Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New LAB member polling has them rating Corbyn as their most fa

135

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,325
    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    I didn’t lose the battle of Waterloo either. Am I a better general than Wellington?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,652
    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    On thread, given that Labour had in excess of 100,000 new members since the GE. I wonder how representative the YouGov panel base is. They will have had to be extremely adroit to pick up the new members in their panel. If not, their results could be skewed. It's reported that a lot of the new members are people returning after having left under Corbyn (like me), but I do wonder. It's one of the few factors that could be capable of tripping Starmer up, if the anecdotal reports are wrong.

    Have labour relay gained 100,000 new members since the election?

    They may, I'm not saying its wrong, I just haven't seen any evedance, e.g. a link to a statement by the party, or similar.


    p.s. Full credit to you for rejoining and Corbyn is gone, best of luck with getting a better replacement.

    The much higher number of registered supporters last time was because the option of joining as a member was closed off, which wasn't the case this time. Given that you can pay monthly by direct debit, it was actually the cheaper option if your intention was only to join in order to vote.

    The 100,000 has been repeated in a number of papers but I think the original source was the Huff Post who put it out there well before the deadline.
    Thanks, and very good point about membership being cheaper than becoming a registered supporter.

    I think this is Huff post artical you where referring to:

    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-members-surge-leadership-contest_uk_5e2479d6c5b674e44b99b863?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAU-galHXDZLhBGI5br7eGfcsAdJQ9tQO4Jbz6cDJoJSobb-g2f2_AF-dpisLDAFvoKHX_EG-wKbQcIcWHPFEWILgPx5Iro06xA3aeUvhu9H7h9Xf5QTOfx_sER9aN_AToM1XCj6-v8hh1biKP_vFmStp2dD4wlIN2BFISNdU2LL

    but again it quotes an unnamed 'senior party insider' which may or may not be accurat. but gose on to say:

    'Local ign up as a member to vote in the leadership contest looming'

    20% increase on the 500,000 would be 100,000.

    Some CLPs may have seen increases of 20% but that's not the same as all CLPs or the average of CLP. and that 500,000 finger may be unhelpful if a significant number of the new members are re-joiners who have left in the last year.

    I don't know why I care, we will see how many vote soon enough. I think I'm just get annoyed when somebody gets hold of a statistic or 'fact' that reinforces there postilion of being right, good, or popular. and rater than check it validity or use appropriate caviats its, repeats it as FACT!

    My guess, ready to be shown as totally wrong, less than 350,000 members vote in this election.
    10% increase 710 to 785 in ours
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    kinabalu said:

    I've read an awful lot of the nonsense he's put out over the years, and have seen plenty of his interviews and panel appearances.

    There's nothing benign about him unless you agree with him. He's a dogmatic machine activist who would be utterly merciless to his opposition if it were Corbyn with a majority of 80 instead of Boris.

    Sorry but I detect a complete lack of objectivity.

    Test -

    Who IYO is his closest right wing equivalent?
    There really isn't an omnipresent Tory propagandist of equally unthinking partisanship to be found. You've have to combine the worst aspects of Peter Hitchens, Paul Staines, and James Delingpole and you wouldn't even get close.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    kinabalu said:

    Remember his hilarious 'Unseat' campaign with Momentum, lauched in August 2017?

    The group apparently sought 'to create a series of Portillo moments' (!) Well, Owen, you succeeded pretty spectacularly with that one, just not in the way you intended! :lol:

    This is simply gloating at somebody who tried hard to achieve something very challenging and failed. It's .
    He has tried for 10 years to upend this country in a manner that is utterly unappetizing and reprehensible. I reserve the right to gloat at him in perpetuity.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,083
    edited January 2020
    ydoethur said:

    Steve Walker?

    Hmm, not sure -

    "A Consultant Dermatologist and Associate Professor in the Department of Clinical Research. Trained in dermatology at Glasgow, London and Manchester."
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,083

    Andrew Pierce?

    Not the worst suggestion in the world. But Owen surely a little more weighty.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,083
    TGOHF666 said:

    Tommy Robinson ?

    I try to talk about a serious and interesting matter - and here comes you.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    kinabalu said:

    I've read an awful lot of the nonsense he's put out over the years, and have seen plenty of his interviews and panel appearances.

    There's nothing benign about him unless you agree with him. He's a dogmatic machine activist who would be utterly merciless to his opposition if it were Corbyn with a majority of 80 instead of Boris.

    Sorry but I detect a complete lack of objectivity.

    Test -

    Who IYO is his closest right wing equivalent?
    There really isn't an omnipresent Tory propagandist of equally unthinking partisanship to be found. You've have to combine the worst aspects of Peter Hitchens, Paul Staines, and James Delingpole and you wouldn't even get close.
    I doubt Hitchens has voted Tory for a long long while.

    Trevor Kavanagh maybe?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,713
    edited January 2020
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    I didn’t lose the battle of Waterloo either. Am I a better general than Wellington?
    Waterloo was a victory for Wellington, the 2005 election was a Tory defeat under Howard, the better comparison would be whether you would have done better than Cornwallis at Yorktown
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,038
    speedy2 said:

    speedy2 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Hillary Clinton on Bernie Sanders:

    He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.
    ...
    It's not only him, it's the culture around him. It's his leadership team. It's his prominent supporters. It's his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women.

    And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it.


    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/479097-clinton-weighs-in-on-sanders-nobody-likes-him-nobody-wants-to-work-with-him

    Is this similar to Blair putting the boot into (any) Labour candidates, or does Hilary still have clout?
    Hard to understand what she thinks this will achieve, except reassure wavering Sanders supporters that a more centrist candidate isn't for them. Apart from anything else she sounds incredibly childish... "nobody likes him"!?!?
    It's a translation of "I HATE HIM".

