politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour holding up better in London where there are fewer UKIP

Patrick said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Patrick said:

felix said:

It is the first serious accident on the ride since in opened. Life is full of risk - that's why most people love life.

Indeed. For adults I'd say 'do WTF you like'. Go naked sky-diving over a cactus plantation if that floats your boat. But this was an 11 year-old. Children do not have the mental capacity to make adult decisions. It's why in law they cannot be guilty of crimes. That child needed to be protected by the law. The law covering water rides safety standards has been found wanting.

I'm sorry but as tragic as this incident was if we follow your logic to its conclusion we'd need to eliminate streets and cars and all sorts of other areas of life where fatal accidents can and do happen. If this was a child that had stepped in front of a bus we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

This is tragic, maybe more can be learnt about how to tell riders the importance of following safety instructions like stay seated during the ride. But to eliminate rides like this due to one tragedy after many decades is not necessary.

I'm not saying eliminate them. I'm saying strap in. How many rides have overturned? Ever? Zero. Clunk click is all it needs.

I don't know how many have overtuned. It is entirely possible that one or more has overturned but as every rider survived it wasn't headline news or memorable. Whereas if one had overturned and 8 riders had drowned due to being strapped in then it would be memorable.

We can't control for all eventualities and tragedies.

Theuniondivvie said:

SquareRoot said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

When a fox comes into your garden and kills 50 chickens and only takes one, the only thing it deservers is a bullet. The anti hunt people have it all wrong. Its the foxes that kill for pleasure.

I think many anti hunt people might agree with you on the bullet, that's the point.

Its odd how much the 'execute the evil foxes' brigade are just as keen on the thing of which they accuse the antis, anthropomorphising. Foxes aren't fluffy, cuddly toys, but nor are they homicidal psycopaths taking sadistic pleasure in chicken murder. Like most predators they're hard wired to kill as many of their prey as possible, which includes finding numbers of them in an enclosed space. In their normal environment they'd bury what they can't eat or take away, not really an option in a coop.

A rare and welcome moment of complete agreement.

Morris_Dancer said:

Sir Norfolk, I broadly agree, except that May was asked on it and just reaffirmed Conservative policy.

She should simply have said, "This election isn't about foxes. And it isn't about hounds. It's about the strong and stable Government Britain needs, and the very real risk of a Coalition of Chaos led by Jeremy Corbyn".

She can have that line for free - my gift to her.

david_herdson said:

Nigelb said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/kateemccann/status/862314529249783808

Reminds me of my grandfather's saying - "some folk are too lazy to lake*".

*Yorkshire for play

Derived from Old Norse, I believe. (And more usually spelled 'laik'?). A cultural Viking inheritance.

You're most probably right about the spelling - it was, after all, a saying...

I have been canvassed by the Tories in Hampstead. They are being very active here. Though Labour have had stalks outside the Finchley Road Waitrose and in West Hampstead in recent days.

I feel sorry for the Labour canvassers. They're doing the political equivalent of asking for a pity fuck.

Still Ms Siddique was one of the nitwits who nominated Corbyn, took a job from him then resigned and voted for Owen Whatsit, none of which gets mentioned on her leaflets. She's not a bad MP - even if she isn't as good as she seems to think she is. But the disconnect between her campaigns eg helping the Iranian woman married to a local man who has been imprisoned for no very clear reasons by the Iranian regime and her support for an MP who, even when she nominated him, had a history of being paid by that regime's propaganda arm, Press TV, shows how little some MPs know about those they support or, more likely, how little they care about the values they claim to believe in.

Another breaking scandal in Scottish education.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/862081241373454340

FrancisUrquhart said:

felix said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Here it comes....

Labour hints that it will pledge to abolish university tuition fees

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/10/labour-hints-that-it-will-pledge-to-abolish-university-tuition-fees

That corporation tax is gonna be one overworked tax when JCIPM

Well he is proposing a 50% increase...

