Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Starmer gets big betting boost after Britain’s biggest union a

SystemSystem Posts: 12,170
edited January 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Starmer gets big betting boost after Britain’s biggest union agrees to back him

The big LAB leadership news this afternoon as been that the country’s biggest played union , Unison , has announced that it will back Starmer.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 28,405
    First as Starmer will be and Nandy should be.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,210
    Good news for the implied value of my book.
  • FPT:
    I suspect Boris will obey Trump's wishes. The calculation will be that the only people who'll be upset are the discredited liberal Left. Meanwhile it will be great for the development of brand Boris, imbuing him with some Trumpian tough-guy vengefulness. Boris as the slightly wishy washy joshing fop is a look they'll want to move away from.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,914

    FPT:

    I suspect Boris will obey Trump's wishes. The calculation will be that the only people who'll be upset are the discredited liberal Left. Meanwhile it will be great for the development of brand Boris, imbuing him with some Trumpian tough-guy vengefulness. Boris as the slightly wishy washy joshing fop is a look they'll want to move away from.
    Is the government only interested in creating 'brands' and 'looks' now, rather than pursuing the best policies to limit nuclear proliferation?
  • FPT:

    I suspect Boris will obey Trump's wishes. The calculation will be that the only people who'll be upset are the discredited liberal Left. Meanwhile it will be great for the development of brand Boris, imbuing him with some Trumpian tough-guy vengefulness. Boris as the slightly wishy washy joshing fop is a look they'll want to move away from.
    Is the government only interested in creating 'brands' and 'looks' now, rather than pursuing the best policies to limit nuclear proliferation?
    Yes.
  • isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218

    isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
    Of course it's a joke.
  • rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
    Of course it's a joke.
    Actually sadly I have followed the Spiked links and no it isn't.

    https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Trans_Safer_Sex_Guide_FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.213423698.731034085.1578485243-1905823227.1578485243

    The tweet is taken directly from page 3 of their guidance. Although the context is slightly different, the quote is accurate.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,230
    edited January 2020

    I suspect Boris will obey Trump's wishes. The calculation will be that the only people who'll be upset are the discredited liberal Left. Meanwhile it will be great for the development of brand Boris, imbuing him with some Trumpian tough-guy vengefulness. Boris as the slightly wishy washy joshing fop is a look they'll want to move away from.

    This is a worry. "Boris" is already tickling the parts that other politicians cannot even dare to think about touching - let alone tickling - and if the Construct were now to graft on some serious macho credibility in military and foreign affairs I dread to think what the majority in 2024 might be.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
    Of course it's a joke.
    Most of the stuff about letting children decide their own sexuality is bunkum.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    I’d have thought RLB should be down at 5/1 or 6/1 in fairly short order.

    She is utter toilet, and I’m not even seeing many of the true believers rooting for her on Twitter or on here.

    Heck, she even hesitated herself.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
    Of course it's a joke.
    A front hole can self-lubricate?

    What nonsense is this?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
    I took the descriptions to be real and Titania to be mocking them. The organisation is real

    https://www.hrc.org/hrc-story/hrc-foundation
  • isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
    Yes, it appears to be real. Though it seems intended more as an in-house guide for the trans community than an exhortation to the wider world. In fact it goes on to be rather libertarian:

    Don’t assume that every person you meet—trans or otherwise—will use or understand these words. In most cases, the best thing you can do is ask which words a person uses to describe their body. Remember: Our bodies are our own to name and use.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,230

    Most of the stuff about letting children decide their own sexuality is bunkum.

    Gender, you mean.
  • kinabalu said:

    I suspect Boris will obey Trump's wishes. The calculation will be that the only people who'll be upset are the discredited liberal Left. Meanwhile it will be great for the development of brand Boris, imbuing him with some Trumpian tough-guy vengefulness. Boris as the slightly wishy washy joshing fop is a look they'll want to move away from.

    This is a worry. "Boris" is already tickling the parts that other politicians cannot even dare to think about touching - let alone tickling - and if the Construct were now to graft on some serious macho credibility in military and foreign affairs I dread to think what the majority in 2024 might be.
    Alternatively he will be seen as Trumps fag - in the Etonian sense literally and metaphorically. Foreign policy machismo is largely only an electoral bonus if it is juxtaposed with Jeremy Corbyn or Michael Foot.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729
    kinabalu said:

    Most of the stuff about letting children decide their own sexuality is bunkum.

    Gender, you mean.
    indeed
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    kinabalu said:

    I suspect Boris will obey Trump's wishes. The calculation will be that the only people who'll be upset are the discredited liberal Left. Meanwhile it will be great for the development of brand Boris, imbuing him with some Trumpian tough-guy vengefulness. Boris as the slightly wishy washy joshing fop is a look they'll want to move away from.