    Fanatical Hillary supporters were voting for Joe Biden anyway, so it won't have any impact apart from free publicity for Sanders.
    The trouble is it is a bit like some of what we have seen here, and it ties in with the Corbyn/Jess stuff. It is one thing to prefer Mayor Pete to Bernie or vice versa but as with Corbyn and Jess, without going OTT and tipping over into saying this guy is so far beyond the pale that erstwhile supporters should instead vote for Boris or Trump.
    The question of will Hillary endorse Trump against Sanders might be asked more frequently in the next few days since the Iowa Polls show momentum for Sanders:

    https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1219457261216595970
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/iowa/

    The last two Iowa polls have shown Sanders in fourth and fifth position in Iowa.
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 341

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
    IDS is an incompetent clown who managed to turn his safe seat in the leafy Tory suburbs into an ultra marginal.
    The demographics have changed in that seat. The Tories will probably lose it next time.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    edited January 2020
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
    IDS is an incompetent clown who managed to turn his safe seat in the leafy Tory suburbs into an ultra marginal.
    IDS held his seat despite Momentum flooding it every weekend when a seat like Putney with not dissimilar demographics fell
    Would this be the same Putney that was held by Labour until 2005?
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    kinabalu said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Tommy Robinson ?

    I try to talk about a serious and interesting matter - and here comes you.
    Titter.

    Seriously though - maybe Darren Grimes.

  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited January 2020
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've read an awful lot of the nonsense he's put out over the years, and have seen plenty of his interviews and panel appearances.

    There's nothing benign about him unless you agree with him. He's a dogmatic machine activist who would be utterly merciless to his opposition if it were Corbyn with a majority of 80 instead of Boris.

    Sorry but I detect a complete lack of objectivity.

    Test -

    Who IYO is his closest right wing equivalent?
    There really isn't an omnipresent Tory propagandist of equally unthinking partisanship to be found. You've have to combine the worst aspects of Peter Hitchens, Paul Staines, and James Delingpole and you wouldn't even get close.
    I doubt Hitchens has voted Tory for a long long while.

    Trevor Kavanagh maybe?
    Maybe. I had trouble coming up with someone precisely because neither Hitchens nor Delingpole are actually Tories!

    The closest analogue to Jones is probably (drumroll) ... Piers Morgan.

    Except that Morgan is much fairer and less of a partisan hack than Jones.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,325
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    I didn’t lose the battle of Waterloo either. Am I a better general than Wellington?
    Waterloo was a victory for Wellington, the 2005 election was a Tory defeat under Howard, the better comparison would be whether you would have done better than Cornwallis at Yorktown
    Am I therefore a better general than Napoleon?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,260
    edited January 2020
    kinabalu said:

    Andrew Pierce?

    Not the worst suggestion in the world. But Owen surely a little more weighty.
    Tim Montgomerie, founder of conservative home. Both activist/journalists, neither shy about criticising electorally successful leaders of their own party, both tech savvy and having supported doomed leaders of the opposition.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,083
    kicorse said:

    Have to admit I independently thought of her. Purely in talking-head-on-panels terms. I have no idea whether she's written any books or has any connection to serious politicians as he does.

    In one sense they're opposites. She presents herself as the voice of reason while saying fairly wacky things, whereas he comes across as radical even when saying middle-of-the-road things. But that's characteristic of the right and left, respectively.

    Yes, she's the ying to his yang on that knockabout level. But apart from that, no. Last para, I strongly agree with. It's something I find frustrating.

    Switching topic. Trump. He's talking at Davos about a "geezer of opportunities".

    Que? Is he referring to Del Boy?
  • HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
    IDS is an incompetent clown who managed to turn his safe seat in the leafy Tory suburbs into an ultra marginal.
    IDS held his seat despite Momentum flooding it every weekend when a seat like Putney with not dissimilar demographics fell
    Quite apart from the fact that I suspect Putney has more young professionals and students, a rather crucial difference is that it voted 70%+ Remain. That's the crucial differentiating factor from Chingford. Putney also lost a popular Tory MP who decided to call it a day - I suspect only her personal vote kept it blue in 2017.

    I think there's an element of truth in what you say insofar as I doubt IDS dragged the Tories down in Chingford other than by drawing fire from Momentum due to his role in benefit cuts. He's been MP there for many years, and there is nothing to suggest he's particularly personally unpopular, although equally it was true blue log before he arrived.

    I think much of it illustrates that big ground wars only do a certain amount. The Momentum campaign probably suppressed the (small) Lib Dem vote in Chingford a little by making it clear that Labour were in it to win it. But did it switch a lot of Tories? Doubt it.

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    Xtrain said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
    IDS is an incompetent clown who managed to turn his safe seat in the leafy Tory suburbs into an ultra marginal.
    The demographics have changed in that seat. The Tories will probably lose it next time.
    Ah yes, the demographic change defence.

    IDS had a majority of 13,000 as recently as 2014.

    Has it really changed that much in six years?
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Labour love their losers and despise their winners.

    The Tories are the other way round... and it explains why only three people have been Prime Minister after winning general elections while leading the Labour Party since 1945.

    Not necessarily, IDS and Hague are far more popular with Tory members than Cameron, Major or Heath for example, only Thatcher and Boris won elections while still being very popular with the membership of recent leaders.

