politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB might get a Stoke Central boost by NOT having Tristram Hun

First again

The reason I'm not backing UKIP here isn't because of their poor performances in FPTP elections, but because Mrs May's recent plans is quite UKIPy.

Still disappointed by the lack of a bar chart on that Lib Dem leaflet.

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

Every topic on here is dominated by men, as PB has never had a gender-balanced set of contributors in the 11-odd years I've been hanging around this den of iniquity.

I do agree that some of the lines of argument were bizarre. I find it sad that 'never kissed a Tory' is a thing, but most relationships need common views and interests in order to thrive, so it's just one of those things.

Is Nuttall going to become the new Farage - that is, a leader who can't get elected by the voters?

MarqueeMark said:

Is Nuttall going to become the new Farage - that is, a leader who can't get elected by the voters?

I just don't see the point of UKIP. Lancaster House speech laid waste to their value prop.

Agree - not having Hunt will help - tho it may depend on which local candidate they select....

Several local candidates have already publicly expressed their intention to run, including the Royal Stoke A&E doctor and army reservist Stephen Hitchin, the former Newcastle-under-Lyme council leader Mike Stubbs, the councillor and local shopkeeper Chris Spence, and the former Labour candidate for Staffordshire Moorlands, Trudie McGuinness.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/20/jeremy-corbyn-labour-copeland-byelection-gillian-troughton

John_M said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

Every topic on here is dominated by men, as PB has never had a gender-balanced set of contributors in the 11-odd years I've been hanging around this den of iniquity.

I do agree that some of the lines of argument were bizarre. I find it sad that 'never kissed a Tory' is a thing, but most relationships need common views and interests in order to thrive, so it's just one of those things.

On your first point: it's true to say there are more male voices than female ones on this site - but I can still recall at least one/some female voice in most of the conversations I've read on here. With that conversation I recall there being no female voice to offer a perspective either way. I guess that was what I was getting at.

On your second point, I agree 100%.

@CD13 And what do you believe most men think?

I chipped in a tenner to the A50 case Crowdfunder and it's the best political donation I've ever made. It's a glorious judgement upholding principles of parliamentary soveriegnty that predate the Civil War. Or indeed Runnymede.

Though I think PB is right to focus on the devolution angle. As a non lawyer everything I'd read suggested the devolution appeal was weak. So the result is no surprise. But the brevity and brutality of the dismissal of the Sewell Convention in the judgement is breathtaking. It confirms the UK's nature as an entirely unitary state in a way nothing post 1997 has. In the current climate it's undoubtedly a bomb with albeit it a long fuse.

Still all to play for. Brexit is a Supertanker with the engine still running. But today adds a few barnacles to the boat. We've two years know to change some leave voters minds and/or supression their turnout. Anything can happen next in two years. It's an extraordinary period in UK politics. Anything could happen.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I agree Hunt's absence is helpful. But Corbyn's presence won't be.

TheScreamingEagles said:

SimonStClare said:

This may be Paul Nuttall’s only chance at becoming an MP before GE2020, can’t blame him for trying. Poor timing to become leader imho, just as UKIP’s numbers appear to be waning.

Has he confirmed he's no longer standing in Leigh if he loses in Stoke?

Not officially AFAIK, however he stands less chance in Andy Burnham's old seat than Stoke.

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

My experience of what the ''hot ones'' want is a bit different to yours then.

MarqueeMark said:

Is Nuttall going to become the new Farage - that is, a leader who can't get elected by the voters?

Farage was elected, just not to Westminster.

The_Apocalypse said:

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

My experience of want the hot ones want is a bit different to yours then.

One issue with Sean's comment is that it's just a variation on the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

The_Apocalypse said:

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

My experience of what the ''hot ones'' want is a bit different to yours then.

Don't forget @SeanT is a very successful author, as he keeps reminding us.

His "hot ones," therefore, are likely to obey the Mrs Merton paradox.

The_Apocalypse said:

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

My experience of what the ''hot ones'' want is a bit different to yours then.