    This is a worry. "Boris" is already tickling the parts that other politicians cannot even dare to think about touching - let alone tickling - and if the Construct were now to graft on some serious macho credibility in military and foreign affairs I dread to think what the majority in 2024 might be.
    FPT - I think you have to engage with an argument on its own merits and not who/how many people endorse it.

    On strategic deterrence, it’s easy to tie yourself up in knots - and easier to make a moral case for the abolition of all nukes - but a full graded spectrum of tactical and strategic deterrence options complicates the calculation of prospective enemies, and prevents small countries getting picked off and bullied by larger ones.

    That’s a political benefit worth paying for, with the ultimate insurance for the ultimate threat.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,210
    edited January 2020
    Looking at my betfair - seems I managed to do a decent rescue job on Keir at 8.4 -> 9.0 on the 17th December; I'll admit I'd mentally written him off before that point as too sane.
    Ladbrokes 7-4 AFTER the poll showing him ahead was the icing on the cake.
  • isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
    Yes, it appears to be real. Though it seems intended more as an in-house guide for the trans community than an exhortation to the wider world. In fact it goes on to be rather libertarian:

    Don’t assume that every person you meet—trans or otherwise—will use or understand these words. In most cases, the best thing you can do is ask which words a person uses to describe their body. Remember: Our bodies are our own to name and use.
    As I said in my followup post when I realised it was real, it is being taken somewhat out of context. It is describing the terms used within the document rather than advocating those terms in general.

    I still find it sad and strange that people feel it is necessary to change the meaning of words in that way.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    Pulpstar said:

    Looking at my betfair - seems I managed to do a decent rescue job on Keir at 8.4 -> 9.0 on the 17th December; I'll admit I'd mentally written him off before that point as too sane.
    Ladbrokes 7-4 AFTER the poll showing him ahead was the icing on the cake.

    I jumped on that with Hills too.

    It’ll probably end up with me getting restricted.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    edited January 2020
    Given Unison backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 ie both the left wing leadership candidates, the fact it is backing Starmer now as the more centrist candidate over the more left wing Long Bailey is significant
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Mr. Royale, ha!

    They don't catch me with bet restrictions.

    Admittedly, that's probably because I'm atrocious when it comes to leadership markets.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,230

    FPT - I think you have to engage with an argument on its own merits and not who/how many people endorse it.

    On strategic deterrence, it’s easy to tie yourself up in knots - and easier to make a moral case for the abolition of all nukes - but a full graded spectrum of tactical and strategic deterrence options complicates the calculation of prospective enemies, and prevents small countries getting picked off and bullied by larger ones.

    That’s a political benefit worth paying for, with the ultimate insurance for the ultimate threat.

    Well let's say it's 2025 and Russia has laid waste to the UK with a 1st strike, leaving little but PM Lisa Nandy in her bunker with her inner circle and the button for Trident. She can press it and take out Moscow plus several other big Russian cities. Kill even more people than Putin has just done.

    Should she press it?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491

    kinabalu said:

    I suspect Boris will obey Trump's wishes. The calculation will be that the only people who'll be upset are the discredited liberal Left. Meanwhile it will be great for the development of brand Boris, imbuing him with some Trumpian tough-guy vengefulness. Boris as the slightly wishy washy joshing fop is a look they'll want to move away from.

    This is a worry. "Boris" is already tickling the parts that other politicians cannot even dare to think about touching - let alone tickling - and if the Construct were now to graft on some serious macho credibility in military and foreign affairs I dread to think what the majority in 2024 might be.
    Alternatively he will be seen as Trumps fag - in the Etonian sense literally and metaphorically. Foreign policy machismo is largely only an electoral bonus if it is juxtaposed with Jeremy Corbyn or Michael Foot.
    Thatcher, Blair and even Cameron all exercised a degree of influence over US foreign policy through the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

    I am less sure about Major or May, and doubt anyone can be confident over Trump.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729
    HYUFD said:

    Given Unison backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 ie both the left wing leadership candidates, the fact it is backing Starmer now as the more centrist candidate over the more left wing Long Bailey is significant

    a touch of reality and perhaps even lucidity from Unite...
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    Pulpstar said:

    Looking at my betfair - seems I managed to do a decent rescue job on Keir at 8.4 -> 9.0 on the 17th December; I'll admit I'd mentally written him off before that point as too sane.
    Ladbrokes 7-4 AFTER the poll showing him ahead was the icing on the cake.

    I jumped on that with Hills too.

    It’ll probably end up with me getting restricted.
    If you are then I certainly will - 16/1 with W Hill in Dec 2015.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    kinabalu said:

    FPT - I think you have to engage with an argument on its own merits and not who/how many people endorse it.

    On strategic deterrence, it’s easy to tie yourself up in knots - and easier to make a moral case for the abolition of all nukes - but a full graded spectrum of tactical and strategic deterrence options complicates the calculation of prospective enemies, and prevents small countries getting picked off and bullied by larger ones.