    Wilson and Attlee won elections and are still popular with the Labour membership on the Yougov chart even if Blair is not
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1140885388912996353?s=20
    The Recency Bias appears again in both Labour and Conservative party members.

    If you use the negative answer then the lists are:

    3 Worst Labour Leaders

    Blair
    Kinnock
    Brown

    3 Best Labour Leaders

    Attlee
    Wilson
    Smith

    3 Best Conservative Leaders

    Churchill
    Thatcher
    Macmillan

    3 Worst Conservative Leaders

    Heath
    May
    Major

    Now it makes more sence.
  • Oh ferfuxsake

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1219528537260142592

    I might do a thread this weekend on why it is very easy to manipulate a lie detector test
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited January 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    speedy2 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Hillary Clinton on Bernie Sanders:

    He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.
    ...
    It's not only him, it's the culture around him. It's his leadership team. It's his prominent supporters. It's his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women.

    And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it.


    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/479097-clinton-weighs-in-on-sanders-nobody-likes-him-nobody-wants-to-work-with-him

    Is this similar to Blair putting the boot into (any) Labour candidates, or does Hilary still have clout?
    Hard to understand what she thinks this will achieve, except reassure wavering Sanders supporters that a more centrist candidate isn't for them. Apart from anything else she sounds incredibly childish... "nobody likes him"!?!?
    It's a translation of "I HATE HIM".

    Fanatical Hillary supporters were voting for Joe Biden anyway, so it won't have any impact apart from free publicity for Sanders.
    The trouble is it is a bit like some of what we have seen here, and it ties in with the Corbyn/Jess stuff. It is one thing to prefer Mayor Pete to Bernie or vice versa but as with Corbyn and Jess, without going OTT and tipping over into saying this guy is so far beyond the pale that erstwhile supporters should instead vote for Boris or Trump.
    The question of will Hillary endorse Trump against Sanders might be asked more frequently in the next few days since the Iowa Polls show momentum for Sanders:

    https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1219457261216595970
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/iowa/

    The last two Iowa polls have shown Sanders in fourth and fifth position in Iowa.
    It's the change from the previous poll that matters if you want to see who if any has momentum, and they say on average Sanders +5% since December.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    kicorse said:

    kinabalu said:

    So Owen's right wing equivalent is - well it's not Julia Hartley Brewer (c'mon!).

    No it's, it's - nope nothing is occurring atm. And I do not want to say something silly that I might come to bitterly regret, so more thought required.

    Have to admit I independently thought of her. Purely in talking-head-on-panels terms. I have no idea whether she's written any books or has any connection to serious politicians as he does.

    In one sense they're opposites. She presents herself as the voice of reason while saying fairly wacky things, whereas he comes across as radical even when saying middle-of-the-road things. But that's characteristic of the right and left, respectively.
    Apparently Miss Hartley-Brewer is quite nice IRL. She once hosted and invited my mate to a singles dinner party. He’s a staunch Labour man, I can’t remember if he pulled or not.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 434
    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andrew Pierce?

    Not the worst suggestion in the world. But Owen surely a little more weighty.
    Tim Montgomerie, founder of conservative home. Both activist/journalists, neither shy about criticising electorally successful leaders of their own party, both tech savvy and having supported doomed leaders of the opposition.
    Good call
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    edited January 2020
    Julia and Owen have quite a lot of common views.

    Both are staunch republicans.

    Both are staunch atheists.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052

    Julia and Owen have quite a lot of common views.

    Both are staunch republicans.

    Both are staunch atheists.

    She has her own daily radio show - Owen er - is in the Guardian occasionally.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,083

    I don't think I've actually ever seen anything written by Yaxley-Lennon. Can he actually write?

    TBF -

    Enemy Of The State.

    "The powerful story of Tommy Robinson, former leader of the EDL and a man persecuted by the British state, simply for standing up in support of British troops. Tommy describes growing up on the streets of Luton, a town plagued by Islamic extremism and criminal gangs and how his livelihood was taken from him when he led a street protest against it. Hounded through the courts and thrown to the Muslim underworld which runs England's prisons, when Tommy refused to be broken the police tried to blackmail him – into working for them."

    Film in the pipeline. Laurence "Lozzer" Fox rumoured to be starring and directing.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    kinabalu said:

    I don't think I've actually ever seen anything written by Yaxley-Lennon. Can he actually write?

    TBF -

    Enemy Of The State.

    "The powerful story of Tommy Robinson, former leader of the EDL and a man persecuted by the British state, simply for standing up in support of British troops. Tommy describes growing up on the streets of Luton, a town plagued by Islamic extremism and criminal gangs and how his livelihood was taken from him when he led a street protest against it. Hounded through the courts and thrown to the Muslim underworld which runs England's prisons, when Tommy refused to be broken the police tried to blackmail him – into working for them."

    Film in the pipeline. Laurence "Lozzer" Fox rumoured to be starring and directing.
    😃
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,083
    rkrkrk said:

    Tim Montgomerie, founder of conservative home. Both activist/journalists, neither shy about criticising electorally successful leaders of their own party, both tech savvy and having supported doomed leaders of the opposition.