I am not sure that it is. SeanTs girlfriends seem to wise up pretty quickly and move on.

I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50

Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning

John_M said:

MarqueeMark said:

Is Nuttall going to become the new Farage - that is, a leader who can't get elected by the voters?

I just don't see the point of UKIP. Lancaster House speech laid waste to their value prop.

1. Europe is more than just the EU. They can still campaign on withdrawal from ECHR, for example.
2. Brexit might not be as hard as they'd like so there are still issues there.
3. UKIP is also a domestic policy party and can run as a populist UK version of Trump: protectionist, flag-waving and noisy. Others can play to that crowd but none so authentically.

isam said:

I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50

Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning

Laying UKIP in Stoke is where the value is. I reckon they will lose at least as much share to the Tories as they gain from Labour.

MarqueeMark said:

John_M said:

MarqueeMark said:

Is Nuttall going to become the new Farage - that is, a leader who can't get elected by the voters?

I just don't see the point of UKIP. Lancaster House speech laid waste to their value prop.

I think that the Tories could get a LOT of mileage out of being the party that allowed you even to have a say on the EU. The records of both Labour and the LibDems are very shabby on this.

And as you say, what is UKIP for? Independence from what? The EU? We will have that as soon as Article 50 is served. Fox duly shot. UKIP, rather than the LibDems, can play the "Look around you - Labour have taken you for granted for decades" card. But it is the Tories that have actually got an argument to make for having done something to break through that. Not that they will get the credit and break through 25%. And if UKIP DO manage to get their act together, will likely go markedly backwards in this by-election.

Mr. Mark, as a former UKIP supporter and voter I tend to agree. The party had one real reason for existing and that has now been achieved, the UK will leave the EU. So why should it continue to exist? UKIP and Farage may be hated and derided on here but it has been the most successful pressure group (and Farage one of the most influential politicians never to have been a member of the House) in modern times. Only CAMRA has in my view been more successful in achieving its aims.

There is a market, I think, for a political party to replace Labour as representing the "Working Classes" or at any rate for which people who would have traditionally supported Labour could and would vote for. Could UKIP reinvent itself to fill that space? I doubt it, though it is not impossible.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

The Sewel Convention does not apply as foreign affairs is not a devolved matter. The convention, such that it is, remains untouched.

Probably as well. The SNP would have French nukes based up the Clyde if they thought it would piss off Westminster....

John_M said:

MarqueeMark said:

Is Nuttall going to become the new Farage - that is, a leader who can't get elected by the voters?

I just don't see the point of UKIP. Lancaster House speech laid waste to their value prop.

Although you're absolutely right they will still help the Tories by attracting ex Labour voters who won't countenance voting Tory.

HurstLlama said:

There is a market, I think, for a political party to replace Labour as representing the "Working Classes" or at any rate for which people who would have traditionally supported Labour could and would vote for. Could UKIP reinvent itself to fill that space? I doubt it, though it is not impossible.

At a local level, the LibDems have been able to do that, in gaining big city councils in the North - but once they gain power, the gloss soon wears off with the voters and Labour get back in control again.

Remember when the sympathisers were taunting people on here for supposing Esteban Santiago might have been a follower of the religion of peace?

https://twitter.com/cnn/status/821404456315158529

isam said:

I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50

Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning

Won't the Article 50 Enabling Bill will have become an Act by the time of the by-election, with Labour having voted for it?

foxinsoxuk said:

isam said:

I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50

Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning

Laying UKIP in Stoke is where the value is. I reckon they will lose at least as much share to the Tories as they gain from Labour.

Has anyone locked in a profit by backing UKIP before Nuttall was confirmed as the candidate and then laying now?

(I only ask because I suggested this approach a few days ago when Nuttall was rumoured to be getting the nod)

SeanT said:

TOPPING said:

The_Apocalypse said:

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

My experience of what the ''hot ones'' want is a bit different to yours then.

Don't forget @SeanT is a very successful author, as he keeps reminding us.

