politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking at the UKIP leadership race
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking at the UKIP leadership race
This year’s running of the UKIP leadership race might not have attracted all that much attention, but it’s probably one of the most open and unpredictable party leader elections I can remember. Of the seven candidates left, six have a plausible shot at winning and there could be plenty of betting value around.
Comments
-
To my surprise, I've been sent a ballot paper (I did tell them, I wouldn't be renewing by membership).
I think I'll vote for the gay donkey man.0 -
Can you vote for David Kurten please, it would help my betting portfolio.Sean_F said:To my surprise, I've been sent a ballot paper (I did tell them, I wouldn't be renewing by membership).
I think I'll vote for the gay donkey man.0 -
What's the voting system?0
-
First past the post.Morris_Dancer said:What's the voting system?
0 -
Mr. Eagles, just the one round?
Might favour Waters.0 -
I appreciate that 'sane' is a relative word in this context, but the key point seems to me to be that the sane vote is split, whereas Anne Marie Waters has a dedicated band of supporters.0
-
Yup, only one round of voting with FPTP.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, just the one round?
Might favour Waters.0 -
FPT
He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.HYUFD said:
Who was elected as a Tory before he became speaker but even 317 is 11 more than 306Sunil_Prasannan said:
No, it was 317 (318 includes Bercow, BBC style).HYUFD said:
The Tories though got 318 seats to 306 in 2010, 2017 was not as good for the Tories as 2015 in terms of seats but better than 2010justin124 said:
He actually did a bit better than Brown who only managed 258 seats to Corbyn's 262. Moreover, Corbyn performed much better in England & Wales than Brown did in 2010 in that Brown's total included over 40 seats from Scotland.619 said:
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)stevef said:Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".0 -
There's a gap in the market, sadly, for an avowedly anti-Islam party. Cold logic therefore points towards Anne Marie Waters. No other candidate has offered a raison d'etre for UKIP.0
-
Which favours the candidate with the horse, even if the horse has suffered unwanted attentions from a donkey with inadequate sexual boundaries.TheScreamingEagles said:
First past the post.Morris_Dancer said:What's the voting system?
0 -
Anne Marie Waters is certainly sane. That doesn't make her nice.Richard_Nabavi said:I appreciate that 'sane' is a relative word in this context, but the key point seems to me to be that the sane vote is split, whereas Anne Marie Waters has a dedicated band of supporters.
0 -
Mr. Nabavi, the diffusion of opposition and concentration of support for Waters was my thinking too.
If she won, there would be an interesting situation regarding the media and how much coverage she got, and the nature of that coverage. If the media came across as directly opposed rather than reporting her views, it could benefit her/UKIP electorally.0 -
Henry Bolton has had a few promoted posts on my twitter timeline so (I assume) he must have a bit of money behind him. I'm afraid I initially thought they were parodies of the reactionary 'Fairly Secret Army' mindset.0
-
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.0 -
I didn't renew my membership this year either. Once the referendum was won UKIP for me became just another pointless political party. I Still get lots of emails from the National Secretary and various officers but no longer get any official documentation such as candidate lists or ballot papers. Seems their postal people are rather more on the ball than their internet people.TheScreamingEagles said:
Can you vote for David Kurten please, it would help my betting portfolio.Sean_F said:To my surprise, I've been sent a ballot paper (I did tell them, I wouldn't be renewing by membership).
I think I'll vote for the gay donkey man.0 -
There is also an anti-Waters vote. It seems not yet to be coalescing around Peter Whittle, who seems to have the Big Om. It is very possible that one of the others emerges from the pack on this basis. David Kurten and Henry Bolton look to be the most likely to manage this.Richard_Nabavi said:I appreciate that 'sane' is a relative word in this context, but the key point seems to me to be that the sane vote is split, whereas Anne Marie Waters has a dedicated band of supporters.
0 -
Is Ann Marie Waters closer to Farage or Griffin politically?0
-
She's closer to Hitler apparently.Philip_Thompson said:Is Ann Marie Waters closer to Farage or Griffin politically?
Ukip risks becoming 'UK Nazi party' if it selects wrong leader
Candidate Henry Bolton says party could ‘easily slip towards ideals of national socialism’ depending on who it chooses
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/11/leadership-hopeful-warns-wrong-leader-could-turn-ukip-into-uks-nazi-party-henry-bolton0 -
Betting Post:
Gennady Golovkin is favourite (1.71) to win this weekend vs Canelo Alvarez (2.64).
