politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A reminder of the last July’s YouGov LAB members’ polling on t

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A reminder of the last July’s YouGov LAB members’ polling on the leadership

We have not had a poll of LAB members since last July so the YouGov chart above is based on the latest data available. Since then, of course, three of those senior party figures tested by the firm are no longer possible runners. Tom Watson has quit being an MP, Laura Pidcock lost her seat at on December 12th while John McDonnell has made his intentions clear.

Read the full story here

SouthamObserver

The rules for the election are set. The timetable is what needs to be decided.

Sandpit

Distant second, like Labour.

kyf_100

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

ydoethur

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

I’m more surprised that 44% didn’t know much about her. I thought of her as quite high profile within Labour.

Interesting that Rayner and Long Bailey don’t seem to have high name recognition either.

DavidL

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

another_richard

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

DavidL

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

ydoethur

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

OK, so the Tory and Liberal Democrat figures are both way off.

The others are pretty close though. It forecast the collapse of Labour, if not quite its extent, and the SNP resurgence.

DavidL

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

If they want to Boris to have a hard time, then they should elect an attractive young woman...

Sandpit

DavidL said:

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

We also know that, once the contest is formally announced and nominations are in, there will be a time when anyone on the electoral roll not currently a member, will be able to quite literally buy a vote in the election - and we have no idea, as yet, who they will be and who they will support.

Sunil_Prasannan

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

Seat totals way out for Tory and LibDem!

ydoethur

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

The key one is the Liberal Democrat figure, which plummeted again. And that I think does show that the party’s key strength at the moment is in local areas, not at Westminster, as with, say, Plaid Cymru or the Greens.

But that needn’t last for ever - there was a party up in Scotland that started out that way and ended up with quite a few seats at Westminster in the last go...

DavidL

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

If they want to Boris to have a hard time, then they should elect an attractive young woman...

For a man who spends a lot of his time playing with his horn you sure know how to cast aspersions.

another_richard

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

OK, so the Tory and Liberal Democrat figures are both way off.

The others are pretty close though. It forecast the collapse of Labour, if not quite its extent, and the SNP resurgence.

Its a remarkable coincidence that the people who obsess about local byelections seem to be pro LibDem and anti-Conservative.

DecrepiterJohnL

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Don't forget #NorthernersArePillocks-gate or whatever it was she is suing over. True or not, it adds to the risk in electing her.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

If they want to Boris to have a hard time, then they should elect an attractive young woman...

For a man who spends a lot of his time playing with his horn you sure know how to cast aspersions.

I beg to differ. I am quite sparing in the way I use my eight foot horn. I only pull it out when I want a grand climax.

NickPalmer

ydoethur said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

I’m more surprised that 44% didn’t know much about her. I thought of her as quite high profile within Labour.

Interesting that Rayner and Long Bailey don’t seem to have high name recognition either.

I don't know Pidcock at all, and I'm pretty heavily involved. Most of us "know" the candidates from BBC 10 o'clock news, Question Time, Any Questions or any controversy they've been in, and that's it. Which gives Starmer a head start as the candidate who we've all seen umpteen times looking pretty heavyweight on Brexit.

I also think Thornberry is too long at 40-1. If you think it's important to have a woman this time, and think RLB too Corbynist and Philips too negative, then she's actually the ONLY candidate on the radar (unless Dawn Butler tries for it or Rayner runs after all).

Sandpit

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

Wouldn't Boris just keep saying that he's proud to be a toff who waves the flag, whereas Thornberry is ashamed of herself for being a toff and sneers at those who wave flags?

TheGreenMachine

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Underpriced or overpriced?

SouthamObserver

Both Long Bailey and Pidcock were relatively unknown when this poll took place. Pidcock doesn’t count anymore, but Long Bailey has hardly made much of a mark since. Starmer has a very good chance.

another_richard

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

I can't take RLB seriously as she reminds me of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raquel_Watts

TheGreenMachine

ydoethur said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

I’m more surprised that 44% didn’t know much about her. I thought of her as quite high profile within Labour.

Interesting that Rayner and Long Bailey don’t seem to have high name recognition either.