Labour are falling into the trap exactly were Lynton Crosby needs them, they are reverting to type and will be constantly portayed as reckless spenders with uncosted and unaffordable promises. The OBR will no doubt be used to discredit Labours spending plans (as well as Diane Abbott). "Labours Tax Bombshell" will once again be the killer theme for Labour, the party of Tax and Spend. The economy & Brexit will be the deciding factor in this election and the public will not buy the magic money tree promises of Corbyn, Strong and Stable will win the day

DavidL said:

Jason said:

Baskerville said:

I don't like the idea of fox hunting either, but, as a Londoner, I'm not sure it's anything much to do with me. If farmers and country folk say the fox is a pest and needs to be controlled, so be it. I don't see any moral difference between poisoning, shooting, trapping and hunting. Mrs May has promised a free vote - as was in the 2015 manifesto - and has told us which way she's likely to vote.
Effect on general election? Helps her in the countryside marginally, upsets some voters unlikely to support her anyway, makes some switchers take another look at whether she is the woman they thought she was. i.e. plenty of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Reminds me of when the ban was first talked about in the late 1990s. A wholly disproportionate amount of time was given to the question of a ban on fox hunting. If it is deemed to be cruel - and it is - then why aren't Halal and Kosher slaughter discussed in the same terms? Could it be that fox hunters are white Tory toffs and the others aren't?

An animal does not discern whether it is ripped apart by hounds or if it has its throat cut while it is fully conscious. Either way, it dies in an act of premeditated cruelty.

'I agree although Halal and Kosher do not have the "fun" element.'

Scant consolation if you're the animal subjected to a barbaric death because of some poxy religious ideology.

Mr. Voter, effectively, the same existed in the time of Henry VIII and the Roman Empire. They both devalued coinage by decreasing silver content whilst maintaining nominal value.

This was often done, in Roman times, to afford the donative (new emperor bonus for the army) but had the side-effect of jacking up inflation and harming the economy.

Not sure if already noted but Rugby World Cup draw means an England v NZ semi-final if both win their groups.

Which is a great shame as best two teams should meet in the final.

I think they should seed the top 4 so 1 doesn't play 2 in the semi (if both win groups) whereas they leave it completely to random chance.

Of course entirely possible everything doesn't go to plan - but it looks 100% certain that England will face a Southern Hemisphere semi if win group (NZ or SA). And possibly Aus in the QF.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Mr. B/Mr. Sandpit, I left just before your posts.

Red Bull can make up a lot of ground (they did so last year) but I agree they have their work cut out.

What do you think of safety car, somewhere around evens ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Matt Singh:

When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.

The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.

Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.

https://www.ft.com/content/e86a4bae-34db-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

I said sell the SNP at 43 this morning.

Still think that would be brave with very little obvious upside. Hope you are right though.

FrancisUrquhart said:

felix said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Here it comes....

Labour hints that it will pledge to abolish university tuition fees

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/10/labour-hints-that-it-will-pledge-to-abolish-university-tuition-fees

That corporation tax is gonna be one overworked tax when JCIPM

Well he is proposing a 50% increase...

Has anyone asked Diane how many jobs will be lost because of the 50% increase?

"7.....four hundred and eight million.....ninety seven.....am I close?

PaulM said:

Pulpstar said:

justin124 said:

The five seats Labour is projected to lose in this poll were gains from the Tories/LibDems in 2015 – with the exception of Hampstead & Kilburn which had a new Labour MP following Glenda Jackson’s retirement. An adverse swing of 2% could quite easily be offset by a first term bonus for these new MPs so it is entirely possible that Labour could retain them all – in the same way that Tory MPs elected in marginal seats in 2010 were able to withstand the pro- Labour swing in England in 2015.

Is that correct ?

England vote share change 2010 to 2015
-%+%
UKIP + 10.7%
LAB + 3.6%
GRN + 3.2%
CON + 1.4%
TUSC+ 0.1%
LD -16.0%

Interesting. What did that give on UNS vs actual 2010-2015 ?

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.

No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.

Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?

And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.

Oh come on Nick. It gave you endless chances to emote about the people you love to hate. And as I have made clear in this thread I actually agree with you on the ban.

Nigelb said:

Patrick said:

Now that Comey has gone what are the chances that the FBI will resume its investigation of Clinton? That might be a very interesting political bet. Who remembers 'you'd be in jail'?

Slim.

You think so?
I'd have said relatively likely.

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Here it comes....

Labour hints that it will pledge to abolish university tuition fees

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/10/labour-hints-that-it-will-pledge-to-abolish-university-tuition-fees

The magic money tree is getting one hell of a shaking....

Or the definition of rich who get hit with the tax rises just going to get reduced....

Corbyn forgets Marquee Mark's Maxim: Money Flees Taxation.

A Corbyn Govt. would scare away the top 1% who pay 28% of income tax. Then it is inevitable that higher taxation falls on the middle class. And as John Prescott never said (but Tony Blair did): "We're all middle class now." That will prove very prescient when it comes to Labour's hungry tax-hunters.