His "hot ones," therefore, are likely to obey the Mrs Merton paradox.

Oh, for sure. But they REALLY are hot. Like, REALLY.

One day I will be a reduced old fool, with a frump of a 58 year old girlfriend, or more likely entirely alone and sad. It's inevitable. It will happen.

But not yet.

And there will come a day when youth will pass away
What will they say about me?
When the end comes, I know
He was just a gigolo
Life goes on without me...

@WG

Genuine question: Why? Why would winning a Scottish referendum be the best way of "walking back" Brexit? At the very least the maths moves towards Leave as you've just taken out about a net 600K Remainers all other things staying equal, and regretful though that separation may possibly be to some, I would suggest the prevailing mood in rUK would tend towards the "good riddance" more than the "please don't go", though of course it would be shades of grey.

SandyRentool said:

Has anyone locked in a profit by backing UKIP before Nuttall was confirmed as the candidate and then laying now?

(I only ask because I suggested this approach a few days ago when Nuttall was rumoured to be getting the nod)

Yes

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've .

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Justersation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

My experience of what the ''hot ones'' want is a bit different to yours then.

Women prefer taller men

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201306/why-women-want-tall-men

Women prefer men richer than them, even when the women are rich enough themselves. Indeed they actually have more and better orgasms with richer men, as I can personally attest, as a rich man.

Oh, sorry. here's a link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1121122/Why-rich-men-better-bed--Women-orgasms-wealthy-partners-study-finds.html

Also, we know from pornsite data what sex women want, and it isn't gentle canoodling. They like what men want, and they like the hot filthy stuff, where the women get a right seeing-to.

"Even more interesting than who is having sex, but how. Inquisitor reports: "Women also show a strong preference for sado-maschistic adult video viewing, with the terms 'rough sex' and 'bondage' both appearing in the top 16 search terms for women, but not for men." I'm not shocked that these are popular search topics for women, but I wouldn't have guessed that it was that much more popular for women than for men."

More women like bondage and rough sex THAN MEN. And that isn't porn with the woman tying up the man, or giving him a pegging. That's sex with the woman getting spanked, hogtied and ball-gagged.

You have much to learn.


https://www.bustle.com/articles/83292-these-are-the-most-popular-porn-searches-for-women-and-we-watch-a-lot-more-lesbian

Sylvia Plath certainly thought that "Every woman adores a fascist, the boot in the face, the brute brute heart of a brute like you."

welshowl said:

@WG

Genuine question: Why? Why would winning a Scottish referendum be the best way of "walking back" Brexit? At the very least the maths moves towards Leave as you've just taken out about a net 600K Remainers all other things staying equal, and regretful though that separation may possibly be to some, I would suggest the prevailing mood in rUK would tend towards the "good riddance" more than the "please don't go", though of course it would be shades of grey.

Because of the psychological blow combined with pragmatically facing up to the practicalities of it. Most people don't really think they'd vote for independence. If they did it in a way that was seen to be choosing Europe over the UK, against a background of Europe having weathered the storms of nationalism, it would give many in England and Wales reason to rethink their assumptions about whether leaving the EU really offered a brighter future.

MarqueeMark said:

HurstLlama said:

There is a market, I think, for a political party to replace Labour as representing the "Working Classes" or at any rate for which people who would have traditionally supported Labour could and would vote for. Could UKIP reinvent itself to fill that space? I doubt it, though it is not impossible.

At a local level, the LibDems have been able to do that, in gaining big city councils in the North - but once they gain power, the gloss soon wears off with the voters and Labour get back in control again.

Fair go, Mr. Mark, but two thoughts:

Firstly, why does the gloss soon wear off? Perhaps because the voters realise the LibDems are not actually on their side?

Secondly, the big decisions are not made at local level they are made at Westminster where the LibDems have 9 MPs (and how many of those are from seats decided by the "Working classes"?).

I think I 'll stand by my view that there is a gap in the market for a party to replace Labour, but I doubt UKIP is that party.