    That’s a political benefit worth paying for, with the ultimate insurance for the ultimate threat.

    Well let's say it's 2025 and Russia has laid waste to the UK with a 1st strike, leaving little but PM Lisa Nandy in her bunker with her inner circle and the button for Trident. She can press it and take out Moscow plus several other big Russian cities. Kill even more people than Putin has just done.

    Should she press it?
    She should target all nuclear and military sites with the free assets left available to her to neutralise as best she can the remaining threat. It’s not about annihilating the civilian population in revenge.

    There’d be no guarantee otherwise that the Russians wouldn’t strike again, or do it to an ally.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,210
    kinabalu said:

    FPT - I think you have to engage with an argument on its own merits and not who/how many people endorse it.

    On strategic deterrence, it’s easy to tie yourself up in knots - and easier to make a moral case for the abolition of all nukes - but a full graded spectrum of tactical and strategic deterrence options complicates the calculation of prospective enemies, and prevents small countries getting picked off and bullied by larger ones.

    That’s a political benefit worth paying for, with the ultimate insurance for the ultimate threat.

    Well let's say it's 2025 and Russia has laid waste to the UK with a 1st strike, leaving little but PM Lisa Nandy in her bunker with her inner circle and the button for Trident. She can press it and take out Moscow plus several other big Russian cities. Kill even more people than Putin has just done.

    Should she press it?
    Have you recently checked the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal against ours, and the land areas of our respective countries ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    edited January 2020

    kinabalu said:

    I suspect Boris will obey Trump's wishes. The calculation will be that the only people who'll be upset are the discredited liberal Left. Meanwhile it will be great for the development of brand Boris, imbuing him with some Trumpian tough-guy vengefulness. Boris as the slightly wishy washy joshing fop is a look they'll want to move away from.

    This is a worry. "Boris" is already tickling the parts that other politicians cannot even dare to think about touching - let alone tickling - and if the Construct were now to graft on some serious macho credibility in military and foreign affairs I dread to think what the majority in 2024 might be.
    Alternatively he will be seen as Trumps fag - in the Etonian sense literally and metaphorically. Foreign policy machismo is largely only an electoral bonus if it is juxtaposed with Jeremy Corbyn or Michael Foot.
    Trump has stepped back today from retaliation for the Iranian missile strikes, letting Iran gets its token revenge for the US assassination of Sulemeini with no US casualties, his position on the nuclear deal is what it has always been
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
    Yes, it appears to be real. Though it seems intended more as an in-house guide for the trans community than an exhortation to the wider world. In fact it goes on to be rather libertarian:

    Don’t assume that every person you meet—trans or otherwise—will use or understand these words. In most cases, the best thing you can do is ask which words a person uses to describe their body. Remember: Our bodies are our own to name and use.
    As I said in my followup post when I realised it was real, it is being taken somewhat out of context. It is describing the terms used within the document rather than advocating those terms in general.

    I still find it sad and strange that people feel it is necessary to change the meaning of words in that way.
    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ sounds rather more far reaching than a trans promotion organisation
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491

    Pulpstar said:

    Looking at my betfair - seems I managed to do a decent rescue job on Keir at 8.4 -> 9.0 on the 17th December; I'll admit I'd mentally written him off before that point as too sane.
    Ladbrokes 7-4 AFTER the poll showing him ahead was the icing on the cake.

    I jumped on that with Hills too.

    It’ll probably end up with me getting restricted.
    If you are then I certainly will - 16/1 with W Hill in Dec 2015.
    Doesn’t work both ways, of course.

    Ladbrokes have partly welched on one of my bets recently, and are now ignoring my emails.

    I’m fuming.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676

    I’d have thought RLB should be down at 5/1 or 6/1 in fairly short order.

    She is utter toilet, and I’m not even seeing many of the true believers rooting for her on Twitter or on here.

    Heck, she even hesitated herself.

    Wouldnt surprise me if only Sir Kier and RLB reach the threshold.

    That would be a pity I would be tempted by Nandy if she makes it and runs a good centre left campaign.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    HYUFD said:

    Given Unison backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 ie both the left wing leadership candidates, the fact it is backing Starmer now as the more centrist candidate over the more left wing Long Bailey is significant

    The markets believe that the Labour faithful backed (and continued to loyally reback) Corbyn out of ideological dogma. In reality, it was only the loud ones with the big media profiles that felt that way - not the average member or affiliate.

    They just though he was Jesus. He was pure, different, passionate, fair etc and they loved him. It was very much faith in the man himself. Not the purity of the cause, which I suspect they’re more open-minded about than we think, despite all being left wing - natch.

    Hence, RLB (the slightly reluctant tribute act) is hugely overpriced.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    The head of the IMF is currently a left leaning former academic who has never worked in the private sector, little surprise she wants to raise taxes on the rich even if it lowers growth
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    HYUFD said:

    Given Unison backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 ie both the left wing leadership candidates, the fact it is backing Starmer now as the more centrist candidate over the more left wing Long Bailey is significant

    Ed was 2nd or 3rd of 5 on a scale of left to right.