There's a lot of new and young faces in labour, Tories would be known more.

SouthamObserver

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

We also know that, once the contest is formally announced and nominations are in, there will be a time when anyone on the electoral roll not currently a member, will be able to quite literally buy a vote in the election - and we have no idea, as yet, who they will be and who they will support.

We don’t know if the registered voter scheme will apply in this election. All we know for certain is that party and affiliate members will be able to. The rest is up to the NEC.

TheGreenMachine

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

OK, so the Tory and Liberal Democrat figures are both way off.

The others are pretty close though. It forecast the collapse of Labour, if not quite its extent, and the SNP resurgence.

Anyone could tell you 18 from Northern Ireland, that's all we have.

SouthamObserver

NickPalmer said:

ydoethur said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

I’m more surprised that 44% didn’t know much about her. I thought of her as quite high profile within Labour.

Interesting that Rayner and Long Bailey don’t seem to have high name recognition either.

I don't know Pidcock at all, and I'm pretty heavily involved. Most of us "know" the candidates from BBC 10 o'clock news, Question Time, Any Questions or any controversy they've been in, and that's it. Which gives Starmer a head start as the candidate who we've all seen umpteen times looking pretty heavyweight on Brexit.

I also think Thornberry is too long at 40-1. If you think it's important to have a woman this time, and think RLB too Corbynist and Philips too negative, then she's actually the ONLY candidate on the radar (unless Dawn Butler tries for it or Rayner runs after all).

I can’t see Thornberry getting the nominations she needs.

Sandpit

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

We also know that, once the contest is formally announced and nominations are in, there will be a time when anyone on the electoral roll not currently a member, will be able to quite literally buy a vote in the election - and we have no idea, as yet, who they will be and who they will support.

We don’t know if the registered voter scheme will apply in this election. All we know for certain is that party and affiliate members will be able to. The rest is up to the NEC.

I thought the registered voter scheme was formally part of the process, and it was up to the NEC to set the price?

IIRC it was famously three quid in 2015, but was changed to be a score (same price as a normal menbership) in 2016?

DecrepiterJohnL

NickPalmer said:

ydoethur said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

I’m more surprised that 44% didn’t know much about her. I thought of her as quite high profile within Labour.

Interesting that Rayner and Long Bailey don’t seem to have high name recognition either.

I don't know Pidcock at all, and I'm pretty heavily involved. Most of us "know" the candidates from BBC 10 o'clock news, Question Time, Any Questions or any controversy they've been in, and that's it. Which gives Starmer a head start as the candidate who we've all seen umpteen times looking pretty heavyweight on Brexit.

I also think Thornberry is too long at 40-1. If you think it's important to have a woman this time, and think RLB too Corbynist and Philips too negative, then she's actually the ONLY candidate on the radar (unless Dawn Butler tries for it or Rayner runs after all).

Angela Rayner will need to think hard about the Gove precedent.

SouthamObserver

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

We also know that, once the contest is formally announced and nominations are in, there will be a time when anyone on the electoral roll not currently a member, will be able to quite literally buy a vote in the election - and we have no idea, as yet, who they will be and who they will support.

We don’t know if the registered voter scheme will apply in this election. All we know for certain is that party and affiliate members will be able to. The rest is up to the NEC.

I thought the registered voter scheme was formally part of the process, and it was up to the NEC to set the price?

IIRC it was famously three quid in 2015, but was changed to be a score (same price as a normal menbership) in 2016?

Yep, you could be right. And also how long people have to apply.

Fysics_Teacher

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

If they want to Boris to have a hard time, then they should elect an attractive young woman...

For a man who spends a lot of his time playing with his horn you sure know how to cast aspersions.

I beg to differ. I am quite sparing in the way I use my eight foot horn. I only pull it out when I want a grand climax.

Only an eight foot one? I’m sure our organist has a 32 foot one to play with.

logical_song

"Britain First says 5,000 of its members have joined Tories"
Can we expect them all to be kicked out?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/britain-first-says-5000-of-its-members-have-joined-tories/ar-BBYqbP2?ocid=spartandhp

ydoethur

Fysics_Teacher said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

If they want to Boris to have a hard time, then they should elect an attractive young woman...

