Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Long-Bailey gets boost in the Corbyn successor betting after t

124»

Comments

  • novanova Posts: 692
    kle4 said:

    Lavery backs RLB

    A relief that he won’t stand. A truly nightmarish potential candidate from the macho bully boy union left.
    There was a theory there was never any intention he would stand, just that the suggestion he might would make RLB look better by comparison. Whether that theory is true or not, it worked.
    Not sure that makes sense when a lot of the outriders promoting him have also been critical of RLB.

    Seems to me a lot of the left indie and social media will now have to backtrack or back her with reluctance. I suspect it's done her chances more harm than good.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    You wont be laughing when a series of events with a non-zero chance of happening leads to the election of Prime Minister RLB.

    Corbyn came close in 2017.
    That's true, but it doesn't seem uncivic, merely risky for the person involved as they might contribute to an outcome they don't like later.
    I’m keen see you explain how deliberately trying to game the leadership election of your opponent is not uncivic.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    Well meaningless votes is a fact of life for much of the country under FPP. Am I expected to pity you?

    Remember we came within a whisker of a Corbyn government in 2017 - presumably not the intention of your true blue brethren who snivelingly helped carry him to the leadership?
    Why would I want your pity? I'm empowering myself with a vote that will genuinely matter. And I'm getting it at a low, low price.

    My only regret is that I am not able to vote for Laura Pidcock. I'd pay £50 for that.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2020
    dr_spyn said:
    Portillo is in the NE today on his Railway journeys
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    edited January 2020
    Cyclefree said:

    "It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme."

    Milne and Murphy thrown under the bus.
    Er, no. The programme was crap as well.
    She's in the Corbyn 'won the argument' stage I assume, or one step along the same path.

    We won the argument and our policies were great (even though we lost) - full denial
    We didn't win the argument, but our policies were great - part denial, 'would have won easily but for overly simplistic reason x'
    We didn't win the argument and our policies need some work - acceptance.

    He's at 1, she's at 2, some of the others are at 3. I wouldn't expect further than that, since obviously a party is unlikely to toss out its whole pretence of ideology, nor should they. But its silly to act like the programme couldn't use work. Christ, winners still change what they do a bit from what their programme said, and not just because they overpromised, but because better ideas do come along even if you won on something else.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    Well meaningless votes is a fact of life for much of the country under FPP. Am I expected to pity you?

    Remember we came within a whisker of a Corbyn government in 2017 - presumably not the intention of your true blue brethren who snivelingly helped carry him to the leadership?
    Why would I want your pity? I'm empowering myself with a vote that will genuinely matter. And I'm getting it at a low, low price.

    My only regret is that I am not able to vote for Laura Pidcock. I'd pay £50 for that.
    I’m exercising my democratic right to consider you an uncivic, cheating little prat.
  • dr_spyn said:

    Made you look.

    Sorry for the typo.
    I am always interested in re-opening rail lines, even better if steam trains are used !!
    Nah, re-opened rail lines are always easier to "do" if they're part of the National Rail network. Most heritage railways are closed from January to March!
    I agree with you Sunil.

    Just being nostalgic but reopening some branch lines is an excellent idea
    Just by chance, discovered the Princes Risborough & Chinnor Railway was open on New Year's Day, my first addition for 2020, albeit less than 5 miles! It won't re-open to the public till March...
    Maybe you will get a few more in the coming years
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    nova said:

    kle4 said:

    Lavery backs RLB

    A relief that he won’t stand. A truly nightmarish potential candidate from the macho bully boy union left.
    There was a theory there was never any intention he would stand, just that the suggestion he might would make RLB look better by comparison. Whether that theory is true or not, it worked.
    Not sure that makes sense when a lot of the outriders promoting him have also been critical of RLB.

    Seems to me a lot of the left indie and social media will now have to backtrack or back her with reluctance. I suspect it's done her chances more harm than good.
    Indeed. I’m looking forward to Rachel Swindon or whatever her name is responding to this one. She was openly slagging off Becky and boosterising Lavery the other day.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    kle4 said:

    Lavery backs RLB

    A relief that he won’t stand. A truly nightmarish potential candidate from the macho bully boy union left.
    There was a theory there was never any intention he would stand, just that the suggestion he might would make RLB look better by comparison. Whether that theory is true or not, it worked.
    It worked how exactly?
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842
    If RLB is the answer then Labour is really asking the wrong questions.