    Diane Abbot was the left wing candidate
    Andy Burnham and EICIPM Centre left
    Balls Centre Right
    David Milliband Centre Right

  • More about the Canadian nationals who lost their lives in the Ukraine airliner crash:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/08/canada-iran-air-crash-ukraine

    They were of Iranian descent.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,230
    Pulpstar said:

    Have you recently checked the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal against ours, and the land areas of our respective countries ?

    It's a hypothetical to test the logic of "MAD".

    If a person answers "yes" - and truly means it - then it definitely makes sense for them to espouse our nuclear deterrent.

    If they answer "no", more probing is required to test the logic of their position.
  • On the hoary old PB favourite 'X is the one Y fears because Y slags X' metric, prominent conservative figure & 'The Biggest Bitch in Britain' fears big Jessy. Can't really see why myself.

    https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1214891995656867843?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148

    HYUFD said:

    Given Unison backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 ie both the left wing leadership candidates, the fact it is backing Starmer now as the more centrist candidate over the more left wing Long Bailey is significant

    Ed was 2nd or 3rd of 5 on a scale of left to right.

    Diane Abbot was the left wing candidate
    Andy Burnham and EICIPM Centre left
    Balls Centre Right
    David Milliband Centre Right

    The final 2 were Ed Miliband and David Miliband of whom Ed Miliband was the leftwing candidate and David Miliband the centrist candidate
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264

    Pulpstar said:

    Looking at my betfair - seems I managed to do a decent rescue job on Keir at 8.4 -> 9.0 on the 17th December; I'll admit I'd mentally written him off before that point as too sane.
    Ladbrokes 7-4 AFTER the poll showing him ahead was the icing on the cake.

    I jumped on that with Hills too.

    It’ll probably end up with me getting restricted.
    If you are then I certainly will - 16/1 with W Hill in Dec 2015.
    Doesn’t work both ways, of course.

    Ladbrokes have partly welched on one of my bets recently, and are now ignoring my emails.

    I’m fuming.
    What was the bet if you don't mind me asking?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Unison backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 ie both the left wing leadership candidates, the fact it is backing Starmer now as the more centrist candidate over the more left wing Long Bailey is significant

    Ed was 2nd or 3rd of 5 on a scale of left to right.

    Diane Abbot was the left wing candidate
    Andy Burnham and EICIPM Centre left
    Balls Centre Right
    David Milliband Centre Right

    The final 2 were Ed Miliband and David Miliband of whom Ed Miliband was the leftwing candidate and David Miliband the centrist candidate
    Thanks for the information.i never knew that!

    Unions however made nominations when there were 5 options and they chose the centre left Ed over the left wing Diane Abbot
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    Chameleon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Looking at my betfair - seems I managed to do a decent rescue job on Keir at 8.4 -> 9.0 on the 17th December; I'll admit I'd mentally written him off before that point as too sane.
    Ladbrokes 7-4 AFTER the poll showing him ahead was the icing on the cake.

    I jumped on that with Hills too.

    It’ll probably end up with me getting restricted.
    If you are then I certainly will - 16/1 with W Hill in Dec 2015.
    Doesn’t work both ways, of course.

    Ladbrokes have partly welched on one of my bets recently, and are now ignoring my emails.

    I’m fuming.
    What was the bet if you don't mind me asking?
    UK to still be in the EU on 1st Jan 2020. I placed it in March 2017.

    They clearly feel miffed about the fact I want them to pay out (in full) on it, and are basically DK’ing me. Probably because they’d have kept the money if it were only a few weeks later.

    They’ve paid the profit but won’t refund my stake. I’m arguing it’s a winning bet, but radio silence so far.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,230
    Gender Dysphoria (Trans) -

    Safeguards required around children having surgery and to protect the integrity of women's sport, but otherwise live and let live and equal status to those (the vast majority) lucky enough to not have the issue to deal with.

    Really no need for the moral panic, prurient fascination, and relentless need to mock.

    IMO.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Unison backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 ie both the left wing leadership candidates, the fact it is backing Starmer now as the more centrist candidate over the more left wing Long Bailey is significant

    Ed was 2nd or 3rd of 5 on a scale of left to right.

    Diane Abbot was the left wing candidate
    Andy Burnham and EICIPM Centre left
    Balls Centre Right
    David Milliband Centre Right

    The final 2 were Ed Miliband and David Miliband of whom Ed Miliband was the leftwing candidate and David Miliband the centrist candidate
    Thanks for the information.i never knew that!

    Unions however made nominations when there were 5 options and they chose the centre left Ed over the left wing Diane Abbot
    The contest was between Ed Miliband and David Miliband, Diane Abbott was nowhere and came last.

