politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The expectations game. How to judge the results in Stoke Centr

Stoke at its best. Seriously!

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11701/10737219/watch-hilarious-mascot-greets-stokes-players-and-staff-before-man-utd-game

AlastairMeeks said:

Slackbladder said:

Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago
In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m

The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.

Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.

Channeling your inner Maggie?

"They'd rather have the poor poorer...."

Pulpstar said:

Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.

Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.

SimonStClare said:

BBC - UK unemployment fell by 7,000 to 1.6 million in three months to December, while average earnings rose 2.6%, figures show.

Despite Brexit..?

Jobs up, earnings up, inflation near target, what's not to like?

RobD said:

SimonStClare said:

BBC - UK unemployment fell by 7,000 to 1.6 million in three months to December, while average earnings rose 2.6%, figures show.

Despite Brexit..?

Jobs up, earnings up, inflation near target, what's not to like?

If we'd voted to remain we'd be here in the same boat now, except the currency would be stronger. Inflation pressures are coming next year.

JosiasJessop said:

Not often I say this, but Diane Abbott may have a point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38977784

Soames and Davis should be ashamed of themselves.

Surprised at Davis... But if you were told an MP has been sexist... Your first guess should surely be Soames.

Barnesian said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

isam rkrkrk pulps

My book is currently

Lab/Lab +27
Con/Lab +12
Lab/UKIP -9
Con/UKIP -24

So not a dissimilar result, just with more variations. And of course I suspect much less money wagered!

I have a small LibDem saver on "Any Other" on the Copeland/Stoke double. You can get better odds on LD on the double than on Stoke alone. In fact I was able to arb between betting on the LDs on the double and laying LDs at Stoke. But arb no longer available.

That is a great technical spot.

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.

Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.

The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.

Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.

Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won

EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/831807278017810432

Oo

http://www.gallup.com/poll/203915/americans-say-trump-keeps-promises-strong-leader.asp

Majorities of Americans believe President Donald Trump keeps his promises, is a strong and decisive leader, and can bring about changes the country needs. Trump scores worse on other characteristics and qualities: Less than half of Americans perceive him as honest and trustworthy, able to manage the government effectively, inspiring confidence and caring about the needs of people like themselves.

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/831807278017810432

As it was only 5 years ago, surely there will be footage of him saying it, if he said it?

As the focus has switched to what he is claimed to have said about others, is it safe to assume he was there now?

The bigger question is will a constituency 50 miles away from Liverpool actually give a toss

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.

Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.

The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.

Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.

Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won

EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!

Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May.
Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.

I see my best result Melenchon has zoomed back into 110-120 from 300s on Betfair.

Surely Hamon has to drop out now ?

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.

Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.

The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.

Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.

Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won

EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!

Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May.
Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.

Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?

Morris_Dancer said:

Article on recorded hate crimes, but it'd be more useful if the number of prosecutions (and successful ones) were included:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38976087

If they are live cases they might still be

1) With the CPS for a charging decision.

Or

2) Or awaiting trial at the big court

So those stats aren't available.

AlsoIndigo said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.

Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.

The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.

Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.

Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won

EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!

Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May.
Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.

Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?

Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.

Pulpstar said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.

Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.

The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.

Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.

Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won

EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!

Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May.
Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.

Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?

Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.

Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.

Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.

The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.

Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.

Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won

EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!

Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May.
Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.

Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?

Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.

Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?

Did you see this?

https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/831511833844523008

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.

Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.

The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.

Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.

Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won

EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!

Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May.
Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.

Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?

Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.

Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?

Did you see this?

https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/831511833844523008

Thank the Lord I was sitting down.

Re Trump / Flynn and the Russians, this is not the first time that Presidential candidates have - or have been accused of - making secret deals with opponents/enemies or of doing down their own country.

Two examples:-

1. Before the 1968 Presidential election, some aides working for Nixon promised the South Vietnamese government that they would likely get better terms with a Nixon rather than a Humphreys Presidency. The peace talks that were then taking place did not result in a deal and this may have helped scuttle the Democrats' campaign.

2. There were also credible reports that people acting on behalf of Reagan were in contact with the Iranian regime and that this was one of the reasons the announcement about the release of the hostages was made at the start of Reagan's presidency rather than at the end of Carter's.

Trump is not the first and not even necessarily the worst. Scuppering peace talks cost lives.

RobD said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.

Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.

The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.

Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.

Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won

EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!

Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May.
Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.

Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?

Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.

Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?

Did you see this?

twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/831511833844523008

Thank the Lord I was sitting down.

Lord Nuttall, obviously

He's a Royal Duke.

Peerages are for plebs like JohnO and myself.