UKIP was an immensely successful pressure group but I very much doubt it has the skills and resources to invent itself as a full on political party. However, perhaps a bit over a hundred years ago people were saying that about the Labour Party.

Another point on the porn thing: That what someone wants in their sex life doesn't necessarily reflect the dynamic they want within their relationship as a whole.

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50

Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning

Hmm there's a lot of Daily Mail outrage over the decision. But in the cold light of day I see no reason why the good burghers of Stoke won't be as aware of what it actually signified as those of us on here.

Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.

If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.

Well quite obviously I didn't see that.

What I find strange is that the SC judgement is pretty straightforward. Parliament must be consulted, for valid constitutional reasons, all with precedent, before A50 can be triggered.

Easy peasy.

Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.

That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.

MarqueeMark said:

There is a case to be made that Hunt actually did an OK job at arresting Labour's decline in Stoke Central. Labour's vote had been in dramatic decline since 1997:

1997 - Labour vote: 66.2% Mark Fisher MP - Labour vote +8.2%
2001 - Labour vote: 60.7% Mark Fisher MP - Labour vote -5.5%
2005 - Labour vote: 52.9% Mark Fisher MP - Labour vote -7.8%
2010 - Labour vote: 38.8% Tristram Hunt MP - Labour vote -14.1%
2015 - Labour vote: 39.3% Tristram Hunt MP - Labour vote +0.5%

You could argue that as a candidate in 2010, maybe he put off a lot of Labour voters, but had at least stabilised his support by 2015.

You would always expect a previously newly elected MP seeking reelection to improve their vote share on the back of assiduous constituency work. What's more the Labour vote went up by +3.6% in England in 2015 and by +6.0% where unemployment was above average (Cowley and Kavenagh, Table A1.5).

So Hunt had everything going for him in 2015, and thus his virtual inability to increase the Labour share was a pretty appalling local performance.

Sean_F said:

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've .

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Justersation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

My experience of what the ''hot ones'' want is a bit different to yours then.

Women prefer taller men

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201306/why-women-want-tall-men

Women prefer men richer than them, even when the women are rich enough themselves. Indeed they actually have more and better orgasms with richer men, as I can personally attest, as a rich man.

Oh, sorry. here's a link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1121122/Why-rich-men-better-bed--Women-orgasms-wealthy-partners-study-finds.html

Also, we know from pornsite data what sex women want, and it isn't gentle canoodling. They like what men want, and they like the hot filthy stuff, where the women get a right seeing-to.

"Even more interesting than who is having sex, but how. Inquisitor reports: "Women also show a strong preference for sado-maschistic adult video viewing, with the terms 'rough sex' and 'bondage' both appearing in the top 16 search terms for women, but not for men." I'm not shocked that these are popular search topics for women, but I wouldn't have guessed that it was that much more popular for women than for men."

More women like bondage and rough sex THAN MEN. And that isn't porn with the woman tying up the man, or giving him a pegging. That's sex with the woman getting spanked, hogtied and ball-gagged.

You have much to learn.


https://www.bustle.com/articles/83292-these-are-the-most-popular-porn-searches-for-women-and-we-watch-a-lot-more-lesbian

Sylvia Plath certainly thought that "Every woman adores a fascist, the boot in the face, the brute brute heart of a brute like you."

The tragic Sylvia is not really a great source of wisdom on this topic.

The_Apocalypse said:

Another point on the porn thing: That what someone wants in their sex life doesn't necessarily reflect the dynamic they want within their relationship as a whole.

Indeed it may almost be the opposite.

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument. When I was at uni (and even now post uni among my group of friends), generally if you were a liberal left girl you weren't dating a Tory. I don't know why so many Conservative/right wing men have such an issue with this. Yesterday's conversation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

SeanT said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Justersation alone makes clear the big differences in values between the right and liberal left that makes such a reluctance understandable.

No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type, but most of the really hot ones do.

My experience of what the ''hot ones'' want is a bit different to yours then.