Golovkin (37-0) is unbeaten professionally and has had hundreds of amateur fights. He has real knockout power and has ended most of his fights by knockout - apart from his most recent, vs Daniel Jacobs. He can switch styles and has impressed with his ability to adapt especially with his jabbing vs Jacobs when everyone expected him to go headhunting. After that fight, some commentators, however, began to ask questions about his "invincibility", while others question the quality of his opponents.
Canelo (49-1), meanwhile is a powerhouse and apart from losing to FMJ has an unbeaten record, is a technically good boxer and bangs. He has fought some good names (as well as destroying, as expected, Amir Khan recently).
Those who favour Triple G expect him to adapt to Canelo well and overcome him as he has done with all his other opponents.
Floyd Mayweather Snr and Jeff Mayweather both expect Canelo to win, citing him as the better boxer who has come on tremendously over the years (apart from his loss to Floyd he is famously supposed to have been inferior in sparring with Golovkin).
Judges of boxing don't come much better than the Mayweather clan and hence at 2.64 I think Canelo is good value.
DYOR of course!!0 -
Ass play??AlastairMeeks said:
Which favours the candidate with the horse, even if the horse has suffered unwanted attentions from a donkey with inadequate sexual boundaries.TheScreamingEagles said:
First past the post.Morris_Dancer said:What's the voting system?
0 -
These days Farage is politically closer to Griffin than to the image he used to cultivate of the affable bloke.Philip_Thompson said:Is Ann Marie Waters closer to Farage or Griffin politically?
He also seems to have been overdoing his am-dram classes.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/9050395634538618880 -
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.0 -
Wonder how many members they have left? It seems quite a few who joined because they wanted out of the EU have not renewed (including Messrs F and Tyndall). This would imply that the outright anti-foreigner vote will be a much higher percentage than last time.
Which favours Ms. Waters.
Which is at least a USP, if nothing else.0 -
None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.0 -
That wasn't my point.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.0 -
Norway election results:
It looks like the centre-right have won the election despite getting slightly fewer/less votes than the centre-left. Odd given that it's supposed to be a PR system. I guess the threshold must have had something to do with it.0 -
I know it's a betting post (and thank goodness for that) but I'm still struggling to give a sh*t.0
-
About the fight????!!! Surely not.Casino_Royale said:I know it's a betting post (and thank goodness for that) but I'm still struggling to give a sh*t.
0 -
Yes, the Red Party and the Greens only won 2 seats, in total, because neither reached the 4% threshold. Had they been awarded seats in proportion to their vote share, they'd have won 9 between them.AndyJS said:Norway election results:
It looks like the centre-right have won the election despite getting slightly fewer/less votes than the centre-left. Odd given that it's supposed to be a PR system. I guess the threshold must have had something to do with it.
The Liberals and Christian Democrats, who support the government, managed to win 8 each, despite only just clearing the 4% threshold in each case.0 -
The Conservatives led Labour in England by 11.5% in 2010, compared to just 3.7% in 2017, yet only lost one seat net, over that period. (They won 298 in 2010, compared to 297 in 2017).Sunil_Prasannan said:FPT
He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.HYUFD said:
Who was elected as a Tory before he became speaker but even 317 is 11 more than 306Sunil_Prasannan said:
No, it was 317 (318 includes Bercow, BBC style).HYUFD said:
The Tories though got 318 seats to 306 in 2010, 2017 was not as good for the Tories as 2015 in terms of seats but better than 2010justin124 said:
He actually did a bit better than Brown who only managed 258 seats to Corbyn's 262. Moreover, Corbyn performed much better in England & Wales than Brown did in 2010 in that Brown's total included over 40 seats from Scotland.619 said:
But that's not what a lot of the seats showed. They cut the Tory majorities in a lot of places they didn't win, and got back some seats in Scotland. And yes, he didn't do as well as Brown, but he did better than Ed Milliband ( and with a lot less of press with him and a wing of his own party against him)stevef said:Corbyn is expected to become prime minister...........Corbyn will no doubt continue to defy expectations.
Corbyn's apologists continue to delude themselves. Corbyn's 40% was brought about by piling up votes in seats that Labour already held. He won about the same number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010. He was also helped by those who held their nose and voted Labour despite Corbyn in order to stop Theresa May's hard Brexit. And by the kamikaze Tory election campaign.
I have voted Labour at every election for 40 years -including 2017. I continue to believe that Corbyn is a disaster. Things could turn out very differently at the next election. Even if I am wrong and he became PM, that could be even worse for Labour as a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. To those who say that Corbyn has not destroyed the Labour party, I say "give him a chance".
Lib Dem voters from 2010 have split about 2:1 Labour/Conservative over that period, but the Conservatives won the lion's share of Lib Dem held seats, offsetting their losses to Labour.
