politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election and Northern Ireland Election Previews : Mar

https://twitter.com/reuters/status/837396811425939456

1st, after transfer of preferences.

Scott_P said:

dr_spyn said:

1st, after transfer of preferences.

I already bagged alternative first

There was recount...of postal votes.

Top 10.

According to SeanT, this is important.

There was a later by election in Redcar Hutton ward in March 2015 result was

Con 879 LDem 536 Lab 368 UKIP 116 Ind 56

Been busy all day...Missed much? Innocent face.

Something dodgy about the remain and leave percentages for NI, they add up to 102%. At least it wasn't the turnout!

@Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns

I laid David Milliband at 12/1, what is the world coming to??!

Scott_P said:

@Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns

Seems sensible and also he must be confident of his position

RobD said:

isam said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Total and utter twats...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

Person alive!

Shrewdies of the future will be the ones who didn't go

Next word on the chopping board.. human... it's now huperson.

huperson

Literally Hitler!

FrancisUrquhart said:

Total and utter twats...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

Beyond Newspeak. Big Brother is doubleplusunacceptable. Big Sibling ?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Total and utter twats...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

So have all of these words been put on a blacklist?

SandyRentool said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Total and utter twats...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

So have all of these words been put on a blacklist?

That's racist. Literally Hitler.

AlastairMeeks said:

Person is very gendered. Perkin and huperkin are more acceptable. Though speciesist.

So is it Harriet Harperkin from now on then?

MaxPB said:

SandyRentool said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Total and utter twats...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

So have all of these words been put on a blacklist?

That's racist. Literally Hitler.

Do they still have signs in your part of the world promising to prosecute Schwarzfahrer on public transport?

MonikerDiCanio said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Total and utter twats...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

Beyond Newspeak. Big Brother is doubleplusunacceptable. Big Sibling ?

I particularly liked this bit, "adding that students should not allow their “cultural background” to affect their choice of words."

Change "words" to almost anything else and the university would be under fire.

FormerToryOrange said:

Something dodgy about the remain and leave percentages for NI, they add up to 102%. At least it wasn't the turnout!

The figures I have for Northern Ireland are REMAIN 440,707 votes (55.7%), LEAVE 349,442 votes (44.2%) on a turnout of 62.7% and come from the Electoral Commission, so therefore I must have pressed a 6 when I meant to press a 4

SeanT said:

SimonStClare said:

SeanT said:

The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

Seems the blame can be laid at the sister’s door and her ‘gofundme’ overhyped begging letter. Doesn’t exonerate Buzzfeed however, as no attempt at corroboration was attempted.

Or Channel 4 News, or the Indy, who ran the same "lived in the UK for 30 years" bullshit.

And an honest woman would surely have rushed to correct the many enormous lies in the GoFundMe letter, Irene Clennell did not.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/02/irene-clennell-deported-uk-terrorist

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

@Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns

Seems sensible and also he must be confident of his position

BigG, did you watch the clip that Indigo posted? He basically said that he hasn't spoken to the Russians, and that simply wasn't true. What's more absurd is that the question was not one which required the denial he gave it. He could easily have side stepped the issue.

glw said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

SeanT said:

SimonStClare said:

SeanT said:

The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

Seems the blame can be laid at the sister’s door and her ‘gofundme’ overhyped begging letter. Doesn’t exonerate Buzzfeed however, as no attempt at corroboration was attempted.

Or Channel 4 News, or the Indy, who ran the same "lived in the UK for 30 years" bullshit.

And an honest woman would surely have rushed to correct the many enormous lies in the GoFundMe letter, Irene Clennell did not.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/02/irene-clennell-deported-uk-terrorist

Over 900 comments, and from a quick look at them they are mostly foaming at the mouth and entirely ignorant of the facts.

My Facebook feed has been rammed with it over the past few days.

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

The reporting by some of this case reminds me a little bit of ferguson "hands up" stuff. Certain parts of the media wanted it to be true they weren't interested in finding out the truth. Incredibly I remember the press conference for the investigation where some journos were still arguing and unwilling to believe the evidence despite being told here are all the witness statements and there are a lot of them, feel free to check them out.