Corbyn doesn't care. For him, the purpose of tax is not to raise money, it's to settle scores.

Colbert said it best "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing"

david_herdson said:

rkrkrk said:

david_herdson said:

Typo said:

HaroldO said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Now here is a first for PB.

I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy

Same.

Ditto.

May's stance is disappointing and at odds with where the country is. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but she has had her finger right on the public pulse to date.

It is going to be a free vote though. Most MPs represent urban constituencies and I wouldn't have thought that the chance of a repeal going through are very high, even with a Tory majority of 150+.

Why bring it up as an issue? Surely she has the rural wealthy vote locked up?
Or is it just that she'd rather the campaign focused on a total non issue to most people - the equivalent of time wasting in a football match when you're 3-0 up....

I've not seen how it was brought up. If she (or some CCHQ grid) did it then it's utterly nuts. I'd assume that it was a question put to her.

All the same, I don't think it's time-wasting at 3-0 up as showboating. It's unnecessarily risky and of no electoral advantage at all.

Yes she was asked... She said:

"As it happens, personally, I've always been in favour of fox hunting and we maintain our commitment - we had a commitment previously - as a Conservative Party to allow a free vote and that would allow Parliament to take a decision on this,"

https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/862329506811576320

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Matt Singh:

When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.

The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.

Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.

https://www.ft.com/content/e86a4bae-34db-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

I said sell the SNP at 43 this morning.

You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.

I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.

I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Matt Singh:

When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.

The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.

Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.

https://www.ft.com/content/e86a4bae-34db-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

I said sell the SNP at 43 this morning.

You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.

I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.

I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.

While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?

Mr. Roger, to which fascists are you referring?

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Matt Singh:

When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.

The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.

Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.

https://www.ft.com/content/e86a4bae-34db-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

I said sell the SNP at 43 this morning.

You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.

I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.

I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.

While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?

I think this is only justifiable if you're happy to accept the probability of being wrong most of the time, in the belief that the rest of the time will pay you handsomely.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Matt Singh:

When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.

The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.

Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.

https://www.ft.com/content/e86a4bae-34db-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

I said sell the SNP at 43 this morning.

You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.

I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.

I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.

While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?

Well everyone is surging in Scotland except the SNP if you listen to the hype.

Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.

Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.

Pushing the SNP down to 36.

I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.

I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.

So realistically your losses are capped at 13 and your gains are capped at 7?

I'm struggling to see how that is value.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Matt Singh:

When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.

The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.

Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.

https://www.ft.com/content/e86a4bae-34db-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

I said sell the SNP at 43 this morning.

You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.

I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.

I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.

While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?

Well everyone is surging in Scotland except the SNP if you listen to the hype.

Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.

Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.

Pushing the SNP down to 36.

I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.

I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.

If tactical unionist voting was happening - and you believe that Labour voters in Scotland would support and vote for a Tory over the SNP, wouldn't there be evidence in the council election STV transfers ? is there evidence of Labour voters ranking the Tories above the SNP from the transfer tallies ?

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/862328176986517504

The Nats' chickens are coming home to roost.

nunu said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Pulpstar said:

PaulM said:

Pulpstar said:

justin124 said:

The five seats Labour is projected to lose in this poll were gains from the Tories/LibDems in 2015 – with the exception of Hampstead & Kilburn which had a new Labour MP following Glenda Jackson’s retirement. An adverse swing of 2% could quite easily be offset by a first term bonus for these new MPs so it is entirely possible that Labour could retain them all – in the same way that Tory MPs elected in marginal seats in 2010 were able to withstand the pro- Labour swing in England in 2015.

Is that correct ?

England vote share change 2010 to 2015
-%+%
UKIP + 10.7%
LAB + 3.6%
GRN + 3.2%
CON + 1.4%
TUSC+ 0.1%
LD -16.0%

Interesting. What did that give on UNS vs actual 2010-2015 ?

That's a 1.1% Con to Lab swing, which you'd have expected to yield 13 Labour gains from Tories on UNS. In fact, they picked up ten, but lost six so only four net.

People slightly forget that there were only two huge developments in 2015. Firstly, LibDemaggeddon, and secondly SNP surge. The former is entirely what gave the Tories their majority. The latter is what made it a disaster for Labour.

Tories basically holding their own against Labour was an achievement for them (and made the rest possible), but it was a sideshow in one sense.

did the ukip surge have little effect then in terms of Lab vs. troy number of seats?