Women prefer taller men

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201306/why-women-want-tall-men

Women prefer men richer than them, even when the women are rich enough themselves. Indeed they actually have more and better orgasms with richer men, as I can personally attest, as a rich man.

Oh, sorry. here's a link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1121122/Why-rich-men-better-bed--Women-orgasms-wealthy-partners-study-finds.html

Also, we know from pornsite data what sex women want, and it isn't gentle canoodling. They like what men want, and they like the hot filthy stuff, where the women get a right seeing-to.

"Even more interesting than who is having sex, but how. Inquisitor reports: "Women also show a strong preference for sado-maschistic adult video viewing, with the terms 'rough sex' and 'bondage' both appearing in the top 16 search terms for women, but not for men." I'm not shocked that these are popular search topics for women, but I wouldn't have guessed that it was that much more popular for women than for men."

More women like bondage and rough sex THAN MEN. And that isn't porn with the woman tying up the man, or giving him a pegging. That's sex with the woman getting spanked, hogtied and ball-gagged.

You have much to learn.


https://www.bustle.com/articles/83292-these-are-the-most-popular-porn-searches-for-women-and-we-watch-a-lot-more-lesbian

Sounds like you need a focus group before you go on the pull.

The_Apocalypse said:

SeanT said:

Women prefer taller men

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201306/why-women-want-tall-men

Women prefer men richer than them, even when the women are rich enough themselves. Indeed they actually have more and better orgasms with richer men, as I can personally attest, as a rich man.

Oh, sorry. here's a link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1121122/Why-rich-men-better-bed--Women-orgasms-wealthy-partners-study-finds.html

Also, we know from pornsite data what sex women want, and it isn't gentle canoodling. They like what men want, and they like the hot filthy stuff, where the women get a right seeing-to.

"Even more interesting than who is having sex, but how. Inquisitor reports: "Women also show a strong preference for sado-maschistic adult video viewing, with the terms 'rough sex' and 'bondage' both appearing in the top 16 search terms for women, but not for men." I'm not shocked that these are popular search topics for women, but I wouldn't have guessed that it was that much more popular for women than for men."

More women like bondage and rough sex THAN MEN. And that isn't porn with the woman tying up the man, or giving him a pegging. That's sex with the woman getting spanked, hogtied and ball-gagged.

You have much to learn.


https://www.bustle.com/articles/83292-these-are-the-most-popular-porn-searches-for-women-and-we-watch-a-lot-more-lesbian

Taller men is a physical preference, not a personality preference. I like taller guys, but if I meet a 5'8 guy who I like I'm not going to turn him down based on him not being over 6'0.

On your second point: that's one 'controversial' study. No evidence from your link that it's findings are accepted by the scientific community as a whole.

The porn example is flawed because most women don't watch porn. The vast majority of porn watchers are men, and a range of studies show this.

What women want is a lover who makes them feel desirable and desired, who makes them feel good - more than good, absolutely BLOODY WONDERFUL - and who has some imagination and a sense of humour.

It's not hard, chaps.

Carolus_Rex said:

williamglenn said:

welshowl said:

@WG

Genuine question: Why? Why would winning a Scottish referendum be the best way of "walking back" Brexit? At the very least the maths moves towards Leave as you've just taken out about a net 600K Remainers all other things staying equal, and regretful though that separation may possibly be to some, I would suggest the prevailing mood in rUK would tend towards the "good riddance" more than the "please don't go", though of course it would be shades of grey.

Because of the psychological blow combined with pragmatically facing up to the practicalities of it. Most people don't really think they'd vote for independence. If they did it in a way that was seen to be choosing Europe over the UK, against a background of Europe having weathered the storms of nationalism, it would give many in England and Wales reason to rethink their assumptions about whether leaving the EU really offered a brighter future.

Why? Why would Scotland voting for independence from the UK ( which is not the same thing as "choosing Europe over the UK") change any minds in England and Wales?

Can't see the logic of that at all. I think you're indulging in wishful thinking.