For a man who spends a lot of his time playing with his horn you sure know how to cast aspersions.

I beg to differ. I am quite sparing in the way I use my eight foot horn. I only pull it out when I want a grand climax.

Only an eight foot one? I’m sure our organist has a 32 foot one to play with.

I have an eight foot horn at Chadsmoor, a 16 foot one at Cannock, and a 32 foot one at Dursley on the rare occasions I still play there.

But Chadsmoor is the one I play with most often. It is also the one with the best action so is much the easiest to play with.

Sandpit

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

We also know that, once the contest is formally announced and nominations are in, there will be a time when anyone on the electoral roll not currently a member, will be able to quite literally buy a vote in the election - and we have no idea, as yet, who they will be and who they will support.

We don’t know if the registered voter scheme will apply in this election. All we know for certain is that party and affiliate members will be able to. The rest is up to the NEC.

I thought the registered voter scheme was formally part of the process, and it was up to the NEC to set the price?

IIRC it was famously three quid in 2015, but was changed to be a score (same price as a normal menbership) in 2016?

Yep, you could be right. And also how long people have to apply.

I guess we soon find out, you said earlier that they're meeting in the first week of Jan to discuss - assuming a formal resignation or a formal challenge turns up in the meantime?

felix

For Labour the only real hope is probably for the sensible MPs to secede in numbers - create a new official opposition in the H/C and start again. It won't happen.

Stocky

TheGreenMachine said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Underpriced or overpriced?

I think kyf means overpriced (too long)

Sunil_Prasannan

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

We also know that, once the contest is formally announced and nominations are in, there will be a time when anyone on the electoral roll not currently a member, will be able to quite literally buy a vote in the election - and we have no idea, as yet, who they will be and who they will support.

We don’t know if the registered voter scheme will apply in this election. All we know for certain is that party and affiliate members will be able to. The rest is up to the NEC.

I thought the registered voter scheme was formally part of the process, and it was up to the NEC to set the price?

IIRC it was famously three quid in 2015, but was changed to be a score (same price as a normal menbership) in 2016?

I think it was £25 in 2016.

Sandpit

logical_song said:

"Britain First says 5,000 of its members have joined Tories"
Can we expect them all to be kicked out?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/britain-first-says-5000-of-its-members-have-joined-tories/ar-BBYqbP2?ocid=spartandhp

They will be dealt with on an individual basis if complaints are raised, with anyone failing a background check either rejected or expelled as appropriate.

Tories are better than most parties for vetting associates and especially candidates, and any that slip through are quickly removed when it's brought to the attention of the central party. Contrast with another political party, who suspended alleged racists for a few months before quietly reinstating them, when they thought the story had gone quiet.

WhisperingOracle

"Britain First’s spokeswoman, Ashlea Simon, who was questioned under terrorism laws at Heathrow airport last October after a trip to Russia, said Britain First members wanted to form a movement of far-right activists within the Conservative party that would back Johnson in the same way supporters of Momentum joined Labour to solidify Jeremy Corbyn’s grip on the party.

The mass defection of Britain First supporters confirms the backing of Johnson by far-right figures following his election triumph.

Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, recently told followers on the encrypted messaging service Telegram that he has become a paid-up member.

The leader of Britain First, Paul Golding, also claimed to have joined the Conservatives."

Pulpstar

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Well it predicted Labour correctly xD

felix

WhisperingOracle said:

"Britain First’s spokeswoman, Ashlea Simon, who was questioned under terrorism laws at Heathrow airport last October after a trip to Russia, said Britain First members wanted to form a movement of far-right activists within the Conservative party that would back Johnson in the same way supporters of Momentum joined Labour to solidify Jeremy Corbyn’s grip on the party.

The mass defection of Britain First supporters confirms the backing of Johnson by far-right figures following his election triumph.

Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, recently told followers on the encrypted messaging service Telegram that he has become a paid-up member.

The leader of Britain First, Paul Golding, also claimed to have joined the Conservatives."

