politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2017 general election: The most profitable general electio

RobD said:

jonny83 said:

Razedabode said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Boris isn't going to be shafted this time. Without Ruth Davidson in the field, I can't see anyone else who has proven to be an election winner. The Tories will want someone with charisma after trying the robot route. Nobody doubts that Boris has that. I'm not saying he would be able to turn the momentum around and win an election but he's probably the only one available who really could.

Those yougov stats last night don't scream 'election winner' to me.

Tories need fresh blood, preferably from its more liberal wing.

He was the front of a leave '£350m per week for the NHS' blatant lie and people haven't forgotten that. With the country completely split over Brexit I am not surprised he is Marmite to the public.

I can't vote for him.

Well, that particular issue would be solved immediately by him giving the NHS £350m more a week

I don't think we can afford to lol.

atia2 said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Slackbladder said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

One point I'd like to make is that those people who claim the Tories are doomed are forgetting the Tories were genuinely miles ahead at the locals. If they can lose support that quickly, they can get it back.

But not without a swift about turn, I accept that.

Not with May. And the 'brand' is damaged. The only way they can do is to get a leader which can kill a few sacred cows. Grammar schools need to go in the dustbin, as does fox hunting.


A commitment to actually deal with social care and the NHS is needed, even it it means putting put both income tax (the lib dems 1p on the basis rate didn't scare the horses) and actually needing a death tax (not a dementia tax).

Why not have a death tax of say 5% over 100k? (as well as inheritance tax). That doesn't seem onerous particaully it's clear, and measureable.

May is clearly the worst PM in modern times. True she hasn't actually lost the unloseable election but she had a damn good try.

What constitutes "winning" and "losing" and is there any relevance to these labels?

The one with power has won.

So May has won until she is challenged for the leadership and loses.

Norm said:

David_Evershed said:

If May sacks Leadsom that could cause a leadership challenge.

It is odd how Left of centre Times journalist Rachel Sylvester's notorious hatchet job on Leadsom has proved to be so significant. Leadsom's faults were laid bare but how Tories must wish a leadership election had been held.

Not Really. May would have won anyway. I doubt we would have learned anything at that time.

rottenborough said:

Jonathan Powell says it will put NI peace process in jeopardy. He should know, he negotiated it.

So what did he say when Gordo was talking to them?

*crickets*

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Thank feck, Liz Truss demoted to Chief Secretary.

I guess the management of the nation's finances has been downgraded in importance, judging by that appointment.

Presumably Hammond wanted her. Seeing as he and Boris are running the Government now.

Truss is anybody's.

isam said:

Bobajob_PB said:

I see that daft modern internet phrase "virtual signalling" is polluting the thread yet again. Colour me shocked, go gangbusters etc etc etc...

Yes, I used it. If you are the same Bobajob who isn't meant to comment on what I say, maybe you shouldn't?

And the people who nominated Corbyn to show off how "fair" they were, when really they did it because they thought he was hopeless and had no chance, were VIRTUE SIGNALLING

Virtue signalling does have some concrete examples as a concept, and I think those Corbyn nominators who actually didn't support him, in order to 'broaden the debate' would be a good example of it.

But generally, the word is so overused by those on the right to mean anyone expressing a left wing view, that it loses its original meaning. Just like certain lefties overusing fascist for anyone with right wing views.

atia2 said:

David_Evershed said:

atia2 said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Slackbladder said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

One point I'd like to make is that those people who claim the Tories are doomed are forgetting the Tories were genuinely miles ahead at the locals. If they can lose support that quickly, they can get it back.

But not without a swift about turn, I accept that.

Not with May. And the 'brand' is damaged. The only way they can do is to get a leader which can kill a few sacred cows. Grammar schools need to go in the dustbin, as does fox hunting.


A commitment to actually deal with social care and the NHS is needed, even it it means putting put both income tax (the lib dems 1p on the basis rate didn't scare the horses) and actually needing a death tax (not a dementia tax).

Why not have a death tax of say 5% over 100k? (as well as inheritance tax). That doesn't seem onerous particaully it's clear, and measureable.

May is clearly the worst PM in modern times. True she hasn't actually lost the unloseable election but she had a damn good try.

What constitutes "winning" and "losing" and is there any relevance to these labels?

The one with power has won.

So May has won until she is challenged for the leadership and loses.

Then, potentially, the Tories *and* the DUP have won. The Tories alone cannot be said to have won, under your criterion.

Would you say Labour can win on these seat numbers?