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

Labour still looks the value in Copeland. Stoke market looking more 'correct' now.

Quite extraordinary we should ever find that a government gain from the opposition almost two years into a parliament is considered nailed on.

The markets just hate Labour. At the very least Labour should be the 1.33 in Stoke, with the Tories at 1.6 odd in Copeland. That would be a bit more sensible.

Look at the swing UKIP needs in Stoke compared to the Tory one in Copeland for a start. Much larger requirement.

Are there any similar seats in Scotland ie they voted 70/30 to leave in the ref so we can compare how they voted in the GE? Obviously a big factor is that Indy lost and Leave won

EDIT: D'oh obviously there are unlikely to be many 70/30 Indy as Indy lost. Forget that!

Banff and Buchan voted "No", and "leave" - seat was an SNP stronghold, but I can see the Tories gaining there. Aberdeenshire County Council will be an interesting Lib Dem-Tory-SNP battle in May.
Long term I think the seat goes Tory, particularly if the SNP lose IndyRef 2. Precisely the sort of area the SNP will weaken while they hoover up Glasgow & surrounds.

Bloody hell, didn't that used to be Salmond's stamping ground ?

Oh it'll stay SNP in 2020, and most likely 2025 I think. But its definitely a "Tartan Tory" type of seat that the SNP will weaken in long term. 2030 Tory gain maybe.

Is that a distant Scottish Tory Surge Klaxon I hear?

Did you see this?

twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/831511833844523008

Thank the Lord I was sitting down.

Lord Nuttall, obviously

He's a Royal Duke.

Peerages are for plebs like JohnO and myself.

Mere hereditary dukedoms for the riff raff like the two of you.

Cyclefree said:

Re Trump / Flynn and the Russians, this is not the first time that Presidential candidates have - or have been accused of - making secret deals with opponents/enemies or of doing down their own country.

Two examples:-

1. Before the 1968 Presidential election, some aides working for Nixon promised the South Vietnamese government that they would likely get better terms with a Nixon rather than a Humphreys Presidency. The peace talks that were then taking place did not result in a deal and this may have helped scuttle the Democrats' campaign.

2. There were also credible reports that people acting on behalf of Reagan were in contact with the Iranian regime and that this was one of the reasons the announcement about the release of the hostages was made at the start of Reagan's presidency rather than at the end of Carter's.

Trump is not the first and not even necessarily the worst. Scuppering peace talks cost lives.

Good points and I agree that both are much worse than lifting sanctions on Putin.
Both Republicans obviously.

Nixon got impeached and Reagan was never proved.... If it had been I think that would have sunk him.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

This is interesting, not so much for Holocaust denial/Irving thing which is creepy but open to interpretation, rather Nuttalls's reaction at the end. His modus operandi started early it seems.

' My student; the anti-Semite

...I met Nuttall to discuss what he had written and he gave a tearful denial, saying that his girlfriend had downloaded the references to Irving’s book from the internet, blaming her rather than his own judgment. He accepted that the words could be construed as having an unpleasant, even racist meaning. But he denied that this had been his intention. He seemed shocked to be challenged about anything – like smug, arrogant, people everywhere he was most comfortable in a small bubble where no-one could disagree with him.'

http://tinyurl.com/zknktx9

The dates in that don't stack up, the Irving libel trial was decided in April 2000 yet he's talking about it in December 1999.


In early December 1999, Nuttall’s cohort were set a standard essay on the causes of the Holocaust. I forget the exact title, but the question was something like whether the Final Solution was principally caused by Hitler’s anti-Semitism or by other factors related to the German economy or state. To my surprise, Nuttall’s answer worked in two footnotes to different books by David Irving. I wasn’t expecting this, because Irving wasn’t on the course reading list: this was after his libel trial and historians regarded Irving as an unpleasant, racist crank who was beyond the

Nothing wrong with looking beyond the reading list, but lacking discernment to judge Irving's credibility is more damning.

This one is for those of you who feast on babies.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/831828105966792705/photo/1

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

This is interesting, not so much for Holocaust denial/Irving thing which is creepy but open to interpretation, rather Nuttalls's reaction at the end. His modus operandi started early it seems.

' My student; the anti-Semite

...I met Nuttall to discuss what he had written and he gave a tearful denial, saying that his girlfriend had downloaded the references to Irving’s book from the internet, blaming her rather than his own judgment. He accepted that the words could be construed as having an unpleasant, even racist meaning. But he denied that this had been his intention. He seemed shocked to be challenged about anything – like smug, arrogant, people everywhere he was most comfortable in a small bubble where no-one could disagree with him.'

http://tinyurl.com/zknktx9

The dates in that don't stack up, the Irving libel trial was decided in April 2000 yet he's talking about it in December 1999.


