politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why on earth did LAB select a candidate for the Stoke by-elect

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigel Farage Refuses To Campaign Anymore For Paul Nuttall In Stoke Amid Splits At Top Of Ukip

The former Ukip leader is not happy with how the campaign is being run

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-stoke-ukip-duffy_uk_58a34272e4b03df370daac5d?

Here we go. Who on PB was on about a book on how long Nuttall would last the other day?

I am enjoying this book. Corbyn looks like the main villain right now.

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

middle class prude

There is a far better programme to watch tonight on BBC4 at 9 pm: Life of a Mountain - A Year on Blencathra. He did the film about Scafell Pike. Glorious.

ThreeQuidder said:

Jonathan said:

SeanT said:

ThreeQuidder said:

david_herdson said:

The Midlands is a quadrilateral, with corners at The Wash, the Humber, the Mersey and the Severn. Outside of that is, going clockwise, is the North, East Anglia, the South and Wales.

That puts Manchester just barely in the North, which doesn't seem right. The North/Midlands boundary should be somewhere between Macclesfield and Stoke.

The North begins, precisely, half a mile north of Nantwich, Cheshire.

You can actually hear the accents change, quite suddenly.

Wrong. The North begins in Guildford.

Guildford Street, Stoke?

Or Stoke Park, Guildford?

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?

SeanT said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The evidence is mounting that not only is Piers a total c***, he's also a pretty thick one.

twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/831552409302339588

Isn't the bragging part about her retweeting it? Not sure why the authorship of the list matters.

No one would doubt that Piers is a fawning little creep when it suits him, and is unable to keep tabs on all the sycophantic drivel he pumps out.

Piers, 2010: 'She would hate to be called a celebrity, and guards her private life intensely, so she doesn't play any part of the celebrity game. And that's why I've marked her quite far down my list. But by encouraging children to read, feel inspired and be creative, she has had a greater impact on the world than most of the other names on it.'

Piers, 2016: 'Nobody plays the celebrity game more abusively or ruthlessly than you, Ms 'Intensely Private Billionaire'.'

The endless, tedious Twitterspat between Morgan and Rowling does neither of them any favours. They should both shut up.

Twitter is great. My putting broadcasting right in the palm of celebrities (or politicians) it cuts through any carefully crafted veneer of PR.

AndyJS said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigel Farage Refuses To Campaign Anymore For Paul Nuttall In Stoke Amid Splits At Top Of Ukip

The former Ukip leader is not happy with how the campaign is being run

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-stoke-ukip-duffy_uk_58a34272e4b03df370daac5d?

He wants his old job back?

The ironic thing is that Farage probably would have won this by-election if he'd been the UKIP candidate.

Eighth time lucky?

Nah!

rottenborough said:

One thing that strikes me on UKIP. When they no longer have MEPs thanks to Brexit, they will lose huge resources in staff and cash.

They strike me as a glorified walking corpse. A repository for a certain number of protest votes in the manner of a unfocused Liberal Democrat. Which is as is should be given that their work will be done once Art50 is through.

SeanT said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The evidence is mounting that not only is Piers a total c***, he's also a pretty thick one.

twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/831552409302339588

Isn't the bragging part about her retweeting it? Not sure why the authorship of the list matters.

No one would doubt that Piers is a fawning little creep when it suits him, and is unable to keep tabs on all the sycophantic drivel he pumps out.

Piers, 2010: 'She would hate to be called a celebrity, and guards her private life intensely, so she doesn't play any part of the celebrity game. And that's why I've marked her quite far down my list. But by encouraging children to read, feel inspired and be creative, she has had a greater impact on the world than most of the other names on it.'

Piers, 2016: 'Nobody plays the celebrity game more abusively or ruthlessly than you, Ms 'Intensely Private Billionaire'.'

The endless, tedious Twitterspat between Morgan and Rowling does neither of them any favours. They should both shut up.

Fame and wealth has really changed Rowling - this comes from my wife who met her and her publishers at the time that book 1 was just beginning to generating some momentum. Morgan has always been a complete weapon with no redeeming features.

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?

It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.

.

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

What an interesting point of view! So votes only for people with second houses abroad then ?

SouthamObserver said:

https://twitter.com/radiocitytalk/status/831492310307311616

The man is a bullshitter. It's a shame, as I felt some of his ideas were worthwhile. UKIP in their current form don't really have much worth keeping.

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

Why not? Is a referendum more important than choosing a government, say?

I know that there was a minimum majority in relation to one of the Scottish devolution referenda.

But imposing a minimum bar that has to be reached has got nothing to with whether the people who would vote are incontinent in their procreative habits.

Would you have been happy with a referendum result 60/40 in favour of Leave if that Leave vote got over the line with the votes of the people you've described?

matt said:

SeanT said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The evidence is mounting that not only is Piers a total c***, he's also a pretty thick one.

twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/831552409302339588

Isn't the bragging part about her retweeting it? Not sure why the authorship of the list matters.