It doesn't matter what the facts are when people are picking sides immediately, going on little more than a headline. The shooting of Trayvon Martin was similarly polarised.

Bojabob said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then

Er no. He got a fractionally higher share in a massively reduced field

And if the preferences had been fully resolved in 2015 he'd probably have beaten Burnham something like 65-35 anyway. (Or possibly Cooper by more).

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then

Not really. If the preferences of other candidates had been transferred in 2015 to leave just two candidates , Corbyn's margin of victory would have been a fair bit bigger than in 2016. He would have defeated Burnham by circa 65% to 35% and Cooper by at least 67% to 33%. Because he received over 50% of first preference votes there was no need to do that , but in order to make a like for like comparison, we would need to know what the final figures would have been from the transfer process. I believe my estimates to be sound.

Cooper's votes would almost all have gone to Burnham as would Kendall's, the fact remains the Labour membership has twice comfortably elected Corbyn and there is no polling evidence to suggest that has changed since

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

The reporting by some of this case reminds me a little bit of ferguson "hands up" stuff. Certain parts of the media wanted it to be true they weren't interested in finding out the truth. Incredibly I remember the press conference for the investigation where some journos were still arguing and unwilling to believe the evidence despite being told here are all the witness statements and there are a lot of them, feel free to check them out.

Reminds me of blacked up Gina Miller with a bone through her nose-gate

glw said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

The reporting by some of this case reminds me a little bit of ferguson "hands up" stuff. Certain parts of the media wanted it to be true they weren't interested in finding out the truth. Incredibly I remember the press conference for the investigation where some journos were still arguing and unwilling to believe the evidence despite being told here are all the witness statements and there are a lot of them, feel free to check them out.

It doesn't matter what the facts are when people are picking sides immediately, going on little more than a headline. The shooting of Trayvon Martin was similarly polarised.

Some of the reporting on Trayvon Martin was appalling. They bordered on inciting people to go and attack George Zimmerman.

I thought Channel 4 News were big on "fact checking"?

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

@Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns

Seems sensible and also he must be confident of his position

BigG, did you watch the clip that Indigo posted? He basically said that he hasn't spoken to the Russians, and that simply wasn't true. What's more absurd is that the question was not one which required the denial he gave it. He could easily have side stepped the issue.

I watched his press conference live and he seemed plausable but I am no expert

Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.

Fwiw.

https://twitter.com/LJHarteFH/status/837421725595860993

Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

"Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

Cyan said:

Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.

And yet Juppe is far more popular than Fillon. Second only to Macron in terms of popularity and a pretty close second too. It will be very tight between these two should Juppe replace Fillon.

https://www.lesechos.fr/medias/2017/03/02/2050135_presidentielle-2017-les-sondages-des-echos-web-0211789546588.jpg

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

@Reuters: BREAKING: Attorney General Sessions says will recuse himself from existing and future investigations into any matter related to campaigns

Seems sensible and also he must be confident of his position

BigG, did you watch the clip that Indigo posted? He basically said that he hasn't spoken to the Russians, and that simply wasn't true. What's more absurd is that the question was not one which required the denial he gave it. He could easily have side stepped the issue.

I watched his press conference live and he seemed plausable but I am no expert

This was the confirmation hearings. He basically said he'd had no contracts with the Russians.

He could have prevaricated. But he didn't. Like Flynn, be denied something which now shares to be true.

Pulpstar said:

Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

"Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

It's more bonkers that Twatter .... I honestly don't get these crazy priced tech companies that neither make any money nor have an tech than can't easily be replicated. Snapchat ain't Google or AWS etc

HYUFD said:

Cyan said:

Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.

Juppe would be an ideal opponent for Le Pen in the runoff now

Don't the polls have Juppe 30 points clear of Le Pen in the run off?

BudG said:

Cyan said:

Let me get this straight: Alain Juppé is angling to replace François Fillon as the LR candidate, because Fillon is under investigation for possibly having fiddled his expenses. Is this the same Juppé who was convicted for abuse of public funds, a crime for which he was given a suspended jail sentence and the deprivation of the right to run for office for 10 years, later reduced to one year? Fillon hasn't been found guilty of the criminal misuse of office. He hasn't even been tried. Juppé has a criminal record for it.