Slackbladder said:

Norm said:

David_Evershed said:

If May sacks Leadsom that could cause a leadership challenge.

It is odd how Left of centre Times journalist Rachel Sylvester's notorious hatchet job on Leadsom has proved to be so significant. Leadsom's faults were laid bare but how Tories must wish a leadership election had been held.

Not Really. May would have won anyway. I doubt we would have learned anything at that time.

Think you would have - leadership elections get a lot of media attention. May's lack of suppleness would have been clear to all.

BigIan said:

Clown_Car_HQ said:

Norm said:

My aunt who lives in a pretty village outside Canterbury is mortified at the result there. However the relative unpopularity of Julian Brazier was undoubtedly a factor.

I doubt he was expecting to fight another election. Boundary changes will substantially change the seat and I think he was going to lose out to a neighbouring MP for the candidacy.

Are they all still going ahead then?

Is anything still going ahead?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Atia2, cite the hypocrisy.

The Tories attacked Corbyn for meeting with Sinn Fein, which had links to the IRA. They now seek the support of DUP, which had links to loyalist paramilitaries.

Corbyn met Sinn Fein, which had links to the IRA. Labour members now attack the Tories for seeking the support of the DUP, which had links to loyalist paramilitaries.

You pointed out the latter hypocrisy, but not the former. That's meta-hypocrisy.

Of course, it's all childish bullshit, which the Tories started. They have been hoisted by their own petard!

Paristonda said:

isam said:

Bobajob_PB said:

I see that daft modern internet phrase "virtual signalling" is polluting the thread yet again. Colour me shocked, go gangbusters etc etc etc...

Yes, I used it. If you are the same Bobajob who isn't meant to comment on what I say, maybe you shouldn't?

And the people who nominated Corbyn to show off how "fair" they were, when really they did it because they thought he was hopeless and had no chance, were VIRTUE SIGNALLING

Virtue signalling does have some concrete examples as a concept, and I think those Corbyn nominators who actually didn't support him, in order to 'broaden the debate' would be a good example of it.

But generally, the word is so overused by those on the right to mean anyone expressing a left wing view, that it loses its original meaning. Just like certain lefties overusing fascist for anyone with right wing views.

Sure, yes. I am not a frequent user of the phrase, but it describes the action of Labour MP's that nominated Corbyn, even though they didn't support him, in order to 'broaden the debate', perfectly.

Norm said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rumours swirling that Priti Patel either sacked or demoted

Hello EFTA/EEA

I'd say go for it. Opt into all the areas which people don't care about at all (air control, science, etc etc) and just get a deal done if at all possible.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

atia2 said:

David_Evershed said:

atia2 said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Slackbladder said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

One point I'd like to make is that those people who claim the Tories are doomed are forgetting the Tories were genuinely miles ahead at the locals. If they can lose support that quickly, they can get it back.

But not without a swift about turn, I accept that.

Not with May. And the 'brand' is damaged. The only way they can do is to get a leader which can kill a few sacred cows. Grammar schools need to go in the dustbin, as does fox hunting.


A commitment to actually deal with social care and the NHS is needed, even it it means putting put both income tax (the lib dems 1p on the basis rate didn't scare the horses) and actually needing a death tax (not a dementia tax).

Why not have a death tax of say 5% over 100k? (as well as inheritance tax). That doesn't seem onerous particaully it's clear, and measureable.

May is clearly the worst PM in modern times. True she hasn't actually lost the unloseable election but she had a damn good try.

What constitutes "winning" and "losing" and is there any relevance to these labels?

The one with power has won.

So May has won until she is challenged for the leadership and loses.

Then, potentially, the Tories *and* the DUP have won. The Tories alone cannot be said to have won, under your criterion.

Would you say Labour can win on these seat numbers?

No, no single party can be said to have "won", but the whole notion of "winning" is rather ridiculous. We know the composition of Parliament now. Why do we need to boil it down to "winner" and "loser"? These binary labels are too blunt to describe the current complex situation.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rumours swirling that Priti Patel either sacked or demoted

I wonder if Theresa blames the eurosceptic Tory Right for her misfortunes, believing they handed the youth and metropolitan vote straight to Jezza. That won't be entirely fair if she does, but perhaps psychologically she's in need of scapegoats.

isam said:

Paristonda said:

isam said:

Bobajob_PB said:

I see that daft modern internet phrase "virtual signalling" is polluting the thread yet again. Colour me shocked, go gangbusters etc etc etc...