No one would doubt that Piers is a fawning little creep when it suits him, and is unable to keep tabs on all the sycophantic drivel he pumps out.

Piers, 2010: 'She would hate to be called a celebrity, and guards her private life intensely, so she doesn't play any part of the celebrity game. And that's why I've marked her quite far down my list. But by encouraging children to read, feel inspired and be creative, she has had a greater impact on the world than most of the other names on it.'

Piers, 2016: 'Nobody plays the celebrity game more abusively or ruthlessly than you, Ms 'Intensely Private Billionaire'.'

The endless, tedious Twitterspat between Morgan and Rowling does neither of them any favours. They should both shut up.

Fame and wealth has really changed Rowling - this comes from my wife who met her and her publishers at the time that book 1 was just beginning to generating some momentum. Morgan has always been a complete weapon with no redeeming features.

.

Just to be clear, the North consists of the three northern regions (North West, North East, Yorkshire & Humber), or, alternatively, the seven traditional northern counties (Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, Durham, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire). (This is the definnition the RFU have always used - I fondly remember the days of watching the North v South and South West on Grandstand on a Saturday afternoon.) Arguably it also includes Northern Lincolnshire (i.e. Scunthorpe and Grimsby) which falls within the first definition anyway), and possibly also some of northern Derbyshire (Glossop, New Mills? Almost certainly. Buxton? Probably. Chesterfield, Bakewell? Perhaps. Matlock, Alfreton? Possibly. Ashbourne, Belper? Probably not.)

It does include Nantwich by this definition, and also Crewe. But I concede that the two towns are stretching the north as farsouth as it will go, both in geography and in feel. Most of Cheshire is unequivocal in this regard though - I'm not having any doubt about Chester, Winsford, Middlewich, Congleton or Macclesfield - and I don't really want to cede any of Cheshire to the Midlands.

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?

It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.

The referendum was in the Conservative manifesto, it was subsequently voted on in Parliament and approved 316-53. The government then sent an expensive letter to all voters which promised to honor the result of that referendum. Then contemptible people like you and a couple of dozen MPs that voted for the referendum attempt to wriggle out because you don't like the answer.

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?

It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.

Er.... the EU referendum was in the Tory party's manifesto at the last election. And the referendum bill went through Parliament.

Although the bill was so poorly written it didn't actually grant the power to trigger Brexit.

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?

It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.

Er.... the EU referendum was in the Tory party's manifesto at the last election. And the referendum bill went through Parliament.

Although the bill was so poorly written it didn't actually grant the power to trigger Brexit.

Happily it didn't need to, parliament approved that last week 498 to 114.

I believe that this North South divide is all the problem of Mercia.

Do you view the southern boundary of the North as the northern boundary of Mercia?

Going to be interesting next week when A50 gets to the Lords. How many ex EU Commissioners are in The Lord's atm ? Kinnock, Mandelson, Patten, Hill ? Will they be declaring their EU pensions, and the requirement that they maintain "duty of loyalty to the EU" in order to retain them ?

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

you mean we should have pre-screened and disenfranchised anyone who would vote leave ?

It should have been in a manifesto. If the Party proposing it could get it through parliament then it would have been scrutinised. This is madness. It's the equivalent of allowing Shannon Matthews to drive a Jumbo jet.

Er.... the EU referendum was in the Tory party's manifesto at the last election. And the referendum bill went through Parliament.

Although the bill was so poorly written it didn't actually grant the power to trigger Brexit.

Did anyone at the time put forward an amendment for a minimum percentage for a Yes vote?

matt said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

Ability to emphathise with a Guardian article on coping with the courgette and (imminent) olive oil crisis.

Labour must rue the day they abolished the university constituencies in 1950.

ThreeQuidder said:

Mortimer said:

Jobabob said:

So Corbyn has been sent home from Stoke by his own party, and Nuttall has been disowned by Farage. Is this the most amateurish by-election in political history?

I'm taking back my previous comments that surely UKIP can't lose. I no don't see how either Labour or uKIP win with these candidates....

Have they been taking inspiration from the 2012 Olympic badminton?

Shadsy still has UKIP under 20% at 8/1...

The reality is that most voters choose by party, no matter how crappy the candidate.

https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/831585678324535296

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

OldKingCole said:

Roger said:

OT. The second and final episode of 'Moorside' tonight. Shouldn't be missed. Brexiteers in all their glory.

WWC (mainly) people who stuck together to support one of their number who was in trouble. That that person was a rather sad fantasist is irrelevant.

The point is that the people represented should not have been given the power to determine the country's future when they couldn't even work out how many children they had or who they belonged too.