    She is weak when it comes to media appearances. She is robotic and uninspiring. There is no personality, no strength, no appeal.

    What are people actually seeing in her other than some corrupted view of Corbynite purity?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    You wont be laughing when a series of events with a non-zero chance of happening leads to the election of Prime Minister RLB.

    Corbyn came close in 2017.
    That's true, but it doesn't seem uncivic, merely risky for the person involved as they might contribute to an outcome they don't like later.
    I’m keen see you explain how deliberately trying to game the leadership election of your opponent is not uncivic.
    I'm keen to see an explanation as to how it is uncivic. I'd regard uncivic behaviour as something inherently wrong, whereas interference in the administrative processes of someone you dislike in a way which is not illegal and in fact an open risk of that process is not something I'd do or endorse, but just as the person doing it risks consequences beyond that which they want, the organisers risked people playing silly buggers in the first place and presumably decided they could overcome it, or the risk was worth it. As they could have a system which prevented it, or made it a lot harder, I don't see how it is uncivic for people to act in such a manner when they don't take such steps, merely a bit crappy.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    Well meaningless votes is a fact of life for much of the country under FPP. Am I expected to pity you?

    Remember we came within a whisker of a Corbyn government in 2017 - presumably not the intention of your true blue brethren who snivelingly helped carry him to the leadership?
    Why would I want your pity? I'm empowering myself with a vote that will genuinely matter. And I'm getting it at a low, low price.

    My only regret is that I am not able to vote for Laura Pidcock. I'd pay £50 for that.
    I’m exercising my democratic right to consider you an uncivic, cheating little prat.
    Maybe if Labour stopped putting up comically-disastrous candidates Tories would no longer have any incentive to join the Labour Party to vote for them? :wink:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    kle4 said:

    Lavery backs RLB

    A relief that he won’t stand. A truly nightmarish potential candidate from the macho bully boy union left.
    There was a theory there was never any intention he would stand, just that the suggestion he might would make RLB look better by comparison. Whether that theory is true or not, it worked.
    It worked how exactly?
    RLB definitely looks better than Lavery. Whether there were efforts to subtly manipulate to that view or there were not, it is true she looks better than him.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    isam said:

    dr_spyn said:
    Portillo is in the NE today on his Railway journeys
    Two things surprise me in the first 12 mins... Jarrow had a female MP in 1933, and the automated voice on the Newcastle metro has a southern accent
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    nova said:

    kle4 said:

    Lavery backs RLB

    A relief that he won’t stand. A truly nightmarish potential candidate from the macho bully boy union left.
    There was a theory there was never any intention he would stand, just that the suggestion he might would make RLB look better by comparison. Whether that theory is true or not, it worked.
    Not sure that makes sense when a lot of the outriders promoting him have also been critical of RLB.

    Seems to me a lot of the left indie and social media will now have to backtrack or back her with reluctance. I suspect it's done her chances more harm than good.
    Like most conspiracy theories I'm sure it is false, it was just a commentary on what a shady character he appears to be, and therefore whether it causes difficulties for his outriders or not, she can only look better when set against him to anyone not in his circle.
  • dr_spyn said:

    Made you look.

    Sorry for the typo.
    I am always interested in re-opening rail lines, even better if steam trains are used !!
    Nah, re-opened rail lines are always easier to "do" if they're part of the National Rail network. Most heritage railways are closed from January to March!
    I agree with you Sunil.

    Just being nostalgic but reopening some branch lines is an excellent idea
    Just by chance, discovered the Princes Risborough & Chinnor Railway was open on New Year's Day, my first addition for 2020, albeit less than 5 miles! It won't re-open to the public till March...
    Maybe you will get a few more in the coming years
    I just need Inverness to Aberdeen, Inverness to Thurso/Wick and Inverness to Kyle to finish the weekday National Rail network.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,219
    isam said:

    It might disappoint Tory Eurosceptics but the vast majority of Brexit voters probably couldn’t care less
    It's also the only thing that makes sense in the near term. Take a longer-term view, and it all looks a little different. But we can burn that bridge when we come to it.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    Well meaningless votes is a fact of life for much of the country under FPP. Am I expected to pity you?