These stories are so funny - I guess it keeps Owen Jones et al amused and occupied.

another_richard

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

Look again.

Did you read 386 for 286 ?

rcs1000

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

If you look at the vote shares, then Conservatives +1% is pretty much spot on, Labour -9% is almost right, and the LibDems were up 9%... before Jo Swinson decided to make the election all about her and revoke. And I'd also note that the local by-elections got the SNP surge spot on.

ydoethur

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

Look again.

Did you read 386 for 286 ?

Share of vote - up about 1%.

rcs1000

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

In fact, the really messed up part of the analysis is where Conservative +1% is translated into them losing a whole bunch of seats net. If you put Con +1%, LD +9%, Lab -9% into Electoral Calculus (using '17 as your base), you see the Conservatives make a lot of gains from Labour (check), while losing relatively few to the LibDems.

rcs1000

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

Look again.

Did you read 386 for 286 ?

The vote share changes from the by-elections had positive information content. You could have forecast: the Conservative vote share up, Labour collapsing, the SNP surging, and the LDs up. All those were correctly forecast.

What was completely wrong was the (of the top of the head, I reckon) conversion of those factors into parliamentary seats.

Under no circumstances would Con +1% vote share on 2017 result in lost parliamentary seats, especially if Labour was -9%.

TheScreamingEagles

My friend who follows the far right says Britain First have a membership of between 100 to 500, the 5,000 figure is bullshit.

It is a publicity stunt by Britain First, don't fall for it.

MarqueeMark

WhisperingOracle said:

"Britain First’s spokeswoman, Ashlea Simon, who was questioned under terrorism laws at Heathrow airport last October after a trip to Russia, said Britain First members wanted to form a movement of far-right activists within the Conservative party that would back Johnson in the same way supporters of Momentum joined Labour to solidify Jeremy Corbyn’s grip on the party.

The mass defection of Britain First supporters confirms the backing of Johnson by far-right figures following his election triumph.

Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, recently told followers on the encrypted messaging service Telegram that he has become a paid-up member.

The leader of Britain First, Paul Golding, also claimed to have joined the Conservatives."

They'd stand out in our association....

TheScreamingEagles

Honestly, I was in favour of it but now I'm in #FuckVAR camp.

another_richard

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

Look again.

Did you read 386 for 286 ?

The vote share changes from the by-elections had positive information content. You could have forecast: the Conservative vote share up, Labour collapsing, the SNP surging, and the LDs up. All those were correctly forecast.

What was completely wrong was the (of the top of the head, I reckon) conversion of those factors into parliamentary seats.

Under no circumstances would Con +1% vote share on 2017 result in lost parliamentary seats, especially if Labour was -9%.

The seat calculation must have been on the assumption of 50 LibDem gains and 10 SNP gains from the Conservatives only partially offset by Conservative gains from Labour.

Shall we say its not the first time LibDem supporters have produced models which overestimate the LibDems and underestimate the Conservatives.

TheScreamingEagles

I see this is the way to smear Mayor Pete.

https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1210990781391089664

another_richard

TheScreamingEagles said:

My friend who follows the far right says Britain First have a membership of between 100 to 500, the 5,000 figure is bullshit.

It is a publicity stunt by Britain First, don't fall for it.

I wonder how many actual names can be produced to back the 5,000 claim.

MarqueeMark

TheScreamingEagles said:

Honestly, I was in favour of it but now I'm in #FuckVAR camp.

Some of these VAR decisions are so bad even a boxing ref would baulk at being party to them......

Let's have a VAR-free 2020-2021 season - and then decide if we want it back. My guess is not.

TheScreamingEagles

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

kle4

Given the way it has been implemented, and given there are several very easy fixes for some of the more common complaints about its use, one might almost suspect VAR has been deliberately botched so that people would harden their views against it!

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

Flavour of the times in a lot of places. I'm not one for bemoaning the state of the world generally, but I do think in some places/issues we are going backwards.

matt

kle4 said:

Given the way it has been implemented, and given there are several very easy fixes for some of the more common complaints about is use, one might almost suspect VAR has been deliberately botched so that people would harden their views against it!

They ought to show the incidents live on screens, as per rugby.