Almost everyone on the Leave side is confidently predicting that Scotland won't leave, and even that Brexit makes it harder. It's surely not crazy to think that there will be an effect if these predictions turn out to be faulty.

Remember Theresa May came to power saying that protecting the 'much more precious' union with Scotland was a priority. If her hard Brexit plan instead drives them away, can she survive? Wouldn't the countries she's courting for trade deals not look at events and wonder if they're backing a loser?

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50

Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning

Hmm there's a lot of Daily Mail outrage over the decision. But in the cold light of day I see no reason why the good burghers of Stoke won't be as aware of what it actually signified as those of us on here.

Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.

If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.

Well quite obviously I didn't see that.

What I find strange is that the SC judgement is pretty straightforward. Parliament must be consulted, for valid constitutional reasons, all with precedent, before A50 can be triggered.

Easy peasy.

Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.

I cannot stand your patronising, condescending tone and find it irritating to converse with you.

I think this is a good thing for Ukip, if you think differently you can lay me a bet?

Wow issues much? Please feel free not to converse with me if it winds you up that much, we'll both manage.

And the only bet I ever had with you I lost. I am tempted, however, this time. I'm happy to bet you £10 that UKIP won't win Stoke.

SeanT said:

nunu said:

That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.

But if the flag waver also believed in white supremacy, you'd have good reason to be suspicious. And this Muslim woman appears to support sharia law. That is to say: she supports a system which says women are intrinsically inferior to men, the way Nazis believed Jews were intrinsically inferior to Germans

Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.

It has been declared to be incompatible with the ECHR - see the Court's report for 2003.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

I smashed into the 2.6 w Betfair on UKIP in Stoke... the mood of the public over this decision will be very different to that on here. It's a gift for Ukip, I think it's 50/50

Nothing like the Oldham seat that Mike keeps mentioning

Hmm there's a lot of Daily Mail outrage over the decision. But in the cold light of day I see no reason why the good burghers of Stoke won't be as aware of what it actually signified as those of us on here.

Your belief that UKIP will do well commits the age old lefty mistake (and as you are an erstwhile lefty I can see where it's coming from) of believing that you are the only one who really gets what's going on, while the plebs will remain unaware.

If you saw my "not interested in politics" football teams whatsapp convo this morning you'd think very differently, but carry on theorising.

Well quite obviously I didn't see that.

What I find strange is that the SC judgement is pretty straightforward. Parliament must be consulted, for valid constitutional reasons, all with precedent, before A50 can be triggered.

Easy peasy.

Why will the denizens of Stoke be so unable to grasp such a straightforward point, which is presumably what your UKIP bet is predicated upon.

I cannot stand your patronising, condescending tone and find it irritating to converse with you.

I think this is a good thing for Ukip, if you think differently you can lay me a bet?

Wow issues much? Please feel free not to converse with me if it winds you up that much, we'll both manage.

And the only bet I ever had with you I lost. I am tempted, however, this time. I'm happy to bet you £10 that UKIP won't win Stoke.

Is it an issue to find someone extremely annoying? If so I have them!

Ok what price are you offering?

Cyclefree said:

SeanT said:

nunu said:

That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.

But if the flag waver also believed in white supremacy, you'd have good reason to be suspicious. And this Muslim woman appears to support sharia law. That is to say: she supports a system which says women are intrinsically inferior to men, the way Nazis believed Jews were intrinsically inferior to Germans

Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.

It has been declared to be incompatible with the ECHR - see the Court's report for 2003.

If the nutjobs get wind of that they might start to wonder why 'sharia May' is so keen to leave it.

Cyclefree said:

The_Apocalypse said:

SeanT said:

Women prefer taller men

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201306/why-women-want-tall-men

Women prefer men richer than them, even when the women are rich enough themselves. Indeed they actually have more and better orgasms with richer men, as I can personally attest, as a rich man.

Oh, sorry. here's a link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1121122/Why-rich-men-better-bed--Women-orgasms-wealthy-partners-study-finds.html

Also, we know from pornsite data what sex women want, and it isn't gentle canoodling. They like what men want, and they like the hot filthy stuff, where the women get a right seeing-to.