    Remember we came within a whisker of a Corbyn government in 2017 - presumably not the intention of your true blue brethren who snivelingly helped carry him to the leadership?
    Why would I want your pity? I'm empowering myself with a vote that will genuinely matter. And I'm getting it at a low, low price.

    My only regret is that I am not able to vote for Laura Pidcock. I'd pay £50 for that.
    I’m exercising my democratic right to consider you an uncivic, cheating little prat.
    Maybe if Labour stopped putting up comically-disastrous candidates Tories would no longer have any incentive to join the Labour Party to vote for them? :wink:
    It does no such thing. They put themselves up (although admittedly I wouldn’t want to encourage a system whereby the currently leadership picks the candidates!!)
  • kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    When are you signing up?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    It might disappoint Tory Eurosceptics but the vast majority of Brexit voters probably couldn’t care less
    But we can burn that bridge when we come to it.
    Indeed we can, apparently it's all about tunnels these days
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/51009258

    Though I'd think Boris was in favour of building Boris Bridges rather than Boris Tunnels. Alliteration the key.
  • Just checked back in to discover that Rebecca Large-Baileys is doing Love Island this year. What are her odds?

    3.65
    Seems rather short for her to win Love Island. Do Manc blondes have a good track record on the show? (I tried to watch it once but couldn’t grasp the rules)
    Blondes don’t tend to win actually. Normally brunettes.
    Interesting.

    Presumably it’s an unfriendly climate for redheads?
    Kinnock was leader for 9 years :)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,219
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    The US are actually pulling out of Iraq the mad bastards.

    https://twitter.com/joyce_karam/status/1214277318815952896?s=21

    By any normal measure that is a victory for Iran. Trump has completely screwed up.
    If the US does do the chicken run, then Iran has the final victory, without a further shot being fired. It's helicopters off the roof time in Baghdad, 45 years on from Saigon.
    Apparently not all US troops will be withdrawn but given the Iraqi government is mainly Shia and pro Iran, unless the US reinstalls former allies of Saddam or lets IS back in there is little alternative.

    Trump of course opposed the Iraq invasion anyway
    He didn't oppose the Iraq war. He tells everyone he opposed the Iraq war, but there is no actual evidence of him doing any - you know - actual opposing.
  • Just checked back in to discover that Rebecca Large-Baileys is doing Love Island this year. What are her odds?

    3.65
    Seems rather short for her to win Love Island. Do Manc blondes have a good track record on the show? (I tried to watch it once but couldn’t grasp the rules)
    Blondes don’t tend to win actually. Normally brunettes.
    Interesting.

    Presumably it’s an unfriendly climate for redheads?
    Ella Whelan on SKY paper review :)
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Lavery backs RLB

    A relief that he won’t stand. A truly nightmarish potential candidate from the macho bully boy union left.
    There was a theory there was never any intention he would stand, just that the suggestion he might would make RLB look better by comparison. Whether that theory is true or not, it worked.
    It worked how exactly?
    RLB definitely looks better than Lavery. Whether there were efforts to subtly manipulate to that view or there were not, it is true she looks better than him.
    Yes, I think most people would agree that Becky is better looking than Lavery. I am clearly missing how the machinations of the last few days have influenced that in any way. Perhaps I am missing the subtleties of the strategies of the Labour left.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,219
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    EPG said:

    I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.

    Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.

    What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
    Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
    I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.

    Remember only 42.5% voted Tory.
    Actually 43.6% - the highest vote share for any party since the Blessed Margaret's first victory in 1979 :smiley:
    Just rejoice at that news. :D
    Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.

    Your party does not represent the majority.
    It's more right than left. When was the last time there was a left-wing government?
    David Cameron, 2015-2016.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,219

    @isam over 98% of Blyth is white and born in the UK. Fear of immigration maybe motivated voters there but it was just that, an irrational fear.