I suspect that there was a high degree of churn showing as LD To UKIP net. Some would be Con to UKIP, and Lab to UKIP, but with LD flows to each of those parties masking the effect.

How much this unwinds is yet to be clear.

By the way I am seeing Libdem ads on youtube and PB.com. Very bad targetting resources since I voted LEAVE, Voted tory last time am in a marginal labour-tory seat (majority of only 12,000+) and will be voting tory again. Any other PB tories seeing this. Really a waste of their limited resources, sell Libdems. Theonly reason to advertise to me is that i live in a council that was 60% REMAIN.

PaulM said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Matt Singh:

When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.

The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.

Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.

https://www.ft.com/content/e86a4bae-34db-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

I said sell the SNP at 43 this morning.

You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.

I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.

I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.

While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?

Well everyone is surging in Scotland except the SNP if you listen to the hype.

Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.

Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.

Pushing the SNP down to 36.

I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.

I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.

If tactical unionist voting was happening - and you believe that Labour voters in Scotland would support and vote for a Tory over the SNP, wouldn't there be evidence in the council election STV transfers ? is there evidence of Labour voters ranking the Tories above the SNP from the transfer tallies ?

I saw some evidence of it last year at the Holyrood elections.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Roger, UKIP aren't fascist.

They're also disintegrating, so I'm not sure it's worth your time worrying about them.

Currently they are fascist with their aping of the BNP.

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/860028250181054464

Roger said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Roger, to which fascists are you referring?

FN in France and UKIP in England. The parties rejected by London and Paris. I could have added Edinburgh and Central Amsterdam.

The kippers are not fascist (apart from ideology they are simply not that well organised!)

The French results are more positive. Macron won in all but 2 departments, and when zooming in on this map, clearly had support across vast areas of rural and small town France:

http://graphics.france24.com/results-second-round-french-presidential-election-2017/

Forecast: no Lib Dem gains in London, perhaps one only in Scotland. Have bet on Lib Dems getting 3-6 seats only. Reckon overall result, Cons 346, Labour 235, Lib Dem 5, Green 0, UKIP 0, SNP / PC 46, Others 18

theakes said:

Forecast: no Lib Dem gains in London, perhaps one only in Scotland. Have bet on Lib Dems getting 3-6 seats only. Reckon overall result, Cons 346, Labour 235, Lib Dem 5, Green 0, UKIP 0, SNP / PC 46, Others 18

Net gain for Lab seems optomistic!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Roger, UKIP aren't fascist.

They're also disintegrating, so I'm not sure it's worth your time worrying about them.

Currently they are fascist with their aping of the BNP.

Duncan Smith's rant about 'low-value people' will probably help keep the Kippers on board until June.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Roger, UKIP aren't fascist.

They're also disintegrating, so I'm not sure it's worth your time worrying about them.

Currently they are fascist with their aping of the BNP.

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/860028250181054464

To be fair May has a lot in common with past BNP manifestos: leave the EU, cut immigration sharply, bring back grammar schools etc.

Not that the BNP manifesto ever put in writing their real aims.

F1: just an aside, but my guess of a safety car being 1.6-1.7 was spot on, Ladbrokes have it as 1.66. (Still wouldn't touch that market).

Mr. Eagles, I hadn't seen that proposal for a Muslim migrant ban for a decade. That does rather change things.

For those of us concerned about Brexit's possible effects on the UK's motor industry, this report makes sober reading:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/t/590a650de4fcb5f1d7b6d96b/1493853480288/Rethinking+Transportation_May_FINAL.pdf
Demand for new vehicles will plummet: 70% fewer passenger cars and trucks will be manufactured each year. This could result in total disruption of the car value chain, with car dealers, maintenance and insurance companies suffering almost complete destruction. Car manufacturers will have options to adapt, either as low-margin, high- volume assemblers of A-EVs, or by becoming TaaS providers. Both strategies will be characterized by high levels of competition, with new entrants from other industries. The value in the sector will be mainly in the vehicle operating systems, computing platforms and the TaaS platforms.

For any Germans, probably best read with a stiff drink at hand.