    That's getting closer. Not quite the reach but he is influential. And sometimes astute -

    https://twitter.com/CDP1882/status/1219607655108444160
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,713

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
    IDS is an incompetent clown who managed to turn his safe seat in the leafy Tory suburbs into an ultra marginal.
    IDS held his seat despite Momentum flooding it every weekend when a seat like Putney with not dissimilar demographics fell
    Would this be the same Putney that was held by Labour until 2005?
    The Tory vote fell by 8% in Putney last month but by only 0.7% in Chingford and Woodford Green, both were London Remain seats which were one of the few areas that saw a general swing against the Tories nationally
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,713

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
    IDS is an incompetent clown who managed to turn his safe seat in the leafy Tory suburbs into an ultra marginal.
    IDS held his seat despite Momentum flooding it every weekend when a seat like Putney with not dissimilar demographics fell
    Quite apart from the fact that I suspect Putney has more young professionals and students, a rather crucial difference is that it voted 70%+ Remain. That's the crucial differentiating factor from Chingford. Putney also lost a popular Tory MP who decided to call it a day - I suspect only her personal vote kept it blue in 2017.

    I think there's an element of truth in what you say insofar as I doubt IDS dragged the Tories down in Chingford other than by drawing fire from Momentum due to his role in benefit cuts. He's been MP there for many years, and there is nothing to suggest he's particularly personally unpopular, although equally it was true blue log before he arrived.

    I think much of it illustrates that big ground wars only do a certain amount. The Momentum campaign probably suppressed the (small) Lib Dem vote in Chingford a little by making it clear that Labour were in it to win it. But did it switch a lot of Tories? Doubt it.

    Of course campaigning in Chingford myself our ground war also proved effective in getting the Tory vote out enough to hold the seat
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,083
    TGOHF666 said:

    Titter.

    Seriously though - maybe Darren Grimes.

    Perhaps in embryo. 80k followers. Work to do.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,713

    Xtrain said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    Sure, but the fact he never got the chance is a pretty decent indicator that the unfavourables have reason to be slightly higher thanthe favourables at least.
    IDS is an incompetent clown who managed to turn his safe seat in the leafy Tory suburbs into an ultra marginal.
    The demographics have changed in that seat. The Tories will probably lose it next time.
    Ah yes, the demographic change defence.

    IDS had a majority of 13,000 as recently as 2014.

    Has it really changed that much in six years?
    It has been flooded by renters, young professionals and more ethnic minorities, none of whom voted Tory in December on average
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,615

    Oh ferfuxsake

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1219528537260142592

    I might do a thread this weekend on why it is very easy to manipulate a lie detector test

    "could" is an extremely important word in journalism, as is "may".

    Seems it is an even more important word in Dom's new world of "deliver or die".
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,083

    He has tried for 10 years to upend this country in a manner that is utterly unappetizing and reprehensible. I reserve the right to gloat at him in perpetuity.

    Thatcher upended the country. It just means transform in a way one dislikes.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    kinabalu said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Titter.

    Seriously though - maybe Darren Grimes.

    Perhaps in embryo. 80k followers. Work to do.
    Less bots than Owen .
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,713
    edited January 2020
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    I didn’t lose the battle of Waterloo either. Am I a better general than Wellington?
    Waterloo was a victory for Wellington, the 2005 election was a Tory defeat under Howard, the better comparison would be whether you would have done better than Cornwallis at Yorktown
    Am I therefore a better general than Napoleon?
    Napoleon won plenty of victories before.

    IDS was no Thatcher, Boris or Cameron but he did run a more effective Tory machine from 2001 to 2003 than Hague did from 1997 to 2001 (as to be fair did Howard).

    I am not saying he would have done much better than Howard, just he would not have done worse either, both were better leaders than Hague was (though I like Hague personally)
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    I think that is correct. Blair ran absolute rings round thickie IDS.

    An election match-up between Blair and IDS would be like putting a very slow and stupid rodent in a cage with a highly aggressive wolverine.

    There would be only one outcome.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,083

    Maybe. I had trouble coming up with someone precisely because neither Hitchens nor Delingpole are actually Tories!

    The closest analogue to Jones is probably (drumroll) ... Piers Morgan.

    Except that Morgan is much fairer and less of a partisan hack than Jones.

    But I said "right wing" not Tory. And Piers Morgan is different gravy entirely.

    Question set as a test and you have failed it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,355
    TGOHF666 said:

    Julia and Owen have quite a lot of common views.

    Both are staunch republicans.

    Both are staunch atheists.

    She has her own daily radio show - Owen er - is in the Guardian occasionally.

    He has his own radio.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,713
    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    Ken Clarke might have done that but IDS was ideologically not going to undermine Blair and the UK relationship with the US and Bush. Had he done it anyway it would at most have been a hung parliament and probably a Brown minority government propped up by the LDs with Blair resigning
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,485

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    I think that is correct. Blair ran absolute rings round thickie IDS.

    An election match-up between Blair and IDS would be like putting a very slow and stupid rodent in a cage with a highly aggressive wolverine.

    There would be only one outcome.
    Yet IDS is still in the game. And Blair is....?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,651

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    I think that is correct. Blair ran absolute rings round thickie IDS.

    An election match-up between Blair and IDS would be like putting a very slow and stupid rodent in a cage with a highly aggressive wolverine.

    There would be only one outcome.
    Yet IDS is still in the game. And Blair is....?
    In the sense that the Tories are "still" a pro-growth, pro-business party.
  • speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    That would have involved IDS not wanting to invade Iraq when he very much wanted to invade Iraq.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,402
    HYUFD said:

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    Ken Clarke might have done that but IDS was ideologically not going to undermine Blair and the UK relationship with the US and Bush. Had he done it anyway it would at most have been a hung parliament and probably a Brown minority government propped up by the LDs with Blair resigning
    IDS was gung-ho over the Iraq War.

    One of the saddest features of early 21st C politics was Charles Kennedy's drink problem. If he could have kept sober the course of British history could have been very different.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Interesting article from Zoe Williams.