    Source please.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,219
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    It might disappoint Tory Eurosceptics but the vast majority of Brexit voters probably couldn’t care less
    So what on earth do they care about?
    Mass immigration’s effect on the British labour market
    I mean that’s nonsense but OK. Blyth for example is 99% white. “Mass immigration“ has had no effect on the labour market there.

    @isam over 98% of Blyth is white and born in the UK. Fear of immigration maybe motivated voters there but it was just that, an irrational fear.

    Crikey, a percentage point knocked off the Blyth white population in 10 minutes! (though what skin colour has to do with EU migrations effect on the British labour market is beyond me)
    Being pedantic (sorry), he said 99% was white and 98% was white and British born. I.e. 1% is white but not British born.

    I'd still like to see a source for those numbers.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486

    Just checked back in to discover that Rebecca Large-Baileys is doing Love Island this year. What are her odds?

    3.65
    Seems rather short for her to win Love Island. Do Manc blondes have a good track record on the show? (I tried to watch it once but couldn’t grasp the rules)
    Blondes don’t tend to win actually. Normally brunettes.
    Interesting.

    Presumably it’s an unfriendly climate for redheads?
    Kinnock was leader for 9 years :)
    I didn’t know he’d featured on Love Island.
  • rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    EPG said:

    I'd also say someone really interested in critical thought about their country, as oppose to partisanship one way or the other, would ask why opinions about Johnson and in his day Cameron were constructed to be so much more positive that Corbyn, Miliband, Brown and even Clegg, anyone who was a meaningful threat.

    Those opinions weren't "constructed" at all, certainly not in the case of Corbyn. Since Britain has always been in essence a centre-right country, the further left the politician, the more they are by definition in opposition to the country's millennium-old character. Corbyn wanted to overturn pretty much every part of the UK's existing social and economic structure, and didn't have a single good word to say about any of it. That fact was not lost on the voters.

    What a load of dross. Boris won by going economically further to the left than Cameron.
    Is tilting to the left on investment a fundamental challenge to the country's character? No, it isn't. Corbyn went far left on both economics and culture, and got creamed as a result.
    I’m not disputing that Corbyn got creamed but your mad assertions about Britain being a “right wing” country and nonsense about “national character” is just dross.

    Remember only 42.5% voted Tory.
    Actually 43.6% - the highest vote share for any party since the Blessed Margaret's first victory in 1979 :smiley:
    Just rejoice at that news. :D
    Doesn’t change that the assertion that Britain is inherently “right wing” is dross.

    Your party does not represent the majority.
    It's more right than left. When was the last time there was a left-wing government?
    David Cameron, 2015-2016.
    Is Davey left wing?
  • Just checked back in to discover that Rebecca Large-Baileys is doing Love Island this year. What are her odds?

    3.65
    Seems rather short for her to win Love Island. Do Manc blondes have a good track record on the show? (I tried to watch it once but couldn’t grasp the rules)
    Blondes don’t tend to win actually. Normally brunettes.
    Interesting.

    Presumably it’s an unfriendly climate for redheads?
    Kinnock was leader for 9 years :)
    I didn’t know he’d featured on Love Island.
    It's "Love's Labour's Lost the Election Island" :lol:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Lavery backs RLB

    A relief that he won’t stand. A truly nightmarish potential candidate from the macho bully boy union left.
    There was a theory there was never any intention he would stand, just that the suggestion he might would make RLB look better by comparison. Whether that theory is true or not, it worked.
    It worked how exactly?
    RLB definitely looks better than Lavery. Whether there were efforts to subtly manipulate to that view or there were not, it is true she looks better than him.
    Yes, I think most people would agree that Becky is better looking than Lavery. I am clearly missing how the machinations of the last few days have influenced that in any way. Perhaps I am missing the subtleties of the strategies of the Labour left.
    You seem to be striving to find hidden meanings in things. My point was as simple as I believe Lavery to be crapper than RLB, conspiratorial strategies existing or not, I don't quite see what's hard to grasp about that opinion. The 'whether true or not, it worked' bit was to make the point he's seems worse regardless. I've seen plenty written that RLB is inadequate - time will tell - but little to suggest she has the negatives Lavery has.