TheScreamingEagles

Here's something positive in football.

https://twitter.com/TheAnfieldWrap/status/1210301098466172939

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see this is the way to smear Mayor Pete.

https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1210990781391089664

I hesitate to stereotype men called Jubal, but apparently there’s a 20% chance they have relations with farm animals....

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

Flavour of the times in a lot of places. I'm not one for bemoaning the state of the world generally, but I do think in some places/issues we are going backwards.

Indeed.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1210993841936818176

rcs1000

https://twitter.com/AlsBoy/status/1210565301475131393

isam

Maybe this poll is what is responsible for Starmer being so short in the betting market.

TheScreamingEagles

rcs1000 said:

https://twitter.com/AlsBoy/status/1210565301475131393

Fake news/parody.

https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/2683079-20191227-non-enfant-vraiment-recu-mein-kampf-place-minecraft-noel

isam

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

The difference in price between Thornberry (confirmed runner, feisty, people have heard of) and Starmer (unconfirmed, bland nobody) seems ridiculous to me

isam

There is 5k waiting to back Starmer at 3.1 and 4k to back RLB at 3.8

Floater

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/28/labour-course-become-third-party-future-not-promising-warns/

Sandpit

WhisperingOracle said:

"Britain First’s spokeswoman, Ashlea Simon, who was questioned under terrorism laws at Heathrow airport last October after a trip to Russia, said Britain First members wanted to form a movement of far-right activists within the Conservative party that would back Johnson in the same way supporters of Momentum joined Labour to solidify Jeremy Corbyn’s grip on the party.

The mass defection of Britain First supporters confirms the backing of Johnson by far-right figures following his election triumph.

Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, recently told followers on the encrypted messaging service Telegram that he has become a paid-up member.

The leader of Britain First, Paul Golding, also claimed to have joined the Conservatives."

There’s precisely no chance that ‘Tommy Robinson’ and Paul Golding have joined the Conservatives. They may have filled in a form and paid the subs online, but they won’t have been accepted as members. ‘TR’ has a conviction for perverting the course of justice, and PG a Wiki Page that’s the first hit on his name.

MrEd

isam said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

The difference in price between Thornberry (confirmed runner, feisty, people have heard of) and Starmer (unconfirmed, bland nobody) seems ridiculous to me

I agree that, relatively, the difference between Starmer and Thornberry is ridiculous. Both would aim for the same audience but Thorrnberry's gender would give her an advantage in nominations.

I think the value bet here though is Rayner. If RLB falters or is seen as too bland, then Rayner may be seen as the better option to push.

Dawn Butler? Jeezzz.....

ydoethur

isam said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

The difference in price between Thornberry (confirmed runner, feisty, people have heard of) and Starmer (unconfirmed, bland nobody) seems ridiculous to me

While I do not rate Starmer, as a successful QC, a former DPP and a long serving shadow minister I don’t think it’s fair to call him a ‘nobody’ - even if in two of his roles he was pretty unsuccessful.

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Sandpit

matt said:

kle4 said:

Given the way it has been implemented, and given there are several very easy fixes for some of the more common complaints about is use, one might almost suspect VAR has been deliberately botched so that people would harden their views against it!

They ought to show the incidents live on screens, as per rugby.

They decided against doing that, in case it inflames the crowd. Because just overturning a decision with no context is okay for them for some reason, as long as those watching on TV can see it who cares about the actual crowd?

As with everything else, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Show it on the big screen and have the refs with mics that go to the PA system in the stadium. Rugby Union and American Football do this really well.

TheScreamingEagles

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Irrelevant.

But you keep on defending the cow bothering nationalists.

isam

ydoethur said:

isam said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

The difference in price between Thornberry (confirmed runner, feisty, people have heard of) and Starmer (unconfirmed, bland nobody) seems ridiculous to me

While I do not rate Starmer, as a successful QC, a former DPP and a long serving shadow minister I don’t think it’s fair to call him a ‘nobody’ - even if in two of his roles he was pretty unsuccessful.