In early December 1999, Nuttall’s cohort were set a standard essay on the causes of the Holocaust. I forget the exact title, but the question was something like whether the Final Solution was principally caused by Hitler’s anti-Semitism or by other factors related to the German economy or state. To my surprise, Nuttall’s answer worked in two footnotes to different books by David Irving. I wasn’t expecting this, because Irving wasn’t on the course reading list: this was after his libel trial and historians regarded Irving as an unpleasant, racist crank who was beyond the

Perhaps the author's girlfriend researched the dates..

Heh.

The trial is one of those things I took a keen interest in, as one of the star witnesses was someone I kinda knew/had heard speak a few times at university, Professor Richard Evans.

It might be fair to say that in December 1999 most serious/reputable historians considered David Irving either a crank or an anti-semite, the court case confirmed it.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

This is interesting, not so much for Holocaust denial/Irving thing which is creepy but open to interpretation, rather Nuttalls's reaction at the end. His modus operandi started early it seems.

' My student; the anti-Semite

...I met Nuttall to discuss what he had written and he gave a tearful denial, saying that his girlfriend had downloaded the references to Irving’s book from the internet, blaming her rather than his own judgment. He accepted that the words could be construed as having an unpleasant, even racist meaning. But he denied that this had been his intention. He seemed shocked to be challenged about anything – like smug, arrogant, people everywhere he was most comfortable in a small bubble where no-one could disagree with him.'

http://tinyurl.com/zknktx9

The dates in that don't stack up, the Irving libel trial was decided in April 2000 yet he's talking about it in December 1999.


In early December 1999, Nuttall’s cohort were set a standard essay on the causes of the Holocaust. I forget the exact title, but the question was something like whether the Final Solution was principally caused by Hitler’s anti-Semitism or by other factors related to the German economy or state. To my surprise, Nuttall’s answer worked in two footnotes to different books by David Irving. I wasn’t expecting this, because Irving wasn’t on the course reading list: this was after his libel trial and historians regarded Irving as an unpleasant, racist crank who was beyond the

Perhaps the author's girlfriend researched the dates..

Heh.

The trial is one of those things I took a keen interest in, as one of the star witnesses was someone I kinda knew/had heard speak a few times at university, Professor Richard Evans.

It might be fair to say that in December 1999 most serious/reputable historians considered David Irving either a crank or an anti-semite, the court case confirmed it.

Have you seen "Denial" ?

Shows the best of the English legal system I think.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Indigo, that's not the only problem, though it is a real one.

Pretending reported crime equals crime is to suggest that an allegation and a guilty verdict are the same things. There's an assumption of truth on the part of the accuser, and criminality on behalf of the accused, which is the antithesis of men being innocent until proven guilty.

It's a quite Cardassian approach to justice to suggest all accusations are genuine.

The Cardassians were right, trying the innocent is barbaric.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Indigo, that's not the only problem, though it is a real one.

Pretending reported crime equals crime is to suggest that an allegation and a guilty verdict are the same things. There's an assumption of truth on the part of the accuser, and criminality on behalf of the accused, which is the antithesis of men being innocent until proven guilty.

It's a quite Cardassian approach to justice to suggest all accusations are genuine.

Not all accusations, just accusations made by the state

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Indigo, that's not the only problem, though it is a real one.

Pretending reported crime equals crime is to suggest that an allegation and a guilty verdict are the same things. There's an assumption of truth on the part of the accuser, and criminality on behalf of the accused, which is the antithesis of men being innocent until proven guilty.

It's a quite Cardassian approach to justice to suggest all accusations are genuine.

I agree completely Dr Dancer. My point was rather about the politics than the law, although I dont remotely discount the importance of what you are saying.

Unauthenticated systems like this, and the petition system make it trivial for a few people with an axe to grind to start a political band wagon rolling and get also sorts of camp followers excited enough to splash front page stories on the basis of what is in effect no more than an exercise in ballot stuffing.

Worse than that they make the whole statistical basis of the measurement untrustworthy, so where at times there might be a real problem or in the case of the petition site, a valid public interest, it would be impossible to discern it from the chaff of all the chancers trying to either cause trouble or start a bandwagon rolling.

Mr. Indigo, alas, I'm merely Mister Dancer.

Mr. Eagles, last episode of DS9 on CBS Action tonight (freeview 64, 8pm). I do really like the last few series.