Yes, I used it. If you are the same Bobajob who isn't meant to comment on what I say, maybe you shouldn't?

And the people who nominated Corbyn to show off how "fair" they were, when really they did it because they thought he was hopeless and had no chance, were VIRTUE SIGNALLING

Virtue signalling does have some concrete examples as a concept, and I think those Corbyn nominators who actually didn't support him, in order to 'broaden the debate' would be a good example of it.

But generally, the word is so overused by those on the right to mean anyone expressing a left wing view, that it loses its original meaning. Just like certain lefties overusing fascist for anyone with right wing views.

Sure, yes. I am not a frequent user of the phrase, but it describes the action of Labour MP's that nominated Corbyn, even though they didn't support him, in order to 'broaden the debate', perfectly.

Also for example people wearing 'this is what a feminist looks like' T-shirt which has been made in a sweatshop, or having 'Bring back our girls' posters when that boko harmen thing happen, but doing nothing else about it.

It's an action to 'show' you care, but actually not doing anything.

daodao said:

JackW said:

daodao said:

JackW said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

I'm still struggling to see why Corbyn and McDonnell being IRA sympathisers is not an issue while the DUP being religious zealots is. But that does seem to be where we are.

I fear you must have been tone deaf for the past seven weeks or was it my imagination that the Conservatives and their press allies might have mentioned Corbyn, McDonnell and the IRA/Hamas link about a gazillion times per nano second.

From a UK perspective, albeit one that I do not share, there is nothing wrong with the leading unionist party in GB collaborating with another unionist party such as the DUP - I suspect that May is in accord with their Christian values.

It is quite another matter for parties that aspire to govern the UK to collaborate or even consider collaborating with parties that are enemies of the state such as the SNP or SF.

You forgot to add Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the Scottish Green Party to your hit list.

I merely gave examples, but PC (for whom I have actually voted in the European and "list" part of WAG elections) should be on the list. I'm not sure about the stoop down low party (which now seems to be finished as a significant political force) and don't know enough about the Scottish Greens to comment.

PC don't actually advocate separation from the UK at this point do they? Just more powers. So not sure they would qualify under an 'enemy of the state' criteria at all. Scottish Greens support indy so they would qualify.

isam said:

Paristonda said:

isam said:

Bobajob_PB said:

I see that daft modern internet phrase "virtual signalling" is polluting the thread yet again. Colour me shocked, go gangbusters etc etc etc...

Yes, I used it. If you are the same Bobajob who isn't meant to comment on what I say, maybe you shouldn't?

And the people who nominated Corbyn to show off how "fair" they were, when really they did it because they thought he was hopeless and had no chance, were VIRTUE SIGNALLING

Virtue signalling does have some concrete examples as a concept, and I think those Corbyn nominators who actually didn't support him, in order to 'broaden the debate' would be a good example of it.

But generally, the word is so overused by those on the right to mean anyone expressing a left wing view, that it loses its original meaning. Just like certain lefties overusing fascist for anyone with right wing views.

Sure, yes. I am not a frequent user of the phrase, but it describes the action of Labour MP's that nominated Corbyn, even though they didn't support him, in order to 'broaden the debate', perfectly.

Wasn't it more cynical than that? They included Corbyn intending that his humiliating loss would silence the hard left, which had a legitimate claim to reform after two disappointing campaigns fought on a centrist platform.

Paristonda said:

Scott_P said:

Cat fight!

@RidgeOnSunday: Yvette Cooper says Tory coalition with the DUP could put Northern Ireland peace process in jeopardy #Ridge pic.twitter.com/JnvU5h3u00

@CarolineFlintMP: No it doesn't. Gordon Brown sought deals with DUP. There's lots of other reasons this deal won't work for May. twitter.com/ridgeonsunday/…

Why are Labour moderate MPs turning on each other? How does Flint publicly rebuking Cooper help Labour? Strange.

Perhaps the next civil war in Labour will be between the #NeverCorbyn's (I think Flint is one) and the MPs willing to drink the Corbynade (Cooper has hinted she would consider returning to Shadow Cab).

I have to be honest if it was a choice of Flint or Cooper to my dinner party table it'll be Flint any day.