    What is striking though is that the great majority of comments below the line are pro-Starmer. In previous leadership elections, Guardian comments seemed to be largely pro-Corbyn.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/21/keir-starmer-soft-left-approach-unifying-labour
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,923
    edited January 2020

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    I think that is correct. Blair ran absolute rings round thickie IDS.

    An election match-up between Blair and IDS would be like putting a very slow and stupid rodent in a cage with a highly aggressive wolverine.

    There would be only one outcome.
    Yet IDS is still in the game. And Blair is....?
    He's still in the game in the sense Cliff Richard is still in the rock'n'roll singer game.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,083

    Interesting article from Zoe Williams.

    What is striking though is that the great majority of comments below the line are pro-Starmer. In previous leadership elections, Guardian comments seemed to be largely pro-Corbyn.

    I think he's got it bar Nandy catching fire. RLB and ET are IMO the no-hopers.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,485

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    I think that is correct. Blair ran absolute rings round thickie IDS.

    An election match-up between Blair and IDS would be like putting a very slow and stupid rodent in a cage with a highly aggressive wolverine.

    There would be only one outcome.
    Yet IDS is still in the game. And Blair is....?
    He's still in the game in the sense Cliff Richard is still in the rock'n'roll singer game.
    As in a Shadow of his former self?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,485
    dr_spyn said:
    Hackney Empire of Dreams.....
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Re Vienna's Military Museum, just noticed a couple of photographs on Twitter of The Archduke's car and other exhibits. There was a discussion a while back about how good that museum is with some references to its collection.

    https://twitter.com/NickHewitt4/status/1219700437147947008
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    I think that is correct. Blair ran absolute rings round thickie IDS.

    An election match-up between Blair and IDS would be like putting a very slow and stupid rodent in a cage with a highly aggressive wolverine.

    There would be only one outcome.
    Yet IDS is still in the game. And Blair is....?
    And Blair is .... extremely rich.

    He has more homes than Fergus Wilson ... and of very much higher quality.

    Sure, IDS is still in the game .... playing mousie-mousie.

    He has the blue mouse, but he hasn't yet grasped the role of the dice and the cup.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,485
    dr_spyn said:

    Re Vienna's Military Museum, just noticed a couple of photographs on Twitter of The Archduke's car and other exhibits. There was a discussion a while back about how good that museum is with some references to its collection.

    https://twitter.com/NickHewitt4/status/1219700437147947008

    With, of course, the most bizarrely coincidental number plate: A 11 11 18 - the date of the Armistace.........
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,485

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    I think that is correct. Blair ran absolute rings round thickie IDS.

    An election match-up between Blair and IDS would be like putting a very slow and stupid rodent in a cage with a highly aggressive wolverine.

    There would be only one outcome.
    Yet IDS is still in the game. And Blair is....?
    And Blair is .... extremely rich.

    He has more homes than Fergus Wilson ... and of very much higher quality.

    Sure, IDS is still in the game .... playing mousie-mousie.

    He has the blue mouse, but he hasn't yet grasped the role of the dice and the cup.
    Poor - but happy.....
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    I think that is correct. Blair ran absolute rings round thickie IDS.

    An election match-up between Blair and IDS would be like putting a very slow and stupid rodent in a cage with a highly aggressive wolverine.

    There would be only one outcome.
    Yet IDS is still in the game. And Blair is....?
    And Blair is .... extremely rich.

    He has more homes than Fergus Wilson ... and of very much higher quality.

    Sure, IDS is still in the game .... playing mousie-mousie.

    He has the blue mouse, but he hasn't yet grasped the role of the dice and the cup.
    Poor - but happy.....
    Is IDS happy?

    For a happy person, he seems very, very angry all the time.
  • Let's hope Dershowitz's powers of argument are as shite as his spelling, though I daresay it won't make much difference in the end.

    https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1219345508075859969?s=20
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,005
    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Labour love their losers and despise their winners.

    The Tories are the other way round... and it explains why only three people have been Prime Minister after winning general elections while leading the Labour Party since 1945.

    Not necessarily, IDS and Hague are far more popular with Tory members than Cameron, Major or Heath for example, only Thatcher and Boris won elections while still being very popular with the membership of recent leaders.

    Wilson and Attlee won elections and are still popular with the Labour membership on the Yougov chart even if Blair is not
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1140885388912996353?s=20
    The Recency Bias appears again in both Labour and Conservative party members.

    If you use the negative answer then the lists are:

    3 Worst Labour Leaders

    Blair
    Kinnock
    Brown

    3 Best Labour Leaders

    Attlee
    Wilson
    Smith

    3 Best Conservative Leaders

    Churchill
    Thatcher
    Macmillan

    3 Worst Conservative Leaders

    Heath
    May
    Major

    Now it makes more sence.
    So Tories have a positive view of their war criminal PM, Labour have a negative view of their war criminal PM. Interesting.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,936

    Let's hope Dershowitz's powers of argument are as shite as his spelling, though I daresay it won't make much difference in the end.

    https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1219345508075859969?s=20

    On the evidence of that tweet, they are.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,842



    IDS was gung-ho over the Iraq War.

    One of the saddest features of early 21st C politics was Charles Kennedy's drink problem. If he could have kept sober the course of British history could have been very different.

    Yes, extremely sad on so many levels.

    Had a sober Charles Kennedy gone into the 2005 campaign against IDS I think it possible the LDs would have won more votes than the Conservatives (fewer seats of course but perhaps 80-90 rather than the 60s).