And yet Juppe is far more popular than Fillon. Second only to Macron in terms of popularity and a pretty close second too. It will be very tight between these two should Juppe replace Fillon.

https://www.lesechos.fr/medias/2017/03/02/2050135_presidentielle-2017-les-sondages-des-echos-web-0211789546588.jpg

Juppe is archetypal establishment, lacks charisma and has a shady past, he also would be imposed on the LRs having lost the primary, in a runoff campaign against him Le Pen would have a lot to go on

Northern Ireland politics depresses me, for all I know things used to be worse. Is there any prospect of less febrile politics in coming decades?

AndyJS said:

"European Parliament President Antonio Tajani has called for the EU to set up refugee reception centers in Libya and to implement a “Marshall Plan” for Africa in order to curb migration to the bloc, Die Zeit reported Monday. We either act now or 20 million Africans will come to Europe in the coming years,” Tajani said."

http://www.politico.eu/article/antonio-tajani-calls-for-eu-to-open-refugee-reception-centers-in-libya/

Libya is a borderline failed state with a serious ISIS problem. If the EU sent any sort of mission there its members would soon find themselves being kidnapped and starring in grisly videos, I fear. As for a "Marshall Plan for Africa," that notion rests on the erroneous assumption that increasing migration is driven by increasing poverty rather than increasing wealth - and even that fraction of it caused by people fleeing despotism (e.g. in Eritrea) could only plausibly be resolved by the kind of neo-liberal military intervention that nobody is willing to contemplate post-Iraq.

The European Parliament's stance is the product of well-meaning but deeply naïve do-goodery. The most effective solution to migration across the Mediterranean would be an Australian-style policy of push back conducted by a naval screen offshore, backed up with special forces action to kill the people smugglers and burn all their boats. Provide effective deterrents and people will eventually learn to stop coming; this, in turn, might help to free up resources to look for sustainable solutions for the minority of genuine refugees, rather than having them taken for every penny they have by armed gangs before being herded at gunpoint onto leaky dinghies and made to gamble with their lives on the high seas.

Sean_F said:

Some of the reporting on Trayvon Martin was appalling. They bordered on inciting people to go and attack George Zimmerman.

From what I've read about him Zimmerman appears to be a awful person, and I think quite fortunate to escape jail. But that doesn't mean that the instant judgements based upon the initial reports are okay, nor the calls for protests and worse.

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then

Not really. If the preferences of other candidates had been transferred in 2015 to leave just two candidates , Corbyn's margin of victory would have been a fair bit bigger than in 2016. He would have defeated Burnham by circa 65% to 35% and Cooper by at least 67% to 33%. Because he received over 50% of first preference votes there was no need to do that , but in order to make a like for like comparison, we would need to know what the final figures would have been from the transfer process. I believe my estimates to be sound.

Cooper's votes would almost all have gone to Burnham as would Kendall's, the fact remains the Labour membership has twice comfortably elected Corbyn and there is no polling evidence to suggest that has changed since

Kendall's would have split between Cooper and Burnham - with some not being transferred at all. At the time, I would think 20 - 25% of Cooper's votes would have gone to Corbyn. Had Burnham been eliminated I would have expected over 30% of his vote to have switched to Corbyn. I am not a party member but did pay £3 to participate in the 2015 contest. I went Cooper Ist - Corbyn 2nd - Burnham 3rd.

Kendall's would have gone 90%+ to Burnham or Cooper and Burnham came second to Corbyn. The fact remains Corbyn has twice got over 60% of Labour members to back him, the leadership is his for as long as he wants it unless there is a dramatic change in the views of Labour members

kle4 said:

Northern Ireland politics depresses me, for all I know things used to be worse. Is there any prospect of less febrile politics in coming decades?

Not likely. Sinn Fein have said they won't go back into government with the DUP. If it is a no change election direct rule from UK looks like a distinct possibility.

SeanT said:

isam said:

SeanT said:

The incredible truth about Irene Clennell, and the Fake News lies told by Buzzfeed, et al

http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

Can't spell Farage - bad journalism
Farage NEVER promised £350m to NHS - fake news

Makes it more believeable tho. He's some mad frothy lefty Remainer, yet even he is disgusted by the dishonesty surrounding this case.