    In 2015 they backed Corbyn over Burnham but Corbyn was in the final 2 unlike Abbott
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Have you recently checked the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal against ours, and the land areas of our respective countries ?

    It's a hypothetical to test the logic of "MAD".

    If a person answers "yes" - and truly means it - then it definitely makes sense for them to espouse our nuclear deterrent.

    If they answer "no", more probing is required to test the logic of their position.
    Why would it be mad to take out the remaining strategic assets of an aggressive power that had just nuked a Western nation?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    https://labourlist.org/2020/01/rolling-list-mp-mep-nominations-for-labour-leadership-candidates/

    Based on declarations with or without nominations going in, the score is:
    RLB 14
    Lewis 1
    Nandy 9
    Phillips 12
    Starmer 29
    Thornberry 2

    Seems up to date and avoids any need to click on the dark side (Guido).

    I expect that Nandy and Phillips will get the numbers.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,767
    Am I reading this correctly? Seems Lewis hasn't even nominated himself.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,230

    She should target all nuclear and military sites with the free assets left available to her to neutralise as best she can the remaining threat. It’s not about annihilating the civilian population in revenge.

    There’d be no guarantee otherwise that the Russians wouldn’t strike again, or do it to an ally.

    OK. You didn't fall for my trap. I needed a Yes or a No, then could have made hay. Well done. My opinion is that Trident is a waste of money for us but it is not a hot topic of mine, re the detail, so I must bid it farewell at this point. I have a Labour Party meeting to go to and must first prepare and eat some corned beef hash. Not a ready meal, from scratch.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    kinabalu said:

    She should target all nuclear and military sites with the free assets left available to her to neutralise as best she can the remaining threat. It’s not about annihilating the civilian population in revenge.

    There’d be no guarantee otherwise that the Russians wouldn’t strike again, or do it to an ally.

    OK. You didn't fall for my trap. I needed a Yes or a No, then could have made hay. Well done. My opinion is that Trident is a waste of money for us but it is not a hot topic of mine, re the detail, so I must bid it farewell at this point. I have a Labour Party meeting to go to and must first prepare and eat some corned beef hash. Not a ready meal, from scratch.
    Fair enough.

    I don’t consider it a waste. It’s a form of catastrophic insurance that means we can sleep easy at night and lead safe and secure lives.

    If we could be strategically bullied it would lead to a gradual diminishment in our quality of life that would affect us, over time, in all sorts of ways.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    RLB is surely too long now at 5.8?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    IMF was created by a communist, named Harry Dexter White who was officially a US treasury official, but actually a soviet spy.

    Thanks to his work the IMF has been perverting the free market and needlessly keeping the poor, poor, for over 70 years. I understand that some communists call it 'Distuctavisum' perverting the free market so that the population gets or remains poor and therefor more lickly to have a revolution,

    I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory but one link below or google it.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=/news/wonk/wp/2013/03/14/how-a-soviet-spy-outmaneuvered-john-maynard-keynes-and-ensured-u-s-global-financial-dominance/?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Have you recently checked the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal against ours, and the land areas of our respective countries ?

    It's a hypothetical to test the logic of "MAD".

    If a person answers "yes" - and truly means it - then it definitely makes sense for them to espouse our nuclear deterrent.

    If they answer "no", more probing is required to test the logic of their position.
    Why would it be mad to take out the remaining strategic assets of an aggressive power that had just nuked a Western nation?
    Mutually Assured Destruction.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Pulpstar said:

    Looking at my betfair - seems I managed to do a decent rescue job on Keir at 8.4 -> 9.0 on the 17th December; I'll admit I'd mentally written him off before that point as too sane.
    Ladbrokes 7-4 AFTER the poll showing him ahead was the icing on the cake.

    I am in a bad place. I keep managing to back/lay Starmer at the wrong time.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    Alistair said:

    RLB is surely too long now at 5.8?

    But is she?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2020
    kinabalu said:

    Gender Dysphoria (Trans) -

    Safeguards required around children having surgery and to protect the integrity of women's sport, but otherwise live and let live and equal status to those (the vast majority) lucky enough to not have the issue to deal with.

    Really no need for the moral panic, prurient fascination, and relentless need to mock.

    IMO.

    Live by my rules and let live!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,623

    Chameleon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Looking at my betfair - seems I managed to do a decent rescue job on Keir at 8.4 -> 9.0 on the 17th December; I'll admit I'd mentally written him off before that point as too sane.
    Ladbrokes 7-4 AFTER the poll showing him ahead was the icing on the cake.

    I jumped on that with Hills too.

    It’ll probably end up with me getting restricted.
    If you are then I certainly will - 16/1 with W Hill in Dec 2015.
    Doesn’t work both ways, of course.

    Ladbrokes have partly welched on one of my bets recently, and are now ignoring my emails.

