone on to be full time leader - Attlee and Foot. For the rest, it has proved the pinnacle of their career.

    Not perhaps the best of launchpads.
    Iirc only a couple of home secretaries have become PM in the modern era. Don't think aimong to be home secretary shows a lack of ambition.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    I think Corbyn and his cronies will need to be thrashed, decisively, several more times before they get the message.

    At the moment they are off, sulking. Working out who else to blame. Doubling down on disaster.

    I suspect next time quite a few more will want to join in the decisive thrashing, to drive the point home.

    Hull, Doncaster, Coventry, Chesterfield, Halifax, Sunderland.....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    nunu2 said:

    Keir Starmer is a big defender of the Human Rights Act. I don't like him already.

    Is the human rights act bad?
    Yes. We have always been a leader in pushing the human rights agenda (that sounds horrible but I mean it in a good way).

    The Hunan Rights Act required our courts to look to Strasbourg. Not only does that create sovereignty issues, but it is also a court on which some of the judges are politically appointed and with different standards of jurisprudence and legal traditions.

    We should be proud of our courts and empower them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    If Labour had gone down the route of passing the WA and advocating a soft path in the trade negotiations, I reckon they'd have held the north. London would have seen almighty swings to the Lib Dems but most of those seats are non Tory anyway.
  • Just had a quick peek at the new, larger constituencies in Scotland. I had thought that it would be the Tories that would suffer most, but am surprised to note that it is actually the Scottish Liberal Democrats who get thoroughly hammered, losing all three of their mainland seats. Scottish Labour also lose their only seat. Tories and SNP largely unaffected, losing one seat each.

    There will be far fewer marginals if and when these new, larger constituencies are introduced. The main battleground will likely switch to Fife and Lothian (including Edinburgh).

    Boundaries not set in stone yet of course, but if the SLDs haven’t already profoundly regretted their coalition years with the Tories, this could well be the final wake-up call. If they get a better candidate they might just be able to hold the new, much larger Edinburgh West, but the new Fife NE takes in so many SNP/Lab areas that it looks hopeless for the Lib Dems. The new East Dunbartonshire is even worse due to the seat taking in areas with pretty much zero SLD support.

    All this assumes that the Union still exists in five years time.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    I think Corbyn and his cronies will need to be thrashed, decisively, several more times before they get the message.

    At the moment they are off, sulking. Working out who else to blame. Doubling down on disaster.

    I suspect next time quite a few more will want to join in the decisive thrashing, to drive the point home.

    Hull, Doncaster, Coventry, Chesterfield, Halifax, Sunderland.....
    If the boundaries are changed, Coventry South and Kenilworth becomes a reasonably natural Tory seat
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    corporeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    corporeal said:

    kle4 said:

    I know it is not really fair to think so, but I cannot but feel a little that people who deliberately go for the deputy job are lacking in vision or ambition. Particularly when they don't know who will be leader, and who is leader is a rather significant factor in what the deputy leader can and should do.

    Eh, can be a launching pad for a long-term ambitious type I think.
    Really? Here is a list of deputy leaders of the Labour Party:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_leader_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)

    Since 1931, just two have gone on to be full time leader - Attlee and Foot. For the rest, it has proved the pinnacle of their career.

    Not perhaps the best of launchpads.
    Iirc only a couple of home secretaries have become PM in the modern era. Don't think aimong to be home secretary shows a lack of ambition.
    You remember wrongly. Only one has - Theresa May in 2016. Admittedly Churchill and Callaghan had spells at the Home Office, but that was a long time before they became PM.

    For that reason, ambitious politicians did indeed try to avoid the Home Office.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Lads and ladies, we are not working hard enough to deny the betting companies profit:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1209225478537646080

    Good for her.
    To be fair, she's not paid £323m for being CEO. She's paid £323m because it's her company.
    And she’s extracting the proceeds in the least tax efficient manner possible

    She should be applauded
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    I think Corbyn and his cronies will need to be thrashed, decisively, several more times before they get the message.

    At the moment they are off, sulking. Working out who else to blame. Doubling down on disaster.

    I suspect next time quite a few more will want to join in the decisive thrashing, to drive the point home.

    Hull, Doncaster, Coventry, Chesterfield, Halifax, Sunderland.....
    If the boundaries are changed, Coventry South and Kenilworth becomes a reasonably natural Tory seat
    Newport also looks to be just about Tory on its proposed boundaries.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Charles said:

    nunu2 said:

    Keir Starmer is a big defender of the Human Rights Act. I don't like him already.

    Is the human rights act bad?
    Yes. We have always been a leader in pushing the human rights agenda (that sounds horrible but I mean it in a good way).

    The Hunan Rights Act required our courts to look to Strasbourg. Not only does that create sovereignty issues, but it is also a court on which some of the judges are politically appointed and with different standards of jurisprudence and legal traditions.

    We should be proud of our courts and empower them.
    I mean it's an ok restaurant but I didn't realise Hunan had its own act.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    It sounds so good, I want to say it again.. having thrashed Corbyn and his cronies decisively...
    You see what I mean, cocky.
    We’ve just won an eighty majority and set off a civil war in the opposition. There’s a lot to be cocky about.
    Time to give PB a rest for a while. I can't stand this Tory triumphalism which seems to be going on and on. I may return when the PB Tories have stopped parading their erections to the world!

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,955
    Pulpstar said:

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    I think Corbyn and his cronies will need to be thrashed, decisively, several more times before they get the message.

    At the moment they are off, sulking. Working out who else to blame. Doubling down on disaster.

    I suspect next time quite a few more will want to join in the decisive thrashing, to drive the point home.

    Hull, Doncaster, Coventry, Chesterfield, Halifax, Sunderland.....
    If the boundaries are changed, Coventry South and Kenilworth becomes a reasonably natural Tory seat
    The longer Corbynism continues to fester in Labour, the more their constituencies will become a reasonably natural Tory seat, boundary changes or not.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    nunu2 said:

    Good article.

    What does this hypothesis mean for his opponents?

    Catch him out by detail, or win the vision?

    That's why Labour should go for Sir Keir Starmer QC, he will forensically destroy Boris Johnson on a regular basis.
    And then lose to him in 2024
    It all depend on so many things. Boris has every chance of promoting himself as a competent avuncular father of the nation. He then runs in 2024 as the "why spoil it candidate". In that case no-one no matter how good has much of a chance at doing better than holding the situation. Anyone less than good will be in danger of greater losses - ironically the election leaves the Tories with more "low hanging fruit". "Look at Redcar, look at Bishop, look at Darlington - we can have a decent MP as well in Hartlepool etc" - likewise Leigh and dozens of others.
    The Tories at the moment remind me of the Tories of 92 and 15 and Labour of 05, supremely cocky.
    Its not surprising having just thrashed Corbyn and his cronies, decisively . Things will settle down as we get into the nitty gritty of politics. Boris must use his majority wisely. We shall see if he can.
    It sounds so good, I want to say it again.. having thrashed Corbyn and his cronies decisively...
    You see what I mean, cocky.
    We’ve just won an eighty majority and set off a civil war in the opposition. There’s a lot to be cocky about.
    Time to give PB a rest for a while. I can't stand this Tory triumphalism which seems to be going on and on. I may return when the PB Tories have stopped parading their erections to the world!

    The largest cock up on display right now is in fairness Labour.
This discussion has been closed.