    Had the Conservatives still been in the 170s in terms of seats it's less likely Cameron would have made up the ground in 2010 and wouldn't have finished 50 seats ahead but perhaps 10-20.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,936
    Wow, exciting cancer immunology discovery led by Cardiff scientists:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51182451
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,056
    I wish I'd known Laurence Fox was completely barmy before watching him in Lewis.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Labour love their losers and despise their winners.

    The Tories are the other way round... and it explains why only three people have been Prime Minister after winning general elections while leading the Labour Party since 1945.

    Not necessarily, IDS and Hague are far more popular with Tory members than Cameron, Major or Heath for example, only Thatcher and Boris won elections while still being very popular with the membership of recent leaders.

    Wilson and Attlee won elections and are still popular with the Labour membership on the Yougov chart even if Blair is not
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1140885388912996353?s=20
    The Recency Bias appears again in both Labour and Conservative party members.

    If you use the negative answer then the lists are:

    3 Worst Labour Leaders

    Blair
    Kinnock
    Brown

    3 Best Labour Leaders

    Attlee
    Wilson
    Smith

    3 Best Conservative Leaders

    Churchill
    Thatcher
    Macmillan

    3 Worst Conservative Leaders

    Heath
    May
    Major

    Now it makes more sence.
    So Tories have a positive view of their war criminal PM, Labour have a negative view of their war criminal PM. Interesting.
    War criminal PM-S surely ? Thatcher should have been jailed for the Belgrano right comrades ?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    dr_spyn said:
    A call for unity on the same day as she promotes a measure straight out of the Lansman play book, something that would guarantee more years of strife, deselections and defections. Champagne corks will be popping in Downing Street if she wins.

    https://labourlist.org/2020/01/long-bailey-backs-open-selections-in-democratic-revolution-plan/

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,842
    Evening all :)

    Not sure anyone has commented on yesterday's extraordinary IPSOS-MORI poll from Ireland:

    FF 25%
    FG 23%
    SF 21%
    Greens 8%
    Labour 5%

    Another poll showing FG well down but with SF picking up rather than FF.

    Approval rates for Varadkar and his Government down an astonishing 15 points.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,899

    Oh ferfuxsake

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1219528537260142592

    I might do a thread this weekend on why it is very easy to manipulate a lie detector test

    That sounds like the sort of stupid idea Priti Patel might have had.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,038
    speedy2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    speedy2 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Hillary Clinton on Bernie Sanders:

    He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.
    ...
    It's not only him, it's the culture around him. It's his leadership team. It's his prominent supporters. It's his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women.

    And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it.


    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/479097-clinton-weighs-in-on-sanders-nobody-likes-him-nobody-wants-to-work-with-him

    Is this similar to Blair putting the boot into (any) Labour candidates, or does Hilary still have clout?
    Hard to understand what she thinks this will achieve, except reassure wavering Sanders supporters that a more centrist candidate isn't for them. Apart from anything else she sounds incredibly childish... "nobody likes him"!?!?
    It's a translation of "I HATE HIM".

    Fanatical Hillary supporters were voting for Joe Biden anyway, so it won't have any impact apart from free publicity for Sanders.
    The trouble is it is a bit like some of what we have seen here, and it ties in with the Corbyn/Jess stuff. It is one thing to prefer Mayor Pete to Bernie or vice versa but as with Corbyn and Jess, without going OTT and tipping over into saying this guy is so far beyond the pale that erstwhile supporters should instead vote for Boris or Trump.
    The question of will Hillary endorse Trump against Sanders might be asked more frequently in the next few days since the Iowa Polls show momentum for Sanders:

    https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1219457261216595970
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/iowa/

    The last two Iowa polls have shown Sanders in fourth and fifth position in Iowa.
    It's the change from the previous poll that matters if you want to see who if any has momentum, and they say on average Sanders +5% since December.
    Surely that depends on when the last poll was. The David Binder poll, for example, was immediately after Sanders heart attack when he dipped to the 10-12% level in the national polls. If he's only up five points from that low point, then that's not a great sign.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    edited January 2020
    TGOHF666 said:
    However, if you calculated it based on the cumulative difference between inflation and wage growth it would still be pretty close to the peak of the plateau it has occupied over the past decade.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,402
    edited January 2020
    glw said:

    Oh ferfuxsake

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1219528537260142592

    I might do a thread this weekend on why it is very easy to manipulate a lie detector test

    That sounds like the sort of stupid idea Priti Patel might have had.
    Talking to a senior councillor in Priti's constituency today. He's not a Tory, but reckons she's been getting some extremely bad advice.
    For a long time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,936

    glw said:

    Oh ferfuxsake

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1219528537260142592

    I might do a thread this weekend on why it is very easy to manipulate a lie detector test

    That sounds like the sort of stupid idea Priti Patel might have had.
    Talking to a senior councillor in Priti's constituency today. He's not a Tory, but reckons she's been getting some extremely bad advice.
    For a long time.
    You don’t think her capable of coming up with spectacularly stupid ideas all on her own ?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,005

    glw said:

    Oh ferfuxsake

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1219528537260142592

    I might do a thread this weekend on why it is very easy to manipulate a lie detector test

    That sounds like the sort of stupid idea Priti Patel might have had.
    Talking to a senior councillor in Priti's constituency today. He's not a Tory, but reckons she's been getting some extremely bad advice.
    For a long time.
    Fashion advice?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,936
    Competition and Markets Authority reports can actually be interesting.
    Who knew ?

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-lifts-the-lid-on-digital-giants
    ... Each year, about 15% of queries on Google have never been searched for before. Other search engines like Bing will not have the same access to these queries, putting Google in a powerful position of being able to better train its algorithms and provide more accurate search results than its rivals.