    I’m fuming.
    What was the bet if you don't mind me asking?
    UK to still be in the EU on 1st Jan 2020. I placed it in March 2017.

    They clearly feel miffed about the fact I want them to pay out (in full) on it, and are basically DK’ing me. Probably because they’d have kept the money if it were only a few weeks later.

    They’ve paid the profit but won’t refund my stake. I’m arguing it’s a winning bet, but radio silence so far.
    How is that not a winning bet?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Have you recently checked the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal against ours, and the land areas of our respective countries ?

    It's a hypothetical to test the logic of "MAD".

    If a person answers "yes" - and truly means it - then it definitely makes sense for them to espouse our nuclear deterrent.

    If they answer "no", more probing is required to test the logic of their position.
    Why would it be mad to take out the remaining strategic assets of an aggressive power that had just nuked a Western nation?
    Mutually Assured Destruction.
    Yes, I know what the acronym stands for.

    I’m not arguing for wiping out humanity across the planet. I’m arguing that the strategic military, command and missile assets of any power that had acted in such a manner would be imperative to destroy using any means necessary.

    This is a nuclear scenario that will have been extensively wargamed, and Trident can be independently targeted to various multi-targets and yields.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    Alistair said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Looking at my betfair - seems I managed to do a decent rescue job on Keir at 8.4 -> 9.0 on the 17th December; I'll admit I'd mentally written him off before that point as too sane.
    Ladbrokes 7-4 AFTER the poll showing him ahead was the icing on the cake.

    I am in a bad place. I keep managing to back/lay Starmer at the wrong time.
    I’ve got up to break even/very modest profit (ie £20) on all the main contenders.

    In other words, I won’t lose money but playing this market has probably been a complete waste of my time.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Have you recently checked the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal against ours, and the land areas of our respective countries ?

    It's a hypothetical to test the logic of "MAD".

    If a person answers "yes" - and truly means it - then it definitely makes sense for them to espouse our nuclear deterrent.

    If they answer "no", more probing is required to test the logic of their position.
    Why would it be mad to take out the remaining strategic assets of an aggressive power that had just nuked a Western nation?
    Mutually Assured Destruction.
    Yes, I know what the acronym stands for.

    I’m not arguing for wiping out humanity across the planet. I’m arguing that the strategic military, command and missile assets of any power that had acted in such a manner would be imperative to destroy using any means necessary.

    This is a nuclear scenario that will have been extensively wargamed, and Trident can be independently targeted to various multi-targets and yields.
    So was your question "Why would it be MAD..."?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Have you recently checked the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal against ours, and the land areas of our respective countries ?

    It's a hypothetical to test the logic of "MAD".

    If a person answers "yes" - and truly means it - then it definitely makes sense for them to espouse our nuclear deterrent.

    If they answer "no", more probing is required to test the logic of their position.
    Why would it be mad to take out the remaining strategic assets of an aggressive power that had just nuked a Western nation?
    Mutually Assured Destruction.
    Yes, I know what the acronym stands for.

    I’m not arguing for wiping out humanity across the planet. I’m arguing that the strategic military, command and missile assets of any power that had acted in such a manner would be imperative to destroy using any means necessary.

    This is a nuclear scenario that will have been extensively wargamed, and Trident can be independently targeted to various multi-targets and yields.
    So was your question "Why would it be MAD..."?
    Yes, in such a scenario it might be the most rational move, dependent on the circumstances.

    I certainly wouldn’t rule it out as a matter of course.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,623

    More about the Canadian nationals who lost their lives in the Ukraine airliner crash:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/08/canada-iran-air-crash-ukraine

    They were of Iranian descent.

    That makes more sense. It appears that Ukraine airlines have a daily flight to Toronto from Kiev, so makes sense that people flying from Tehran to Toronto see that as a viable route, and probably cheaper than the Gulf airlines.

    Sadly it looks like most of the Canadian Iranians were families returning home to Canada after holidays.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    kinabalu said:

    She should target all nuclear and military sites with the free assets left available to her to neutralise as best she can the remaining threat. It’s not about annihilating the civilian population in revenge.

    There’d be no guarantee otherwise that the Russians wouldn’t strike again, or do it to an ally.

    OK. You didn't fall for my trap. I needed a Yes or a No, then could have made hay. Well done. My opinion is that Trident is a waste of money for us but it is not a hot topic of mine, re the detail, so I must bid it farewell at this point. I have a Labour Party meeting to go to and must first prepare and eat some corned beef hash. Not a ready meal, from scratch.
    With brown sauce?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,230
    edited January 2020
    isam said:

    Live by my rules and let live!

    Yes, totally. I just said there was absolutely no need for it, not that you couldn't do it. Indeed you are very much doing it, aren't you?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,230
    Stocky said:

    With brown sauce?

    Soy sauce - both light and dark.

    STOP delaying me!
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    With brown sauce?

    Soy sauce - both light and dark.