    Quite why you interpreted 'looks better than him' as an aescetic issue I cannot imagine.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    When are you signing up?
    I believe you have to sign up as a registered supporter between the 14th and 16th.

    It would be good to see some more polling before then to make sure the £25 isn't wasted. If it looks like Starmer by a mile, I'll save my money.

    FWIW, Starmer is the only potential leader who I think could run Boris close next time round. Labour would be fools to pick anyone else.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842

    Just checked back in to discover that Rebecca Large-Baileys is doing Love Island this year. What are her odds?

    3.65
    Seems rather short for her to win Love Island. Do Manc blondes have a good track record on the show? (I tried to watch it once but couldn’t grasp the rules)
    Blondes don’t tend to win actually. Normally brunettes.
    Interesting.

    Presumably it’s an unfriendly climate for redheads?
    Kinnock was leader for 9 years :)
    I didn’t know he’d featured on Love Island.
    It's "Love's Labour's Lost the Election Island" :lol:
    It was certainly a result worthy of a Elizabethan revenge tragedy.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Lavery backs RLB

    A relief that he won’t stand. A truly nightmarish potential candidate from the macho bully boy union left.
    There was a theory there was never any intention he would stand, just that the suggestion he might would make RLB look better by comparison. Whether that theory is true or not, it worked.
    It worked how exactly?
    RLB definitely looks better than Lavery. Whether there were efforts to subtly manipulate to that view or there were not, it is true she looks better than him.
    Yes, I think most people would agree that Becky is better looking than Lavery. I am clearly missing how the machinations of the last few days have influenced that in any way. Perhaps I am missing the subtleties of the strategies of the Labour left.
    You seem to be striving to find hidden meanings in things. My point was as simple as I believe Lavery to be crapper than RLB, conspiratorial strategies existing or not, I don't quite see what's hard to grasp about that opinion. The 'whether true or not, it worked' bit was to make the point he's seems worse regardless. I've seen plenty written that RLB is inadequate - time will tell - but little to suggest she has the negatives Lavery has.

    Quite why you interpreted 'looks better than him' as an aescetic issue I cannot imagine.
    Asceticism? Is she withdrawing from Love Island?
  • @rcs1000

    This is the Blyth in Nottinghamshire.

    I'm not sure which Blyth @Gallowgate is referring to.
  • @rcs1000

    This is the Blyth in Nottinghamshire.

    I'm not sure which Blyth @Gallowgate is referring to.

    Blyth in Northumberland (as in Blyth Valley won by the Tories last month).
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    When are you signing up?
    I believe you have to sign up as a registered supporter between the 14th and 16th.

    It would be good to see some more polling before then to make sure the £25 isn't wasted. If it looks like Starmer by a mile, I'll save my money.

    FWIW, Starmer is the only potential leader who I think could run Boris close next time round. Labour would be fools to pick anyone else.
    Well they might not. Cheating Tory boys like you might pick someone else for them.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,219
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    You wont be laughing when a series of events with a non-zero chance of happening leads to the election of Prime Minister RLB.

    Corbyn came close in 2017.
    That's true, but it doesn't seem uncivic, merely risky for the person involved as they might contribute to an outcome they don't like later.
    I’m keen see you explain how deliberately trying to game the leadership election of your opponent is not uncivic.
    I'm keen to see an explanation as to how it is uncivic. I'd regard uncivic behaviour as something inherently wrong, whereas interference in the administrative processes of someone you dislike in a way which is not illegal and in fact an open risk of that process is not something I'd do or endorse, but just as the person doing it risks consequences beyond that which they want, the organisers risked people playing silly buggers in the first place and presumably decided they could overcome it, or the risk was worth it. As they could have a system which prevented it, or made it a lot harder, I don't see how it is uncivic for people to act in such a manner when they don't take such steps, merely a bit crappy.
    I think that is the longest sentence every written on pb.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    edited January 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it's got to be worth £25 to sign up and vote for her if it's looking any way close.