"Even more interesting than who is having sex, but how. Inquisitor reports: "Women also show a strong preference for sado-maschistic adult video viewing, with the terms 'rough sex' and 'bondage' both appearing in the top 16 search terms for women, but not for men." I'm not shocked that these are popular search topics for women, but I wouldn't have guessed that it was that much more popular for women than for men."

More women like bondage and rough sex THAN MEN. And that isn't porn with the woman tying up the man, or giving him a pegging. That's sex with the woman getting spanked, hogtied and ball-gagged.

You have much to learn.


https://www.bustle.com/articles/83292-these-are-the-most-popular-porn-searches-for-women-and-we-watch-a-lot-more-lesbian

Taller men is a physical preference, not a personality preference. I like taller guys, but if I meet a 5'8 guy who I like I'm not going to turn him down based on him not being over 6'0.

On your second point: that's one 'controversial' study. No evidence from your link that it's findings are accepted by the scientific community as a whole.

The porn example is flawed because most women don't watch porn. The vast majority of porn watchers are men, and a range of studies show this.

What women want is a lover who makes them feel desirable and desired, who makes them feel good - more than good, absolutely BLOODY WONDERFUL - and who has some imagination and a sense of humour.

It's not hard, chaps.

I'd agree with this

williamglenn said:

Carolus_Rex said:

williamglenn said:

welshowl said:

@WG

Genuine question: Why? Why would winning a Scottish referendum be the best way of "walking back" Brexit? At the very least the maths moves towards Leave as you've just taken out about a net 600K Remainers all other things staying equal, and regretful though that separation may possibly be to some, I would suggest the prevailing mood in rUK would tend towards the "good riddance" more than the "please don't go", though of course it would be shades of grey.

Because of the psychological blow combined with pragmatically facing up to the practicalities of it. Most people don't really think they'd vote for independence. If they did it in a way that was seen to be choosing Europe over the UK, against a background of Europe having weathered the storms of nationalism, it would give many in England and Wales reason to rethink their assumptions about whether leaving the EU really offered a brighter future.

Why? Why would Scotland voting for independence from the UK ( which is not the same thing as "choosing Europe over the UK") change any minds in England and Wales?

Can't see the logic of that at all. I think you're indulging in wishful thinking.

Almost everyone on the Leave side is confidently predicting that Scotland won't leave, and even that Brexit makes it harder. It's surely not crazy to think that there will be an effect if these predictions turn out to be faulty.

Remember Theresa May came to power saying that protecting the 'much more precious' union with Scotland was a priority. If her hard Brexit plan instead drives them away, can she survive? Wouldn't the countries she's courting for trade deals not look at events and wonder if they're backing a loser?

I think you overestimate the "love" for Scotland. It's in pretty short supply south of Carlisle (fine for the SNP that of course). Even in Cardiff during Indyref, the general view amongst my (totally unscientific of course) circle was, shall we say not exactly an expression of Celtic brotherly love.

Now I agree Scotland seems to be drifting away at present (that could change too of course, nothing is forever) and I think something new will have to be done (federal UK or whatever) post Brexit, if there is the will to keep it all stitched together in a new form.

However, I just don't see how on earth any sensible debate could genuinely be had till Brexit is 100% done nor that Scotland saying "Ok we're off if you Brexit" is really going to be the brake you think it will be on England (and Wales).

Cyclefree said:

The_Apocalypse said:

SeanT said:

Women prefer taller men

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201306/why-women-want-tall-men

Women prefer men richer than them, even when the women are rich enough themselves. Indeed they actually have more and better orgasms with richer men, as I can personally attest, as a rich man.

Oh, sorry. here's a link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1121122/Why-rich-men-better-bed--Women-orgasms-wealthy-partners-study-finds.html

Also, we know from pornsite data what sex women want, and it isn't gentle canoodling. They like what men want, and they like the hot filthy stuff, where the women get a right seeing-to.