    STOP delaying me!
    Fuck off - that`s just posh brown sauce.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,230
    Stocky said:

    Fuck off - that`s just posh brown sauce.

    I'm a Hampstead progressive and there are cute little things we do - such as this.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,720
    edited January 2020
    Sandpit said:

    More about the Canadian nationals who lost their lives in the Ukraine airliner crash:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/08/canada-iran-air-crash-ukraine

    They were of Iranian descent.

    That makes more sense. It appears that Ukraine airlines have a daily flight to Toronto from Kiev, so makes sense that people flying from Tehran to Toronto see that as a viable route, and probably cheaper than the Gulf airlines.

    Sadly it looks like most of the Canadian Iranians were families returning home to Canada after holidays.
    I have a Canadian friend of Iranian descent, and I think Canada has quite a big ethnic Iranian community.

    My friend was sent at age 14 to boarding school in England, then stayed on as a medical student. He was sent to avoid the draft in the Iran/Iraq war, in which many of his friends were killed. He couldn't go back to visit until decades later.

    It worked out well for him, and he was never officially a refugee, but in everything but name that was the reason for his exile. I have several other Middle Eastern friends with similar stories, from Iraq, Syria, Iran and Kurdistan.

    I have never met an Iranian exile that I didn't like. Such lovely warm, poetic people.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    Alistair said:

    RLB is surely too long now at 5.8?

    She's still rubbish though......
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Fuck off - that`s just posh brown sauce.

    I'm a Hampstead progressive and there are cute little things we do - such as this.
    The Red Wall is lost for all time.....
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,125
    kinabalu said:

    FPT - I think you have to engage with an argument on its own merits and not who/how many people endorse it.

    On strategic deterrence, it’s easy to tie yourself up in knots - and easier to make a moral case for the abolition of all nukes - but a full graded spectrum of tactical and strategic deterrence options complicates the calculation of prospective enemies, and prevents small countries getting picked off and bullied by larger ones.

    That’s a political benefit worth paying for, with the ultimate insurance for the ultimate threat.

    Well let's say it's 2025 and Russia has laid waste to the UK with a 1st strike, leaving little but PM Lisa Nandy in her bunker with her inner circle and the button for Trident. She can press it and take out Moscow plus several other big Russian cities. Kill even more people than Putin has just done.

    Should she press it?
    Yes. You are allowed to kill the people who killed you. Unsarcastically.

    The scenario you outline is the worst case option and one hopes it would not get to that state. But if it has happened then tens of millions of Brits are now dead and Britain, however you define it, and her people have ceased to exist in the most cruellest way. In such a scenario vengeance would be a viable option. There's even a Babylon 5 quote for it... :(

  • Gardiner has declared. We can only pray for a Gardiner/Burgon dream ticket.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609

    isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
    Yes, it appears to be real. Though it seems intended more as an in-house guide for the trans community than an exhortation to the wider world. In fact it goes on to be rather libertarian:

    Don’t assume that every person you meet—trans or otherwise—will use or understand these words. In most cases, the best thing you can do is ask which words a person uses to describe their body. Remember: Our bodies are our own to name and use.
    My body is called Keith. In honour of the Spitting Image Chicken Song.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Murder rate down everywhere... except London
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    HYUFD said:

    Given Unison backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 ie both the left wing leadership candidates, the fact it is backing Starmer now as the more centrist candidate over the more left wing Long Bailey is significant

    a touch of reality and perhaps even lucidity from Unite...
    unison not Unite
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    The Starmer surge continues. I've updated the chart - he's now a 65% chance
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729
    alex_ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Unison backed Ed Miliband in 2010 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2015 ie both the left wing leadership candidates, the fact it is backing Starmer now as the more centrist candidate over the more left wing Long Bailey is significant

    a touch of reality and perhaps even lucidity from Unite...
    unison not Unite
    I blame autocorrect for that one!
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729

    The Starmer surge continues. I've updated the chart - he's now a 65% chance

    You mean like the "youf" surge at the GE???
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609

    The Starmer surge continues. I've updated the chart - he's now a 65% chance

    Looking forward to Nandy-Long Bailey crossover.....
  • Labour sticking to the one golden rule for their leaders...
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100

    isam said:

    The front hole monologues

    ‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?

    https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21


    Okay now I am really confused.

    I had assumed the whole of this tweet was another Titania spoof. I am now seeing it pop up in various other places, not least Spiked, as if the main body of the tweet with the descriptions is real... surely they have just been taken in by the Titania joke. This can't actually be real can it?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/?fbclid=IwAR3iO7jn62O7wOXWf3tv57OlKA46QNq93LUEiWOr3VMZdooemVNJgWilyyQ
    Yes, it appears to be real. Though it seems intended more as an in-house guide for the trans community than an exhortation to the wider world. In fact it goes on to be rather libertarian:

    Don’t assume that every person you meet—trans or otherwise—will use or understand these words. In most cases, the best thing you can do is ask which words a person uses to describe their body. Remember: Our bodies are our own to name and use.
    My body is called Keith. In honour of the Spitting Image Chicken Song.
    Where does "todger" stand in the litany of alphabetical innuendo?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    kinabalu said:

    FPT - I think you have to engage with an argument on its own merits and not who/how many people endorse it.