(For those who haven't seen it that's no exaggeration and I'm told it was pretty well researched)

So what criteria would you have for the vote, Roger?

A property qualification, maybe? An IQ test? Not committing adultery? Not having children out of wedlock? What, exactly?

for a referendum of such importance a simple majority wasn't a sensible idea.

Why not? Is a referendum more important than choosing a government, say?

I know that there was a minimum majority in relation to one of the Scottish devolution referenda.

But imposing a minimum bar that has to be reached has got nothing to with whether the people who would vote are incontinent in their procreative habits.

Would you have been happy with a referendum result 60/40 in favour of Leave if that Leave vote got over the line with the votes of the people you've described?

It's irreversible. There are many things the country could vote for on a simple majority depending on the mood at the time. Laws take years to bed in. The idea that everything can be thrown into the air to see how they land because a simple majority of morons didn't have any idea of the consequence of their vote is not acceptable.

Why don't we have a referendum on hanging or on the Guillotine for the murder of children? There are some very uncivilized people in this country and their instincts have to be resisted.

AndyJS said:

Verulamius said:

I believe that this North South divide is all the problem of Mercia.

Do you view the southern boundary of the North as the northern boundary of Mercia?

Mercia included St Albans at one time.

Indeed which is why it is a problem. Mercia is not just the midlands otherwise the great city of St Albans would also be in the midlands (shudder!)

foxinsoxuk said:

Roger said:

Could we be seeing the beginning of the end of Trump? Ch 4 News seem to think he's teetering and losing support fast

Fragged by his own troops is the way Trump exits the Whitehouse? I would love that, but can we have the State visit first?

Trouble is I can't really see anyway that Trump does leave the Whitehouse this side of the next Presidential election. As such I am not sure that leaving him isolated with only a few fanatics for counsel is a very good idea. What we need is for him to be broken but remain in power surrounded by wiser heads.

Cyclefree said:

MTimT said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies for the seriously bad language, but this amused me

https://twitter.com/Unnamedinsider/status/830575797933060096

Amusing but uninformed.

- Internment without trial was imposed in a part of the United Kingdom.
- Trial by jury was suspended in a part of the United Kingdom.
- The British Government was found guilty by an international court of having committed acts against detainees which were one level below actual torture.
- People travelling to and from Ireland were subject to increased checks.
- The English police and judicial systems disgraced themselves in a series of miscarriages of justice which took far far too long to correct.
- Innocent people were beaten up in prison and by the police
- And Lord Denning blotted his copybook by coming out with a judgment which showed that he valued the reputation of the authorities above justice for individuals.
- Irish people and Irish Catholics were not exactly popular in mainland Britain during the Troubles.

What point precisely was this Twitter user seeking to make?

I suspect that we are better than Trump and the deplorables.

Are we? Or, rather, were we when we faced a serious terrorist threat? Britain did not exactly cover itself in glory during the Troubles. Look at those first two points. Is Trump's much maligned EO even remotely as bad as that?

What about the third point? I felt pretty ashamed at the time that the British government was pleased to have that result rather than the infinitely worse finding of torture.

And what was the Labour government's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism in more recent times? Detention without trial for 90 days. Very liberal that.

I dislike Trump intensely. But when people on Twitter make jejeune and ill-informed comments without bothering to do some basic research, it gets my goat, frankly.

By all means let's have a debate. But posting pictures, using swear words and making a frankly risible point is for children not grown ups.

I agree with you, Cyclefree. Re-reading my post, it looks as though I agree with that position - I do not.

I find it one of the most distasteful things about a large chunk of the European elite - their totally unfounded, automatic, knee-jerk supposition of moral and intellectual superiority over all things American. It is a belief rooted in ignorance of the fundamental differences in world view of the US vs Europe - an ignorance which is lacking (at least in the elites) on the other foot.

MarqueeMark said:

I imagine the two resigning MPs must be thinking that it is all going nicely to plan.

One factor in Stoke I haven't seen mentioned - and that is Tristram Hunt leaving the job of MP for a cushy post at the V&A. People generally don't like by-elections where someone has tazzed off for a better offer. I was active in the 1977 Ashfield by-election, a rock-solid Labour seat where David Marquand went off to a job in the EEC (as it then was) to work for Roy Jenkins. The Tories won the seat with a 20% swing - speaking to Labour folks afterwards, they just couldn't get their voters out. Anybody who has been to Stoke/phone banked for it found this given as a reason for changed votes?

No, I was looking out for it. One voter said that in general terms he hadn't much liked recent MPs and was pleased the candidate was a local bloke though he didn't know him. Nobody else commente positively or negatively about any candidate except Nuttall (about whom comments were 100% negative, even from people still planning to vote for him).

But I think everyone is going to struggle to get their vote out, frankly. It didn't feel like a constituency panting for the chance to cast February votes.