"Even more interesting than who is having sex, but how. Inquisitor reports: "Women also show a strong preference for sado-maschistic adult video viewing, with the terms 'rough sex' and 'bondage' both appearing in the top 16 search terms for women, but not for men." I'm not shocked that these are popular search topics for women, but I wouldn't have guessed that it was that much more popular for women than for men."

More women like bondage and rough sex THAN MEN. And that isn't porn with the woman tying up the man, or giving him a pegging. That's sex with the woman getting spanked, hogtied and ball-gagged.

You have much to learn.


https://www.bustle.com/articles/83292-these-are-the-most-popular-porn-searches-for-women-and-we-watch-a-lot-more-lesbian

Taller men is a physical preference, not a personality preference. I like taller guys, but if I meet a 5'8 guy who I like I'm not going to turn him down based on him not being over 6'0.

On your second point: that's one 'controversial' study. No evidence from your link that it's findings are accepted by the scientific community as a whole.

The porn example is flawed because most women don't watch porn. The vast majority of porn watchers are men, and a range of studies show this.

What women want is a lover who makes them feel desirable and desired, who makes them feel good - more than good, absolutely BLOODY WONDERFUL - and who has some imagination and a sense of humour.

It's not hard, chaps.

[Looks down] Um, would partially hard do?

The_Apocalypse said:

John_M said:

The_Apocalypse said:

FPT:

Just reading yesterday's threads. That conversation on what women what (which seemingly was dominated by men) was a mess. No, not all women want a dominant, alpha male type man.

Also the idea that patriarchy as a concept stems from women having dad issues....well, certainly that's the first time I've heard that as argument.

(snipped)

Every topic on here is dominated by men, as PB has never had a gender-balanced set of contributors in the 11-odd years I've been hanging around this den of iniquity.

I do agree that some of the lines of argument were bizarre. I find it sad that 'never kissed a Tory' is a thing, but most relationships need common views and interests in order to thrive, so it's just one of those things.

On your first point: it's true to say there are more male voices than female ones on this site - but I can still recall at least one/some female voice in most of the conversations I've read on here. With that conversation I recall there being no female voice to offer a perspective either way. I guess that was what I was getting at.

On your second point, I agree 100%.

@CD13 And what do you believe most men think?

I was lurking during that conversation and had no interest in it, except as a spectator sport like going to the Zoo.

To me it seemed the sort of thing men talk about when they get together, and no need for me to be a wet blanket.

I am myself somewhat left-leaning, though less so than you, I expect.

The sort of debate that interests me about left/right differences and gender issues is that the left make the noise about equality and don't much vote for women unless they've no option and the right just allow a free-for-all through which women can & do fight their way to the top.

Regardless of politics, I prefer an approach that works.

Any woman of sense needs only to look at what happened to Harriet Harman to realise that her own chances as a Labour politician are doomed from the outset. Or the shambles the Mr Corbyn produced when deciding his first Shadow Cabinet - no woman's name apparently entered his mind, never mind his ShadCab, until someone pointed it out, far too late to disguise the fact.

If a woman wants to join a boys' club, where women are the groupies, she can't do better than join the Labour party (or, from what I read, any of the other left organisations).

I don't understand why the younger women can't see it, but there are always plenty of candidates for the lower rungs of the ladder.

(All thoroughly off-topic, for which I apologise, and Good afternoon, everyone.)

Sigmar Gabriel says he wont be SPD candidate in German election and backs Martin Schulz

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/sigmar-gabriel-tritt-nicht-als-spd-kanzlerkandidat-an-14744704.html

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. M, no, it isn't. If you consider the UK to be a sovereign country then both positions make sense.

And Scots exercised their self-determination in 2014 when they voted to remain in the UK.

I'm supportive of Nicola's argument that we're materially changing the T&Cs regarding membership of the United Kingdom.

I also think they're bonkers if they believe that EU membership is going to solve their issues, but I'm at least halfway to being a Cybernat.