It's one of the most blatant examples of Fake News I've seen. Just complete obvious disprovable bullshit from the get-go, yet still being reheated and served up in lefty media.

I'm a journalist. I don't understand journalists who can write this shit without feeling a paralysing sense of self-disgust (and this applies to right and left). You're lying, you know you're lying, and yet you carry on lying. How do they sleep?

I guess journalists, especially freelancers, or writers on chancy sites like Buzzzfeed, must now be so desperate scared of poverty and unemployment they don't care. Sad.

I just get the feeling more and more, journalists and news outlets are more interested in pushing their agenda than informing the public of the facts. Of course, there are multiple sides to a story, but it is increasingly harder to find a balanced view. It seems more important to back the side you believe in rather than reporting honestly.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Total and utter twats...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/university-bans-phrases-right-hand-man-gentlemans-agreement/

The benefit of such over sensitivity is you are bound to find someone who considers themselves extremely politically correct and yet will use one of these apparently anathema phrases.

kle4 said:

Pulpstar said:

Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

"Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

They must expect some pretty startling profits in years to come, but even if that is so compared to some companies with proven profitability that is one hell of an amount.

I don't see how they possibly can. The only compelling argument I've ever heard for why anyone is on Snapchat is that their parents aren't, and even that only covers a minuscule demographic.

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said
' All very well but until the Labour membership show any sign of returning to sanity this is all entirely hypothetical, Corbyn even increased his victory margin just 6 months ago.

If Labour are going to replace Corbyn pre 2020 that probably requires him to agree to go which at the moment looks unlikely and it will have to be with someone of the same ideological bent but more competent, similar to how the Tories replaced IDS with Michael Howard in 2003'

Corbyn did NOT increase his victory margin 6 months ago! His vote share went up from 59.5% to 61.8% but that was simply because in 2015 there were four candidates rather than two. His margin over Owen Smith was 23.6% in 2016 - compared with over 40% over Andy Burnham in 2015.

Yes, so he got an even higher voteshare in 2016 than he did in 2015 so if anything Labour members are even more supportive of Corbyn than they were then

Not really. If the preferences of other candidates had been transferred in 2015 to leave just two candidates , Corbyn's margin of victory would have been a fair bit bigger than in 2016. He would have defeated Burnham by circa 65% to 35% and Cooper by at least 67% to 33%. Because he received over 50% of first preference votes there was no need to do that , but in order to make a like for like comparison, we would need to know what the final figures would have been from the transfer process. I believe my estimates to be sound.

Cooper's votes would almost all have gone to Burnham as would Kendall's, the fact remains the Labour membership has twice comfortably elected Corbyn and there is no polling evidence to suggest that has changed since

Kendall's would have split between Cooper and Burnham - with some not being transferred at all. At the time, I would think 20 - 25% of Cooper's votes would have gone to Corbyn. Had Burnham been eliminated I would have expected over 30% of his vote to have switched to Corbyn. I am not a party member but did pay £3 to participate in the 2015 contest. I went Cooper Ist - Corbyn 2nd - Burnham 3rd.

Kendall's would have gone 90%+ to Burnham or Cooper and Burnham came second to Corbyn. The fact remains Corbyn has twice got over 60% of Labour members to back him, the leadership is his for as long as he wants it unless there is a dramatic change in the views of Labour members

If the NEC was smart enough to change the election rules back to the system Corbyn was originally elected on, then there might be a chance to beat Corbyn by recruiting new voters.

I am actually surprised Redcar has so many LD councillors. The LDs won the parliamentary seat in 2010 on a massive swing off the back of discontent over the closure of the steelworks (which were reopened, and I believed now closed again) but Labour got it back in 2015 to revert to the norm, but I had just assumed the LD win came from nowhere and there'd be no local support at all.

Pulpstar said:

Can anyone explain to me how the hell Snapchat is worth $24 Bn

"Plans revealed that the company had revenue of $404m last year, but made a loss of $515m."

It's 1999 all over again. Hopefully we'll be treated to entertainment on the scale of Pets.com, Kozmo.com and (best of all) Webvan.

Just don't get caught underfoot when the stampede for the exits begins. It will be very rapid indeed when it comes.