Bad news for vegans: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38980352

If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has a great chance because he's getting damaged more and more.

AlsoIndigo said:

Lol, "Local Doctors have said", local doctors such as the candidate ?

Also, I'm curious as to how a vote for Labour can save the local hospital. What's the mechanism for this remarkable claim, I wonder?

Labour leaflet seems in response to the Lib Dem last weekend which was much better, pitures and message. And they say they are not bothered about the Lib Dems!!!!

Mr. Eagles, on balance, mine too. More shades of grey, and the recurring secondary cast (Ferengi aside...) add more depth. Garak, Dukat, Damar, Weyoun, that security chap whose name I always forget etc.

Keeping tabs on how Discovery's coming along?

O/T. I see Rolf Harris faces yet another trial. While I have every sympathy for the women involved if he’s guilty, it’s beginning to look a bit vindictive.

AlastairMeeks said:

AlsoIndigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Slackbladder said:

Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago
In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m

The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.

Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.

Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?

twitter.com/Birdyword/status/831813452779945984

The claimant count is a rather smaller number than the unemployment figure, and only includes those on JSA.

Philip_Thompson said:

DanSmith said:

If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has a great chance because he's getting damaged more and more.

If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has no chance still because Fillon wasn't damaged enough to be defeated by any other candidate.

There would have to be something new and extraordinary between Round 1 and Round 2 for Fillon to lose to Le Pen as otherwise Fillon would never have made it to Round 2.

She's only 58-42 down in some of the head to head polls, that's close enough to be overturned.

Anyone saying she has no chance hasn't learnt their lesson from the last year of politics.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, on balance, mine too. More shades of grey, and the recurring secondary cast (Ferengi aside...) add more depth. Garak, Dukat, Damar, Weyoun, that security chap whose name I always forget etc.

Keeping tabs on how Discovery's coming along?

Odo.

Well Discovery is turning into a bigger disaster than the next Batman movie.

But they made some further casting announcements the other day.

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-trek-discovery/37600/star-trek-discovery-three-more-join-cast

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Lol, "Local Doctors have said", local doctors such as the candidate ?

Also, I'm curious as to how a vote for Labour can save the local hospital. What's the mechanism for this remarkable claim, I wonder?

Voting Tory sure as hell won't save it!

This is what the STP schemes for the NHS mean in rural areas. In Leics the closure of Leicester General, Hinckley hospital and Rutland Memorial Hospital are tolerable, but in more rural areas like Copeland?

Vote Tory in Copeland if you want to have all inpatient care in Carlisle.

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Lol, "Local Doctors have said", local doctors such as the candidate ?

Also, I'm curious as to how a vote for Labour can save the local hospital. What's the mechanism for this remarkable claim, I wonder?

What was the mechanism for Hague's party saving the pound (after Gordon Brown had already saved it iirc)? Surely the Conservative candidate will also promise to save the hospital (as well as put an end to flooding): it is the usual form.
https://www.trudyharrison.co.uk/campaigns/making-most-moorside

DanSmith said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DanSmith said:

If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has a great chance because he's getting damaged more and more.

If it's Fillon vs Le Pen then Le Pen has no chance still because Fillon wasn't damaged enough to be defeated by any other candidate.

There would have to be something new and extraordinary between Round 1 and Round 2 for Fillon to lose to Le Pen as otherwise Fillon would never have made it to Round 2.

She's only 58-42 down in some of the head to head polls, that's close enough to be overturned.

Anyone saying she has no chance hasn't learnt their lesson from the last year of politics.

What upset in the last year had 58-42 as the most favourable polls?

Both Brexit and Trump were ahead in their most favourable polls (and Trump still lost the popular vote by millions). I don't recall any upset in the last year of politics that involved overturning a 16 percent poll lead in their most favourable polls let alone average ones.

DecrepitJohnL said:

What was the mechanism for Hague's party saving the pound (after Gordon Brown had already saved it iirc)?

The mechanism was that a Hague government would never have taken us into the Euro. As it happened, the Labour government didn't either, but voters weren't to know that at the time since it was Labour policy to take us in.

Ignore word second at end of sentence. sorry

NickPalmer said:

Had a bit of spare time so looked round the general politics markets this morning. I think laying Le Pen at 3.65 is the closest to free money. People betting on her simply don't understand the French two-round system.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.117179983

I understand the French two-round system perfectly and I am betting on her, not because I think she is particularly likely to win, but because I have traded my way over the past few months to a very healthy all green book and Le Pen is probably the safest haven for my hard-earned potential profit at the moment.