    On strategic deterrence, it’s easy to tie yourself up in knots - and easier to make a moral case for the abolition of all nukes - but a full graded spectrum of tactical and strategic deterrence options complicates the calculation of prospective enemies, and prevents small countries getting picked off and bullied by larger ones.

    That’s a political benefit worth paying for, with the ultimate insurance for the ultimate threat.

    Well let's say it's 2025 and Russia has laid waste to the UK with a 1st strike, leaving little but PM Lisa Nandy in her bunker with her inner circle and the button for Trident. She can press it and take out Moscow plus several other big Russian cities. Kill even more people than Putin has just done.

    Should she press it?
    She has only been in office for less than a year and already she has got herself into a nuclear conflict with Russia! What a disastrous PM.
    Indeed. We haven't had a PM go to war with Russia since David Lloyd George, despite having had some famously bellicose ones in that time.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,105
    edited January 2020
    Sky breaking

    Harry and Markle resign from the royal family
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609

    kinabalu said:

    FPT - I think you have to engage with an argument on its own merits and not who/how many people endorse it.

    On strategic deterrence, it’s easy to tie yourself up in knots - and easier to make a moral case for the abolition of all nukes - but a full graded spectrum of tactical and strategic deterrence options complicates the calculation of prospective enemies, and prevents small countries getting picked off and bullied by larger ones.

    That’s a political benefit worth paying for, with the ultimate insurance for the ultimate threat.

    Well let's say it's 2025 and Russia has laid waste to the UK with a 1st strike, leaving little but PM Lisa Nandy in her bunker with her inner circle and the button for Trident. She can press it and take out Moscow plus several other big Russian cities. Kill even more people than Putin has just done.

    Should she press it?
    She has only been in office for less than a year and already she has got herself into a nuclear conflict with Russia! What a disastrous PM.
    On the bright side, she probably won't get a second term.....
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842

    Sky breaking

    Harry and Markle resign from the royal family

    I think that is the right move for them. The social media attention has been vile
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    FPT - I think you have to engage with an argument on its own merits and not who/how many people endorse it.

    On strategic deterrence, it’s easy to tie yourself up in knots - and easier to make a moral case for the abolition of all nukes - but a full graded spectrum of tactical and strategic deterrence options complicates the calculation of prospective enemies, and prevents small countries getting picked off and bullied by larger ones.

    That’s a political benefit worth paying for, with the ultimate insurance for the ultimate threat.

    Well let's say it's 2025 and Russia has laid waste to the UK with a 1st strike, leaving little but PM Lisa Nandy in her bunker with her inner circle and the button for Trident. She can press it and take out Moscow plus several other big Russian cities. Kill even more people than Putin has just done.

    Should she press it?
    Yes. You are allowed to kill the people who killed you. Unsarcastically.

    The scenario you outline is the worst case option and one hopes it would not get to that state. But if it has happened then tens of millions of Brits are now dead and Britain, however you define it, and her people have ceased to exist in the most cruellest way. In such a scenario vengeance would be a viable option. There's even a Babylon 5 quote for it... :(

    Of course we should respond and wipe out Moscow and St Petersburg at a minimum, that is the whole point of a nuclear deterrent.

    Though of course that all depends on what each PM has written to their nuclear submarine commanders in the sealed letters of last resort when they first enter No 10
  • Sky breaking

    Harry and Markle resign from the royal family

    Good luck to them, as long as they don't want any money from the public finances, they can do what they want.
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100

    Sky breaking

    Harry and Markle resign from the royal family

    I think that is the right move for them. The social media attention has been vile
    It will obviously help going to North American. Will we still have to pay for them?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148

    Sky breaking

    Harry and Markle resign from the royal family

    You cannot resign from the royal family, you are born into it.

    They are merely stepping down as senior royals to become more financially independent

    https://news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghan-to-step-back-as-senior-royals-11904052
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    Sky breaking

    Harry and Markle resign from the royal family

    Good luck to them, as long as they don't want any money from the public finances, they can do what they want.
    They say they intend to 'work to become financially independent', so hopefully that will be the case.

    I think everyone saw a move of this kind coming.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842
    alterego said:

    Sky breaking

    Harry and Markle resign from the royal family

    I think that is the right move for them. The social media attention has been vile
    It will obviously help going to North American. Will we still have to pay for them?
    They are saying they will be financially independent. So no claims for financial support from the Civil List
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,386

    Sky breaking

    Harry and Markle resign from the royal family

    Two fewer hangers-on to finance.
This discussion has been closed.