    My home is in a solid London Labour constituency where my vote is effectively meaningless and voting for Long Bailey is a far more effective way of ensuring the Tories stay in power than casting my vote at the next election.
    That’s a twattery of the highest order. Trying to game the election of a rival party is a deeply uncivic act.
    Why?

    I've voted Conservative in the last three elections in a rock solid Labour inner city London seat and my vote hasn't meant a damn thing.

    For the small fee of £25, I have the opportunity to influence the next election in a direction I desire. Which is more than the electoral roll gives me.

    There's no law against it and for all I know Labour will be glad of my twenty five quid. Rebecca Long Bailey will certainly be glad of the vote.
    You wont be laughing when a series of events with a non-zero chance of happening leads to the election of Prime Minister RLB.

    Corbyn came close in 2017.
    That's true, but it doesn't seem uncivic, merely risky for the person involved as they might contribute to an outcome they don't like later.
    I’m keen see you explain how deliberately trying to game the leadership election of your opponent is not uncivic.
    I'm keen to see an explanation as to how it is uncivic. I'd regard uncivic behaviour as something inherently wrong, whereas interference in the administrative processes of someone you dislike in a way which is not illegal and in fact an open risk of that process is not something I'd do or endorse, but just as the person doing it risks consequences beyond that which they want, the organisers risked people playing silly buggers in the first place and presumably decided they could overcome it, or the risk was worth it. As they could have a system which prevented it, or made it a lot harder, I don't see how it is uncivic for people to act in such a manner when they don't take such steps, merely a bit crappy.
    I think that is the longest sentence every written on pb.
    But so packed with unparalled wisdom and clarity it brought tears to your eyes? :)

    That said:

    1) I'm sure I've written longer than that before - it even lacked paranthetical asides

    2) The last sentence was originally part of the sentence in bold as well

    My thread header chances are clearly low :(
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,090
    edited January 2020
    There you go now, I'd never have thought England is 90%+ white.

    3/4 are Christians, that's very surprising also.

    EDIT : this was almost 20 years ago.
  • @Sunil_Prasannan



    87% but that was 8-9 years ago, your probably taking low 80s if you count the illegal immigrants.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609

    Just checked back in to discover that Rebecca Large-Baileys is doing Love Island this year. What are her odds?

    3.65
    Seems rather short for her to win Love Island. Do Manc blondes have a good track record on the show? (I tried to watch it once but couldn’t grasp the rules)
    Blondes don’t tend to win actually. Normally brunettes.
    Interesting.

    Presumably it’s an unfriendly climate for redheads?
    Kinnock was leader for 9 years :)
    I didn’t know he’d featured on Love Island.
    It's "Love's Labour's Lost the Election Island" :lol:
    It was certainly a result worthy of a Elizabethan revenge tragedy.
    Boris as The White Devil? (I know it's Jacobean, but fuck it, it's late, I've spent all day driving and frankly, you aren't paying me anything for this shit.....)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    glw said:

    The US are actually pulling out of Iraq the mad bastards.

    https://twitter.com/joyce_karam/status/1214277318815952896?s=21

    By any normal measure that is a victory for Iran. Trump has completely screwed up.
    If the US does do the chicken run, then Iran has the final victory, without a further shot being fired. It's helicopters off the roof time in Baghdad, 45 years on from Saigon.
    Apparently not all US troops will be withdrawn but given the Iraqi government is mainly Shia and pro Iran, unless the US reinstalls former allies of Saddam or lets IS back in there is little alternative.

    Trump of course opposed the Iraq invasion anyway
    He didn't oppose the Iraq war. He tells everyone he opposed the Iraq war, but there is no actual evidence of him doing any - you know - actual opposing.
    *slumps down in a chair at the news that Donald Tump actually, you know, lies...*
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    edited January 2020
    New Mexico voted for Hillary in the 2016 Democratic primaries, now Sanders leads https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1214337783935971328?s=20
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,219
    HYUFD said:

    New Mexico voted for Hillary in the 2016 Democratic primaries, now Sanders leads https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1214337783935971328?s=20

    With all due respect, that's not a great result for Sanders.