0 -
I find it hard to see why anyone is interested in keeping UKIP active. Mission more-or-less accomplished, and I can see why it might be moth-balled rather than shut down, but what is UKIP for, now?
There's very little mileage left for MEPs. Would it matter to UKIP MEPs if their party sank itself beneath them? An honourable end after a successful campaign would be quite satisfying, I should think.
Do those seeking UKIP leadership have much that unites them, behind anything?
If the members were to find another vision or goal, then perhaps they could re-badge their party with a new name to reflect that. I could see some sense in that, too.
Maybe finding another vision is really what this leadership election is about.
Good afternoon, everyone.0 -
In this particular context, that was perhaps not an entirely redundant question, though.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yup, only one round of voting with FPTP.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, just the one round?
Might favour Waters.
0 -
Looked at the still for that video, and for a moment thought it was Stephen Hawking.williamglenn said:
These days Farage is politically closer to Griffin than to the image he used to cultivate of the affable bloke.Philip_Thompson said:Is Ann Marie Waters closer to Farage or Griffin politically?
He also seems to have been overdoing his am-dram classes.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/905039563453861888
[with apologies to the Prof.]0 -
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
It's definitely on the wane, but historically it's much harder to grow a new party than revitalise an old one.0 -
Oh dear
All art is meant to be a talking point and that certainly seems to be the case with this year’s design."
Chesterfield Borough Council spokesman0 -
O/T
Why couldn't the police arrest these people for illegal dumping before moving them on?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/12/travellers-dump-mountain-rubbish-2012-olympic-park/0 -
Off topic and worse its a link to Zero Hedge but http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-12/cable-sinks-eu-uk-postpone-next-round-brexit-talks
Reading the edited highlights there it sounds like a Hard Brexit in a total mess on March 29 2019 is a sure bet....0 -
bigjohnowls said:
Oh dear
All art is meant to be a talking point and that certainly seems to be the case with this year’s design."
Chesterfield Borough Council spokesman
I was completely at sea with that "well dressing tradition" for a moment. My mind was running along the lines of fashion - e.g. the top ten best-dressed people. 0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241153
How did this become a crime?
"possession of a document likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"
That's a reeeeally repressive law given that, i assume, just a one time click-through to some dodgy radical internet page (via twitter or whatever) would constitute "possession" of such a document.
And the definition of terrorism is fuzzy as f*ck.0 -
Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.0
-
"UKIP if you want to. The Lady's NOT for kipping!"Casino_Royale said:I know it's a betting post (and thank goodness for that) but I'm still struggling to give a sh*t.
0 -
The referendum result has set him free to be the far-right wannabe that always lurked just below the surface.williamglenn said:
These days Farage is politically closer to Griffin than to the image he used to cultivate of the affable bloke.Philip_Thompson said:Is Ann Marie Waters closer to Farage or Griffin politically?
He also seems to have been overdoing his am-dram classes.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/905039563453861888
0 -
Given how UK law works for pornography a one-time click wouldn't just constitute possession it might also constitute creating....Pong said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241153
How did this become a crime?
"possession of a document likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"
That's a reeeeally repressive law given that, i assume, just a one time click-through to some dodgy radical internet page (via twitter or whatever) would constitute "possession" of such a document.0 -
From the actual lawPong said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241153
How did this become a crime?
"possession of a document likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"
That's a reeeeally repressive law given that, i assume, just a one time click-through to some dodgy radical internet page (via twitter or whatever) would constitute "possession" of such a document.
'It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.'
So your example would be fine.0 -
Why do the goody-two-shoes Greenies keep standing against the Speaker?0
-
Macron is picking his battles. For example train drivers retire at 52, SNCF office workers at 57.SouthamObserver said:Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.
0 -
That is unbelievable.FF43 said:
Macron is picking his battles. For example train drivers retire at 52, SNCF office workers at 57.SouthamObserver said:Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.
0 -
How many of them were at Hillsborough?MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
This is a Norwegian Blue of a party which is very unlikely to stand in a numerically significant number of seats next time out. The key skill they should be looking for is that of an Insolvency Practitioner or a funeral undertaker.0 -
Ok, political anoraks, here's your starter for ten:
https://twitter.com/HistParl/status/9071777105433067530 -
Only ZeroHedge would run a headline "Cable Sinks As EU-UK Postpone Next Round Of Brexit Talks" on a day when sterling is trading at a one-year high against the dollar!eek said:Off topic and worse its a link to Zero Hedge but http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-12/cable-sinks-eu-uk-postpone-next-round-brexit-talks
Reading the edited highlights there it sounds like a Hard Brexit in a total mess on March 29 2019 is a sure bet....