DavidL said:

Jason said:

Baskerville said:

I don't like the idea of fox hunting either, but, as a Londoner, I'm not sure it's anything much to do with me. If farmers and country folk say the fox is a pest and needs to be controlled, so be it. I don't see any moral difference between poisoning, shooting, trapping and hunting. Mrs May has promised a free vote - as was in the 2015 manifesto - and has told us which way she's likely to vote.
Effect on general election? Helps her in the countryside marginally, upsets some voters unlikely to support her anyway, makes some switchers take another look at whether she is the woman they thought she was. i.e. plenty of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Reminds me of when the ban was first talked about in the late 1990s. A wholly disproportionate amount of time was given to the question of a ban on fox hunting. If it is deemed to be cruel - and it is - then why aren't Halal and Kosher slaughter discussed in the same terms? Could it be that fox hunters are white Tory toffs and the others aren't?

An animal does not discern whether it is ripped apart by hounds or if it has its throat cut while it is fully conscious. Either way, it dies in an act of premeditated cruelty.

I agree although Halal and Kosher do not have the "fun" element.

I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.

Foxhunting became a totemic issue because it was an activity undertaken by the type of people who many on the Left don't like very much and, worse, took pleasure in, and it was politically feasible to ban it.

Also, for those who believe all Tories are secretly evil and, at best, guilty of moral turpitude, it was sufficiently ethically ambiguous to validate their innermost prejudices.

Roger said:

It would be interesting to know why two of Europe's major capitol cities reject the fascist option so decisively when both country's small towns embrace it so readily.

In cities, people live and work among different types of people, and know them as human beings. In backwaters, people live in monocultural areas and fear outsiders. Hence why opposition to immigration is often higher in areas where there are no immigrants.

Pulpstar said:

Jason said:

Baskerville said:

I don't like the idea of fox hunting either, but, as a Londoner, I'm not sure it's anything much to do with me. If farmers and country folk say the fox is a pest and needs to be controlled, so be it. I don't see any moral difference between poisoning, shooting, trapping and hunting. Mrs May has promised a free vote - as was in the 2015 manifesto - and has told us which way she's likely to vote.
Effect on general election? Helps her in the countryside marginally, upsets some voters unlikely to support her anyway, makes some switchers take another look at whether she is the woman they thought she was. i.e. plenty of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Reminds me of when the ban was first talked about in the late 1990s. A wholly disproportionate amount of time was given to the question of a ban on fox hunting. If it is deemed to be cruel - and it is - then why aren't Halal and Kosher slaughter discussed in the same terms? Could it be that fox hunters are white Tory toffs and the others aren't?

An animal does not discern whether it is ripped apart by hounds or if it has its throat cut while it is fully conscious. Either way, it dies in an act of premeditated cruelty.

Then why bother wasting any more ?

This argument is one that was used by the pro hunt brigade but its just as good to use now by the antis. A waste of parliamentary time imo to change the law.

I think there is a case to qualify the ban, which is too restrictive, in my view, in line with the law in Scotland, as Cameron suggested, and to remove the criminal aspect, as Sean Fear suggested.

Unfortunately, and I say this as a strong pro-hunt supporter, I think the political battle to repeal it outright has been lost, now: just look at how many Tories support keeping it.

Perversely enough, I am much more sympathetic to animal welfare reforms in rearing animals, and slaughterhouses, and also increasing sentences for wilful animal cruelty.

But, I detest the way an English tradition has become such a target for the fanatic zealots of the anti-lobby and the RSPCA, for something that is - in my view - very far from being an unambiguous ethical or moral issue.

https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/862340002071662597

bobajobPB said:

Roger said:

It would be interesting to know why two of Europe's major capitol cities reject the fascist option so decisively when both country's small towns embrace it so readily.

In cities, people live and work among different types of people, and know them as human beings. In backwaters, people live in monocultural areas and fear outsiders. Hence why opposition to immigration is often higher in areas where there are no immigrants.

Those of us who live in caves outside the M25 are just naturally suspicious of people who don't daub themselves with woad.

https://filipvanlaenen.github.io/british_polls/2017-05-08-Kantar.html

Mr. Eagles, said it before, but the stars are aligning for the Conservatives at this election.

Carolus_Rex said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Keep at it lads.

https://twitter.com/camusson/status/862329930931212290

One of the pro-independence campaign groups was though

Which presumably explains the reference to "Scottish Nationalists" rather than the SNP. I don't know if that is fortuitous or Mrs May choosing her words very carefully.

Edit: I see it's actually Scottish nationalists (lower case). That may be significant.

But 'the' Scottish nationalists can only mean the SNP in most people's minds.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/prospect_clark/status/862340002071662597

I guess we'll find out for sure tomorrow, but I've a hunch that UKIP are only standing in a few dozen seats. That quite royally screws up the polling, 50% in GB could well be do-able.