    Simplistically, he really needs Sanders + Warren + Gabbard > Biden + Yang + Buttigieg + Klobuchar + Booker + Bloomberg + Steyer

    And right now Sanders + Warren is just 36%. (Very close to the 40% of the Democratic primary voters who want someone left wing rather than moderate.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,219

    @Sunil_Prasannan



    87% but that was 8-9 years ago, your probably taking low 80s if you count the illegal immigrants.

    How many illegal immigrants do you think there are in the UK?
  • rcs1000 said:

    @Sunil_Prasannan



    87% but that was 8-9 years ago, your probably taking low 80s if you count the illegal immigrants.

    How many illegal immigrants do you think there are in the UK?
    Who was Jack The Ripper?


  • Very Fair Price Indeed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    edited January 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Mexico voted for Hillary in the 2016 Democratic primaries, now Sanders leads https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1214337783935971328?s=20

    With all due respect, that's not a great result for Sanders.

    Simplistically, he really needs Sanders + Warren + Gabbard > Biden + Yang + Buttigieg + Klobuchar + Booker + Bloomberg + Steyer

    And right now Sanders + Warren is just 36%. (Very close to the 40% of the Democratic primary voters who want someone left wing rather than moderate.)
    With all due respect it is, if even with the inclusion of Warren he is already converting states he lost in 2016 like New Mexico to his side he is closing in on the nomination
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    edited January 2020



    Very Fair Price Indeed.

    Unless Sinn Fein wins most seats in the Northern Ireland assembly elections and there is a Nationalist majority, which it is still miles off, no British Government will order a border poll and they will have zero obligation under the GFA to do so
  • @HYUFD

    I know there's not a nationalist majority in the assembly but in terms of demographics, four out of the six counties have a nationalist majority.

    Belfast also now has a nationalist majority.

    I think the 2030 should be around 15-8.

    It's only a matter of time before a nationalist party wins, DUP are living in the past, anti gay etc.
  • @HYUFD

    SF only lost 28-27 last time iirc.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Mexico voted for Hillary in the 2016 Democratic primaries, now Sanders leads https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1214337783935971328?s=20

    With all due respect, that's not a great result for Sanders.

    Simplistically, he really needs Sanders + Warren + Gabbard > Biden + Yang + Buttigieg + Klobuchar + Booker + Bloomberg + Steyer

    And right now Sanders + Warren is just 36%. (Very close to the 40% of the Democratic primary voters who want someone left wing rather than moderate.)
    Is Yang still a thing? Where does the Yang vote go?
  • @HYUFD

    Obviously you need 46/90 for a Majority but it's unfair that D.U.P get the first minister role, they should be joint ministers really.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,728

    If RLB is the answer then Labour is really asking the wrong questions.

    She is weak when it comes to media appearances. She is robotic and uninspiring. There is no personality, no strength, no appeal.

    What are people actually seeing in her other than some corrupted view of Corbynite purity?

    On reflection, Corbynism was a symptom not the disease. Albeit one that like paradoxical dressing makes the ailment worse. The disease being that it's a party that's totally lost touch with reality because it's started believing its most toxic, but also intoxicating myths.

    Long Bailey is an expression of its id. She's a northern woman, in a party that's desperate to live up to its rhetoric on equality and class, who tells activists what they want to hear. That they are much more important as a 'movement' on 'the streets' than having more of grubby things like MPs, let alone ministers, who do nasty things like compromise. That the meaningless bromides they spout are actually profound insights, the niche policy they love but that no one outside a CLP meeting gives a stuff about is both immensely popular and will transform the country, and that they are involved in a battle between good and evil where socialism is on the side of good, rather than a necessary democratic negotiation of priorities where we're looking for the best outcome for most and trying to use our beliefs and knowledge to achieve that.

    That's the appeal there. She makes Labour members feel good about themselves by reinforcing the myths that they love to drink, but like Lethe lead to electoral oblivion.

    Labour are in immense trouble, as I fear even some of the better candidates if elected will struggle to overcome this urge after pitching to it. Hence why we're still getting guff about the popularity of the manifesto.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    edited January 2020

    @HYUFD

    I know there's not a nationalist majority in the assembly but in terms of demographics, four out of the six counties have a nationalist majority.