Macron's momentum has all but stopped and over half of his supporters polled say they might change their mind.

Fillon could withdraw from the race at a moment's notice due to his legal situation and anyway his head to head figure against Le Pen was shown to be 56-44 in a poll last week -hardly
an insurmountable lead.

Yes Le Pen should probably be longer odds, but I would rather trade out at longer odds and keep most of my profit on the market rather than seeing a large profit on Macron or Fillon go to waste if the former does not hold on to his support or the latter has to pull out.

Philip_Thompson said:

AlsoIndigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

AlsoIndigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Slackbladder said:

Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 8 mins8 minutes ago
In year to end-2016, UK nationals working in UK increased by 70,000 to 28.44m; non-UK nationals working in UK increased by 233,000 to 3.48m

The reasons for Brexit in a nutshell.

Yes, Leavers would rather see fewer Brits in work so long as there were fewer foreigners in work too.

Possibly they would like to see some of the 1.6m sitting on the dole queue at the public expense doing some of the work that the 233,000 are ?

twitter.com/Birdyword/status/831813452779945984

The claimant count is a rather smaller number than the unemployment figure, and only includes those on JSA.

Considering the Employment Ratio is at its highest ever level where other than JSA claimants are these extra unemployed sitting on the dole queue? I thought the dole queue was JSA.

Are you planning on rounding up stay at home parents and frog marching them to work despite them not claiming a dole and not wanting to work?

tsk tsk. Its has feck all to do with stay at home parents they are not in the figures.

The following groups would not be entitled to claim unemployment related benefits but could be looking for and available to start work:
- people whose partner works more than 24 hours a week
- young people under 18 who are looking for work but do not take up the offer of a Youth Training place
- students looking for part‐time work or vacation work
- people who have left their job voluntarily
- people with savings of over £16,000.

The penultimate is significant, anyone that quits rather than is laid off can't claim.

Mr. Eagles, not Odo! He's a main bloody character.

The Federation chap who likes Les Miserables.

The next Star Trek shouldn't be another damned prequel series, but take place a few decades after the events of DS9. Have the Alpha Quadrant imploding, the Federation torn apart by militant types who want to maintain a war footing, those who want to return to democracy and isolationists; the Klingons split between traditionalists who won't support Martok (as a peasant chancellor) and warriors who will etc etc.

It fits both the real world Zeitgeist *and* the Star Trek universe perfectly. It also creates an interesting situation and avoids the "We're exploring. Again" problem.

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pong said:

Cutting local hospital services and sending mothers 40 miles away to give birth - that's how tory governments lose byelections.

To be more precise, getting blamed for decisions which are nothing to do with them is how parties of government lose by-elections

The decision is everything to do with the government.

Tories cannot dodge the blame for this one.

You think the government has made the decision to close this hospital's A+E and maternity units?

Well, it's a view I suppose.

But yes, you are right that they will be blamed for it (although I've no idea whether 'blame' is the right word, it might well be a good decision). As I understand it, the Conservatives also oppose the closure. But, as we know, candidates of all parties almost invariably side with those campaigning against hospital closures or rationalisation of services. It's one of the main impediments to improving the NHS.

What this does show is that talk of some kind of cross-party consensus or a Royal Commission on the NHS is completely out with the fairies. There is no chance whatsoever of the Labour Party wanting to relinquish what it sees, probably rightly, as its most potent electoral asset.

Richard_Nabavi said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pong said:

Cutting local hospital services and sending mothers 40 miles away to give birth - that's how tory governments lose byelections.

To be more precise, getting blamed for decisions which are nothing to do with them is how parties of government lose by-elections

The decision is everything to do with the government.

Tories cannot dodge the blame for this one.

You think the government has made the decision to close this hospital?

Well, it's a view I suppose.

But yes, you are right that they will be blamed for it (although I've no idea whether 'blame' is the right word, it might well be a good decision). As I understand it, the Conservatives also oppose the closure. But, as we know, candidates of all parties almost invariably side with those campaigning against hospital closures or rationalisation of services. It's one of the main impediments to improving the NHS.

What this does show is that talk of some kind of cross-party consensus or a Royal Commission on the NHS is completely out with the fairies. There is no chance whatsoever of the Labour Party wanting to relinquish what it sees, probably rightly, as its most potent electoral asset.

STP's are signed off by the Ministry of Health, so yes it is a government decision.

A more honest Conservative candidate would not be opposing her own government, but would rather be arguing that services would be better centralised in Carlisle.

Such local hospital closures are particularly hard on those without their own transport, the WWC and elderly in particular.