Well I am something of a political nerd, and wouldn't be able to tell you how he spoke, whether it was with fiery passion or quietly precise, or what he stood for. A human rights lawyer type who defends the rights of perceived wronguns? Time will tell, but he seems a genuine lay at 2/1. I think they will choose a woman, and female candidates will press home the point that it is time for a change.

ydoethur

isam said:

ydoethur said:

isam said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

The difference in price between Thornberry (confirmed runner, feisty, people have heard of) and Starmer (unconfirmed, bland nobody) seems ridiculous to me

While I do not rate Starmer, as a successful QC, a former DPP and a long serving shadow minister I don’t think it’s fair to call him a ‘nobody’ - even if in two of his roles he was pretty unsuccessful.

Well I am something of a political nerd, and wouldn't be able to tell you how he spoke, whether it was with fiery passion or quietly precise, or what he stood for. A human rights lawyer type who defends the rights of perceived wronguns? Time will tell, but he seems a genuine lay at 2/1. I think they will choose a woman, and female candidates will press home the point that it is time for a change.

Can you tell me how Thornberry speaks? Leaving aside her fairly significant truth issues...

Sandpit

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Irrelevant.

But you keep on defending the cow bothering nationalists.

I'm not! But just pointing out Pakistan (your ancestors' country) is particularly susceptible to military dictatorship.

Also remind me the number of Muslim-majority countries where gay sex is legal, please?

isam

ydoethur said:

isam said:

ydoethur said:

isam said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

The difference in price between Thornberry (confirmed runner, feisty, people have heard of) and Starmer (unconfirmed, bland nobody) seems ridiculous to me

While I do not rate Starmer, as a successful QC, a former DPP and a long serving shadow minister I don’t think it’s fair to call him a ‘nobody’ - even if in two of his roles he was pretty unsuccessful.

Well I am something of a political nerd, and wouldn't be able to tell you how he spoke, whether it was with fiery passion or quietly precise, or what he stood for. A human rights lawyer type who defends the rights of perceived wronguns? Time will tell, but he seems a genuine lay at 2/1. I think they will choose a woman, and female candidates will press home the point that it is time for a change.

Can you tell me how Thornberry speaks? Leaving aside her fairly significant truth issues...

She speaks with angry righteous faux indignation at times and soft, caring Aunty type concern at others

ydoethur

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

Nigelb

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

We’re better than them so we can lower our standards isn’t the most compelling if arguments...

isam

isam said:

ydoethur said:

isam said:

ydoethur said:

isam said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

The difference in price between Thornberry (confirmed runner, feisty, people have heard of) and Starmer (unconfirmed, bland nobody) seems ridiculous to me

While I do not rate Starmer, as a successful QC, a former DPP and a long serving shadow minister I don’t think it’s fair to call him a ‘nobody’ - even if in two of his roles he was pretty unsuccessful.

Well I am something of a political nerd, and wouldn't be able to tell you how he spoke, whether it was with fiery passion or quietly precise, or what he stood for. A human rights lawyer type who defends the rights of perceived wronguns? Time will tell, but he seems a genuine lay at 2/1. I think they will choose a woman, and female candidates will press home the point that it is time for a change.

Can you tell me how Thornberry speaks? Leaving aside her fairly significant truth issues...

She speaks with angry righteous faux indignation at times and soft, caring Aunty type concern at others

Just listened to Keir Starmer on his twitter... uncontroversially bland. Sounds like he has had the same training as Tony Blair

MaxPB

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

I thought mine was a long enough list, but now I look at Hetherington oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So since the CPS was founded in 1986, I agree there is a very good case to be made that Starmer was by far its best chief, and that’s without any starry eyed views on how good he actually was.

Cookie

Every other major sport manages, at the top level, to use technology in such a way that accuracy of decision making is significantly improved. For ages, football, for no reason that made sense from outside the sport, resisted - then changed its mind, started acting as if it invented the idea of having a video referee, and made an incomprehensibly terrible job of implementing it.
Just like every other time football attempts to do something.

TheScreamingEagles

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

You mean like the Rohingya?