    Belfast also now has a nationalist majority.

    I think the 2030 should be around 15-8.

    It's only a matter of time before a nationalist party wins, DUP are living in the past, anti gay etc.

    Belfast does not have a nationalist majority, more Belfast voters voted Unionist or Alliance than Nationalist.

    The UK government will therefore correctly refuse any border poll without an outright Nationalist majority as they can do under the GFA, indeed in Scotland the Tories have a manifesto commitment to ban indyref2 for their full 5 year term even with a nationalist majority in terms of seats

  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    RLB:

    The election result was devastating. But with the climate crisis spiralling and the far-right on the march, we must regroup for the struggles ahead. Our task is to build a winning vision of a socialist future, and this task has never been more urgent.


    https://twitter.com/ianaustin1965/status/1214322844081041414?s=21
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    This is sensational

    “ We must begin organising in communities now, and resist the Tories every step of the way — in parliament, on the streets, and in our workplaces. As leader, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you – in every campaign against Tory cuts, with every minority community and all migrants against Johnson’s hateful agenda, ”
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,652
    MJW said:

    If RLB is the answer then Labour is really asking the wrong questions.

    She is weak when it comes to media appearances. She is robotic and uninspiring. There is no personality, no strength, no appeal.

    What are people actually seeing in her other than some corrupted view of Corbynite purity?

    On reflection, Corbynism was a symptom not the disease. Albeit one that like paradoxical dressing makes the ailment worse. The disease being that it's a party that's totally lost touch with reality because it's started believing its most toxic, but also intoxicating myths.

    Long Bailey is an expression of its id. She's a northern woman, in a party that's desperate to live up to its rhetoric on equality and class, who tells activists what they want to hear. That they are much more important as a 'movement' on 'the streets' than having more of grubby things like MPs, let alone ministers, who do nasty things like compromise. That the meaningless bromides they spout are actually profound insights, the niche policy they love but that no one outside a CLP meeting gives a stuff about is both immensely popular and will transform the country, and that they are involved in a battle between good and evil where socialism is on the side of good, rather than a necessary democratic negotiation of priorities where we're looking for the best outcome for most and trying to use our beliefs and knowledge to achieve that.

    That's the appeal there. She makes Labour members feel good about themselves by reinforcing the myths that they love to drink, but like Lethe lead to electoral oblivion.

    Labour are in immense trouble, as I fear even some of the better candidates if elected will struggle to overcome this urge after pitching to it. Hence why we're still getting guff about the popularity of the manifesto.
    Or they are gambling that the first effective Tory majority and the implementation of Brexit will lead to developments not necessarily positive for the Conservative Party. I will ask PB again what are the three reasons for Bishop Auckland to vote Conservative after Brexit.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,652
    I think there is a huge act of forgetting that the last parliament was mainly about Brexit and being against Parliament, and not a mandate for weirdos what hate experts. What do you do for five years when you are the man with a majority? It is not a problem (!) that Boris has ever had before as he always had some bogeyman. So he needs another one before 2024. Killer robots?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,219
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Mexico voted for Hillary in the 2016 Democratic primaries, now Sanders leads https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1214337783935971328?s=20

    With all due respect, that's not a great result for Sanders.

    Simplistically, he really needs Sanders + Warren + Gabbard > Biden + Yang + Buttigieg + Klobuchar + Booker + Bloomberg + Steyer

    And right now Sanders + Warren is just 36%. (Very close to the 40% of the Democratic primary voters who want someone left wing rather than moderate.)
    With all due respect it is, if even with the inclusion of Warren he is already converting states he lost in 2016 like New Mexico to his side he is closing in on the nomination
    But Yang won't be a candidate by the time New Mexico comes around. And more than likely, nor will Buttigieg.

    So, you need to work out where peoples' votes are likely to go. And this is the problem Sanders has. It's not an insurmountable problem for him, but it's definitely a problem. He will, as you note, pick up most of the Warren vote. But Biden is likely to pick up all the Buttigieg vote. And probably the Yang and the Klobuchar vote too.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    New thread
This discussion has been closed.