    The CMA has also found that the default settings people are faced with online have a profound effect on choice and the shape of competition. Last year in the UK, Google was willing to pay around £1 billion – 16% of all its search revenues – where it was the default search engine on mobile devices such as Apple phones....
  • kinabalu said:

    Interesting article from Zoe Williams.

    What is striking though is that the great majority of comments below the line are pro-Starmer. In previous leadership elections, Guardian comments seemed to be largely pro-Corbyn.

    I think he's got it bar Nandy catching fire. RLB and ET are IMO the no-hopers.
    C4 News this evening went back to Birmingham Northfield for a follow up focus group of Lab > Con switchers. Remember the car crash focus group pre-election, which highlighted how deep in the shit Labour were?

    They all liked Nandy, and most liked Thornberry.

    RLB went down like a cup of cold sick. They pretty much said 'Corbyn in a frock, no thanks'.

    Starmer fared OK, but they thought he was 'quite corporate'.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,038

    Let's hope Dershowitz's powers of argument are as shite as his spelling, though I daresay it won't make much difference in the end.

    https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1219345508075859969?s=20

    To be fair, he was probably having a massage when he wrote that tweet.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,936
    edited January 2020

    kinabalu said:

    Interesting article from Zoe Williams.

    What is striking though is that the great majority of comments below the line are pro-Starmer. In previous leadership elections, Guardian comments seemed to be largely pro-Corbyn.

    I think he's got it bar Nandy catching fire. RLB and ET are IMO the no-hopers.
    C4 News this evening went back to Birmingham Northfield for a follow up focus group of Lab > Con switchers. Remember the car crash focus group pre-election, which highlighted how deep in the shit Labour were?

    They all liked Nandy, and most liked Thornberry.

    RLB went down like a cup of cold sick. They pretty much said 'Corbyn in a frock, no thanks'.

    Starmer fared OK, but they thought he was 'quite corporate'.
    Corbyn might have done better at the last election in a frock...
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Looked again at that registration plate of that Gräf & Stift car, and found this article. The last paragraph brought a wry smile, as the museum director hadn't considered anything significant about that combination of letters and numerals, given that A-H had signed an armistice a week earlier.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/curses-archduke-franz-ferdinand-and-his-astounding-death-car-27381052/
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 434
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Not sure anyone has commented on yesterday's extraordinary IPSOS-MORI poll from Ireland:

    FF 25%
    FG 23%
    SF 21%
    Greens 8%
    Labour 5%

    Another poll showing FG well down but with SF picking up rather than FF.

    Approval rates for Varadkar and his Government down an astonishing 15 points.

    Interesting. This fits with Fianna Fail being strong favourites, but yeah, Sinn Fein's 1st preference numbers.... do you have a feel for how transfer-friendly they'll be among the other ~79%?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,355
    Phess Jillips
    Nisa Landy
    Lebecca Bong-Railey
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Not sure anyone has commented on yesterday's extraordinary IPSOS-MORI poll from Ireland:

    FF 25%
    FG 23%
    SF 21%
    Greens 8%
    Labour 5%

    Another poll showing FG well down but with SF picking up rather than FF.

    Approval rates for Varadkar and his Government down an astonishing 15 points.

    I'm not really up to speed on Irish politics, are any of the party's talking about leaving EU or holding a referendum? I asume not, but I have vage memory's that this was SF policy at one point, may be wrong.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,299
    kinabalu said:

    Interesting article from Zoe Williams.

    What is striking though is that the great majority of comments below the line are pro-Starmer. In previous leadership elections, Guardian comments seemed to be largely pro-Corbyn.

    I think he's got it bar Nandy catching fire. RLB and ET are IMO the no-hopers.
    This. 100%.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,736
    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    Oh ferfuxsake

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1219528537260142592

    I might do a thread this weekend on why it is very easy to manipulate a lie detector test

    That sounds like the sort of stupid idea Priti Patel might have had.
    Talking to a senior councillor in Priti's constituency today. He's not a Tory, but reckons she's been getting some extremely bad advice.
    For a long time.
    You don’t think her capable of coming up with spectacularly stupid ideas all on her own ?
    ideas grasshopper, ideas.

    If she has ideas, no matter how stupid, then that's a good sign.

    Once upon a time 'NigelB' I had ideas. That was cool.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,299
    dr_spyn said:
    I can scarcely believe she's an MP yet alone a serious candidate for the leadership.

    She looks and comes across like a NUS executive student politician.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,994

    Oh ferfuxsake

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1219528537260142592

    I might do a thread this weekend on why it is very easy to manipulate a lie detector test

    As I've noted before, even most TV shows that feature a lie detector test do so as part of showing how they can be beaten, either by the heroes or the villains. When you consider all the other unreliable or untrue things dramas still show as working the fact writers so often consider that audiences won't buy that such lie detection works, is an indication of how bad they must be.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,713

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Aside from being a tad too harsh on Cameron the only seriously barmy thing about that list is the position of IDS.

    I mean, really??

    IDS was never defeated at a general election
    The problem with IDS was that he practically ceded the role of Leader of the Opposition to Charles Kennedy.

    If IDS had played his role correctly he would have toppled Blair on the Iraq War vote in 2003 and then won the early election over a Labour party in mass rebellion against it's leader.
    I think that is correct. Blair ran absolute rings round thickie IDS.

    An election match-up between Blair and IDS would be like putting a very slow and stupid rodent in a cage with a highly aggressive wolverine.

    There would be only one outcome.
    Yet IDS is still in the game. And Blair is....?
    And Blair is .... extremely rich.

    He has more homes than Fergus Wilson ... and of very much higher quality.