You may find this interesting

https://twitter.com/GarethBQuinn/status/873557863632953344
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_Fife_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Scott_P said:

Interesting

https://twitter.com/newtonemerson/status/873874637091950592

He has a point.

justin124 said:

viewcode said:

justin124 said:

If I may return to June 9th and TM's visit to the Palace. Contrary to what most people believe there was no constitutional requirement for her to do that - PMs are not reappointed after General Elections under our system but simply carry on in office or resign to make way for someone else. The visit to see the Queen,therefore, was more out of courtesy and to inform the monarch of her intentions given the unclear election outcome. It was certainly not a question of 'TM seeking permission to form a Government'. Thatcher did not visit the Palace when re-elected in 1983 & 1987 - neither did Wilson in 1966 & October 1974. Blair seems to have begun this new tendency by going to the Palace when re-elected in 2001 & 2005. Cameron followed his example in 2015 - but it really is more of a photo-opportunity than something the PM is obliged to do. There is a lot of ignorance on this extending to jounalists such as Laura Kuensberg!

I'm more than happy to believe you but do you have links for Thatcher not visiting the Palace in 1983 & 1987 or Wilson in 1966?

Not immediately to hand - but it is actually very clear from the BBC Parliament replay of those earlier elections. In 1966 Wilson went to Transport House on Friday afternoon to thank party workers but no trip to the Palace. I don't believe that he and Thatcher went to see the Queen until they had drawn up their new lists of Cabinet Ministers a few days later.

Thank you for trying anyway

Cameron forming a coalition with Lib Dems seen as a victory.

May having a Confidence and Supply arrangement with DUP seen as a defeat.

Expectations? Who needs them?

calum said:

Mundell out !
https://twitter.com/BraidenHT/status/873927189833666562

https://twitter.com/BraidenHT/status/873927483980120064

Bobajob_PB said:

Scott_P said:

Interesting

https://twitter.com/newtonemerson/status/873874637091950592

No they are just frothing bigots who think gay people are an abomination. Just say that.

and yet you seem happy with the muslim vote, most of which shares the same values you criticise

perhaps you could explain the difference

I understand the sweetie manifesto put out by Labour as it was an attempt to stem the possible huge losses, but now they might actually get into government, can they change it at all? I'm assuming we'll be having an election before the Autumn.

There's no way the Tories could compete with that, and it will be difficult to criticise it as they didn't even try last time round. For the same reason, it may be difficult to bring up the deficit.

That's why they have to have a completely new leader. The longer they leave it, the worse it will be. Not sure who stands out for the Tories - unless they have an attractive woman with big tits - but that's just me being shallow.

I feel a little sympathy for some of the Tories. They're in a real bind, and that's not good for democracy, especially as Jezza can't go wrong even if he tried. I assume that he won't be hosting a conference with IS.

Come on LDs, accept the result of the referendum, and stop sulking, it's not a good look.
I'm already bored with being a NOTA.

viewcode said:

You may find this interesting

https://twitter.com/GarethBQuinn/status/873557863632953344
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_East_Fife_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Pity she voted for the wrong colour of yellow but still a great story.

Alanbrooke said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Scott_P said:

Interesting

https://twitter.com/newtonemerson/status/873874637091950592

No they are just frothing bigots who think gay people are an abomination. Just say that.

and yet you seem happy with the muslim vote, most of which shares the same values you criticise

perhaps you could explain the difference

+1

bookseller said:

Chris said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Atia2, cite the hypocrisy.

I don't approve of the DUP deal. I'd prefer a Con-Lib Dem deal. Unfortunately, Farron has decided the purpose of being elected is to oppose the government rather than to try and govern the country, and he's ruled out such a deal.

Sadly, for the Lib Dems, being elected is a purpose in itself.

Unfortunately the last time the LibDems supported the Tories, it turned into an existential crisis. That's not an unfortunate decision from Farron, they just are unable to do it. You can't ask someone with PTSD to go back to the front...

Lib Dems are against implementing the referendum result so unacceptable to Conservatives and vice versa.

atia2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Atia2, cite the hypocrisy.

The Tories attacked Corbyn for meeting with Sinn Fein, which had links to the IRA. They now seek the support of DUP, which had links to loyalist paramilitaries.

Corbyn met Sinn Fein, which had links to the IRA. Labour members now attack the Tories for seeking the support of the DUP, which had links to loyalist paramilitaries.

You pointed out the latter hypocrisy, but not the former. That's meta-hypocrisy.

Of course, it's all childish bullshit, which the Tories started. They have been hoisted by their own petard!

SF dont have links to the IRA, they are the IRA

the DUP are not the loyalist paramilitaries, they have their own party the PUP.

most loyalist paramilitaries dont actually like the DUP

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/873928405795864577

bookseller said:

Chris said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Atia2, cite the hypocrisy.