Luckyguy1983

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

I thought mine was a long enough list, but now I look at Hetherington oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So since the CPS was founded in 1986, I agree there is a very good case to be made that Starmer was by far its best chief, and that’s without any starry eyed views on how good he actually was.

Sadly for him, he's not competing against them in the Labour leadership contest.

kle4

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

MaxPB

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Irrelevant.

But you keep on defending the cow bothering nationalists.

How is it irrelevant, anyway, the law pertains to giving a pathway for victims of religious persecution in Muslim countries. The Muslim countries around India should fix their own house then India wouldn't have to offer minorities escaping religious persecution in them citizenship in a safe country. Jews, Christians, Buddhists and others are persecuted and murdered everyday in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. India is doing the right thing, however you want to look at it.

IshmaelZ

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

Starmer held a high profile press conference to announce the decision to prosecute Huhne - quite unnecessary and so prejudicial, you would think it would render a subsequent conviction unsafe. I have thought him a complete tunc ever since.

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

I thought mine was a long enough list, but now I look at Hetherington oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So since the CPS was founded in 1986, I agree there is a very good case to be made that Starmer was by far its best chief, and that’s without any starry eyed views on how good he actually was.

Well you can say Sir Tony Hetherington was a great DPP, without him we would never have had PACE. Ahem.

MaxPB

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

You mean like the Rohingya?

That's Bangladesh's problem, not India's.

ydoethur

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

I thought mine was a long enough list, but now I look at Hetherington oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So since the CPS was founded in 1986, I agree there is a very good case to be made that Starmer was by far its best chief, and that’s without any starry eyed views on how good he actually was.

Sadly for him, he's not competing against them in the Labour leadership contest.

True.

But you have to wonder a bit about an organisation that fucks up this often and this spectacularly. One for the lawyers - is it an institutional problem or do lawyers just not make very god chief execs?

TheScreamingEagles

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

You mean like the Rohingya?

That's Bangladesh's problem, not India's.

IIRC there are close to 80,000 Rohingya refugees in India.

ydoethur

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

Starmer held a high profile press conference to announce the decision to prosecute Huhne - quite unnecessary and so prejudicial, you would think it would render a subsequent conviction unsafe. I have thought him a complete tunc ever since.

And he appeared to be taking orders from Watson over historic CSA claims.

And yet he’s still a beacon compared to the rest...

TheScreamingEagles

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

Starmer held a high profile press conference to announce the decision to prosecute Huhne - quite unnecessary and so prejudicial, you would think it would render a subsequent conviction unsafe. I have thought him a complete tunc ever since.

I think the charging of the first serving cabinet minister inevitability led to new ground being broken by the DPP.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

You mean like the Rohingya?

That's Bangladesh's problem, not India's.

IIRC there are close to 80,000 Rohingya refugees in India.

My geography of that area is imperfect, but I think I’m right in saying Bangladesh has no border with Myanmar? So anyone going from Myanmar to Bangladesh would have to go via India.

Edit - on checking, there is a Myanmar/Bangladesh border, but it’s very short compared with the India/Myanmar border.

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

You mean like the Rohingya?

That's Bangladesh's problem, not India's.

IIRC there are close to 80,000 Rohingya refugees in India.

Blame Aung Sang Suu-Kyi.

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

You mean like the Rohingya?

That's Bangladesh's problem, not India's.

IIRC there are close to 80,000 Rohingya refugees in India.

My geography of that area is imperfect, but I think I’m right in saying Bangladesh has no border with Myanmar? So anyone going from Myanmar to Bangladesh would have to go via India.

Edit - on checking, there is a Myanmar/Bangladesh border, but it’s very short compared with the India/Myanmar border.

Yes, your edit is correct.

Sandpit

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

Ah okay, that makes more sense than any explanation I’ve heard so far. So the arguments are about who these people are, and whether or not they can be Indian.

On a similar note, I feel proud to have had my wedding at this place:
https://www.thenational.ae/uae/tens-of-thousands-flock-to-dubai-mega-church-for-midnight-mass-in-pictures-1.955805

Sunil_Prasannan

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?

Sunil_Prasannan

Nigelb said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

We’re better than them so we can lower our standards isn’t the most compelling if arguments...

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?