    Sure, IDS is still in the game .... playing mousie-mousie.

    He has the blue mouse, but he hasn't yet grasped the role of the dice and the cup.
    Poor - but happy.....
    IDS was richer than Blair when he was Tory leader
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-198615/Profile-Betsy-Duncan-Smith.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,713
    edited January 2020
    BigRich said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Not sure anyone has commented on yesterday's extraordinary IPSOS-MORI poll from Ireland:

    FF 25%
    FG 23%
    SF 21%
    Greens 8%
    Labour 5%

    Another poll showing FG well down but with SF picking up rather than FF.

    Approval rates for Varadkar and his Government down an astonishing 15 points.

    I'm not really up to speed on Irish politics, are any of the party's talking about leaving EU or holding a referendum? I asume not, but I have vage memory's that this was SF policy at one point, may be wrong.
    Neither FF or FG will touch Sinn Fein so it makes little difference, the end result will likely be another confidence and supply deal between FG and FF, the only question being whether Martin or Varadkar ends up PM
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,736

    Phess Jillips
    Nisa Landy
    Lebecca Bong-Railey

    It's January, so it'll be forgotten, but the worst post of the year award must be quite within your grasp.

  • Tonight's nominations starting to kick in..

    Torbay CLP: Starmer/Rayner
    Birmingham Hodge Hill CLP: Long-Bailey/Burgon
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,994
    CatMan said:

    I wish I'd known Laurence Fox was completely barmy before watching him in Lewis.

    Why? It's better to not know what actors are really like as a lot more are barmy than we probably think.

    kinabalu said:

    Interesting article from Zoe Williams.

    What is striking though is that the great majority of comments below the line are pro-Starmer. In previous leadership elections, Guardian comments seemed to be largely pro-Corbyn.

    I think he's got it bar Nandy catching fire. RLB and ET are IMO the no-hopers.
    C4 News this evening went back to Birmingham Northfield for a follow up focus group of Lab > Con switchers. Remember the car crash focus group pre-election, which highlighted how deep in the shit Labour were?

    They all liked Nandy, and most liked Thornberry.

    RLB went down like a cup of cold sick. They pretty much said 'Corbyn in a frock, no thanks'.

    Starmer fared OK, but they thought he was 'quite corporate'.
    A membership which rates Corbyn with higher favourables than any other leader it has had is surely not going to go for Nandy. It's not like she was as rebellious as others, but she's not on script right now and that feels like it would hurt.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,056
    edited January 2020
    HYUFD said:
    Yeah, but I don't think Blair married his money.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,708
    kle4 said:

    Oh ferfuxsake

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1219528537260142592

    I might do a thread this weekend on why it is very easy to manipulate a lie detector test

    As I've noted before, even most TV shows that feature a lie detector test do so as part of showing how they can be beaten, either by the heroes or the villains. When you consider all the other unreliable or untrue things dramas still show as working the fact writers so often consider that audiences won't buy that such lie detection works, is an indication of how bad they must be.
    Could we get them to write out 100 times I promise not to be a terrorist...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479

    dr_spyn said:
    I can scarcely believe she's an MP yet alone a serious candidate for the leadership.

    She looks and comes across like a NUS executive student politician.
    Was thinking similar when I watched that tape. Entirely amateurish. She sounds like she knows she has lost.

    By contrast, I suppose Lisa might have a chance as a dark horse candidate? She is now effectively certain to make the ballot. The GMB nom means any form of affiliate, no matter how small or irrelevant, gets her on.

    I wonder if Unite might blow this thing up and back her? Make a tussle of it with Sir K?

    Hmm.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,056
    edited January 2020
    kle4 said:


    Why? It's better to not know what actors are really like as a lot more are barmy than we probably think.

    True, but I think most actors, or indeed most sane people, wouldn't get upset because a movie set in WW1 had a character who was a Sikh and in the British Army, when in real life there were Sikh soldiers in the British Army in WW1.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,736
    CatMan said:

    HYUFD said:
    Yeah, but I don't think Blair married his money.
    Something happened to Blair. He went from transparently honest to obviously corrupted.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,936
    CatMan said:

    HYUFD said:
    Yeah, but I don't think Blair married his money.
    Yes, his relationship with money is much creepier than marriage.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,325
    Omnium said:

    CatMan said:

    HYUFD said:
    Yeah, but I don't think Blair married his money.
    Something happened to Blair. He went from ostensibly honest to obviously corrupted.
    FTFY...
  • Nigelb said:

    CatMan said:

    HYUFD said:
    Yeah, but I don't think Blair married his money.
    Yes, his relationship with money is much creepier than marriage.
    They are apparently inseparable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,713
    edited January 2020
    CatMan said:

    HYUFD said:
    Yeah, but I don't think Blair married his money.
    Cherie earnt more than he did at the Bar, she was the bigger earner of the 2 as a QC until Tony left No 10 and went on the lecture circuit, wrote his memoirs and became a consultant
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 434
    kle4 said:


    A membership which rates Corbyn with higher favourables than any other leader it has had is surely not going to go for Nandy. It's not like she was as rebellious as others, but she's not on script right now and that feels like it would hurt.

    Nandy is a lot further left than a lot of people here seem to realise. I don't think she'll win, and that may partly be because her opponents successfully portray her as not left enough, but there is no inconsistency at all between being favourable towards Corbyn and supporting her.

    If you don't believe me, watch this video from her worst moment, in the eyes of the left (her support for Owen Smith):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19Aoh1_UnpA

    The first thing she wants in a leader of the Labour party? A socialist.
This discussion has been closed.