I don't approve of the DUP deal. I'd prefer a Con-Lib Dem deal. Unfortunately, Farron has decided the purpose of being elected is to oppose the government rather than to try and govern the country, and he's ruled out such a deal.

Sadly, for the Lib Dems, being elected is a purpose in itself.

Unfortunately the last time the LibDems supported the Tories, it turned into an existential crisis. That's not an unfortunate decision from Farron, they just are unable to do it. You can't ask someone with PTSD to go back to the front...

Cameron and Osborne the moderate Tories the Libs always claim they prefer to the headbangers regally shafted them in 2015.

Norm said:

Scott_P said:

Interesting

https://twitter.com/newtonemerson/status/873874637091950592

He has a point.

As far as I know no one is arguing the DUP supporters are terrorists - much like no one would argue that every Sinn Fein voter is a terrorist no matter what you think of the party.

In any case the terrorist sympathiser SF-mirror angle is not the big toxic issue here - it is their social policies which will rub off on the tories regardless of whether they are actually implemented in rUK or not. No one thinks the tories are about to abolish gay marriage because of DUP demands, but I am interested to see how any form of agreement with them helps the tories win back Kensington for example.

DM_Andy said:

I like the title First Secretary of State, thanks have to go to Michael Heseltine and John Major for bringing it back into use. Was Michael Heseltine also the first modern-era President of the Board of Trade? Wikipedia suggests that all the Secretaries of Trade and Industry of the 1970s and 1980s had that title but I can't recall it ever being used.

From memory, he was mocked by journalists and satirists for his presidential presumption in resurrecting the title.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/873928405795864577

I phoned the number. There is just this posh bloke laughing at the other end.

Bobajob_PB said:

Alan

Nope. Anyone who thinks that is a bigot. I don't care who they are.

I'd rather have no religion at all to be honest, it clearly doesn't help people live and let live.

so nope you cant explain it or nope your not happy with the votes of muslims ?

Boo, David Liddington the new Justice Secretary.

Bobajob_PB said:

Danny565 said:

According to theTimes, Labour did indeed narrowly win the women's vote.

Won by 5pts I think?

That's not narrow - that's substantial.

I wonder how it compares to previous elections? Has the gender split ever been more pronounced?

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

I wonder who will get justice - I have a name in mind.

David Liddington

One d
Not the name I thought might just get it.

Slackbladder said:

MJW said:

williamglenn said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

One point I'd like to make is that those people who claim the Tories are doomed are forgetting the Tories were genuinely miles ahead at the locals. If they can lose support that quickly, they can get it back.

But not without a swift about turn, I accept that.

They were performing a high-wire act to channel the left over Brexit euphoria from June last year. Now that's gone it will not come back.

Other problem is they've completely lost the sense that they're the only sensible dependable game in town. That helped them get over the line in 2015 and looked likely to deliver a thumping win in 2017. Now, no Tory will be taken seriously when they argue a Labour govt will lead to chaos as the Tories have done so by losing not one but two electoral gambles designed for party political advantage. A reputation of sober stability won't come back for a very long time - if ever. Look at what the financial crisis and what it did to Labour's economic credibility - and that on the whole, wasn't unnecessarily self-inflicted.

It will come back, look at labour in the 70s to 90s and look at the tories in 90s to well, recently.

But once it's lost, you can't get it back whilst still in power.

Black Wednesday? That destroyed the Tories reputation for a (Parliamentary) generation.

Amongst people I'm talking to (on both sides of the political spectrum) there is anger, incredulity - but mostly it's contempt and derision. People think the whole thing is an epic cock-up that has made the country a laughing stock.

Pong said:

Bobajob_PB said:

Danny565 said:

According to theTimes, Labour did indeed narrowly win the women's vote.

Won by 5pts I think?

That's not narrow - that's substantial.

I wonder how it compares to previous elections? Has the gender split ever been more pronounced?

The Tories won the women's vote by 4% in 2015.

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Boo, David Liddington the new Justice Secretary.

Poor sod. Who would want it?

What do we want?

JUSTICE!

When do we want it?

Um, not quite yet!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rumours swirling that Priti Patel either sacked or demoted

Wonder whether Priti will launch a leadership bid tomorrow?

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

I wonder who will get justice - I have a name in mind.

David Liddington

One d
Not the name I thought might just get it.

Hunt?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Boo, David Liddington the new Justice Secretary.

TSE should become the new Tory Viceroy of PB.

Only Viceroy. Why not Roy?