Nonetheless, the central point is right: the UK government, and the UK parliament, won't agree to paying megabucks to the EU just for old times' sake. I really do hope that our EU friends aren't so deluded as to think that we will.0 -
Thanks.TheScreamingEagles said:
From the actual lawPong said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241153
How did this become a crime?
"possession of a document likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"
That's a reeeeally repressive law given that, i assume, just a one time click-through to some dodgy radical internet page (via twitter or whatever) would constitute "possession" of such a document.
'It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.'
So your example would be fine.
Lawyers do earn their money... 0 -
Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.
As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.
The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.
The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn
0 -
The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.
As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.
The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.
The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn0 -
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
0 -
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
0 -
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.Anorak said:
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
0 -
You may joke.Richard_Nabavi said:
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.Anorak said:
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
I'll probably be first against the wall.0 -
I expect Mr Corbyn feels he will be able to deliver on that promise. As I understand it, socialists believe that where governments are concerned, there is no difference between credit and money.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.
As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.
The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.
The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn
I find it impossible to understand, myself, but that seems to be behind the argument that the household budget analogy doesn't scale up to governments.
Oh, and like qualitative easing, the central bank just adds a few trillion pounds into the country's account out of nowhere.
How many zeroes would you like, sir? Will £100,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 be enough?0 -
I wonder if we'll see the Corbynites come up with a British 'Deep State' that some of the deluded Trumpers use.Anorak said:
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
0 -
But, it's going to happen, isn't it?Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
Unless the Conservatives can start arguing again (confidently, reasonably and unapologetically) from first principles, and demonstrate theirs is a better way for the under 40s, we will learn all the same old lessons the hard way again.0 -
saying public workers will get the rises they deserve isn't the same as saying that they are getting 5% of course.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.
As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.
The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.
The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn0 -
Quite. The government will answer Corbyn's call and lift the public sector pay cap in the budget. Thus giving further credibility to someone who once seemed completely incredible.Recidivist said:
The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.
As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.
The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.
The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn0 -
Nah, it'll be Brexit's fault, which is a Tory obsessionRichard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
0 -
Source?FF43 said:
Macron is picking his battles. For example train drivers retire at 52, SNCF office workers at 57.SouthamObserver said:Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.
0 -
You're implementing some parts of Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto, Corbyn's wanting to implement other parts of that manifesto.Casino_Royale said:
But, it's going to happen, isn't it?Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
Unless the Conservatives can start arguing again (confidently, reasonably and unapologetically) from first principles, and demonstrate theirs is a better way for the under 40s, we will learn all the same old lessons the hard way again.
Just saying....0 -
It might happen, and we should certainly plan our affairs as best we can just in case it does happen, but I'd be very loath to make any prediction even 12 months out in current circumstances. I can see plausible scenarios ranging from Labour majority and Conservative collapse to Conservative majority and Labour collapse.Casino_Royale said:But, it's going to happen, isn't it?
Unless the Conservatives can start arguing again (confidently, reasonably and unapologetically) from first principles, and demonstrate theirs is a better way for the under 40s, we will learn all the same old lessons the hard way again.0 -
TBF You thought Lab on 25% was peak Corbyn!!!Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky reporting Corbyn promising at the TUC that all public sector workers will get the 'pay rise they deserve' when he is in Government.
As each 1% rise costs 1.8 billion and the TUC are seeking 5% that equals a whopping 9 billion pounds per annum. Also with CPI at 2.9% the pension rise next year will be eye watering.
The Unions and McCluskey in particular threatening illegal strikes and coordinated across the UK has echoes of the militancy of the miners, but the difference today is the much smaller Union membership.
The ICM today had the conservatives and labour jointly on 42% but as Corbyn and his hard left acolytes gain control of labour, I think we may be coming near peak Corbyn0 -
They had a piece on the French news a couple of days ago where they interviewed Macron. He made a big play on this being unsustainable.(train drivers retire at 52; SNCF office workers at 57)Casino_Royale said:
Source?FF43 said:
Macron is picking his battles. For example train drivers retire at 52, SNCF office workers at 57.SouthamObserver said:Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.
0 -
How tediously predictable.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're implementing some parts of Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto, Corbyn's wanting to implement other parts of that manifesto.Casino_Royale said:
But, it's going to happen, isn't it?Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
Unless the Conservatives can start arguing again (confidently, reasonably and unapologetically) from first principles, and demonstrate theirs is a better way for the under 40s, we will learn all the same old lessons the hard way again.
Just saying....0 -
Wow.Charles said:
You may joke.Richard_Nabavi said:
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.Anorak said:
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
I'll probably be first against the wall.
The shark of self importance is cleared by several meters.0 -
Yes, the Tories are obsessed with fulfilling the democratic will of the people as expressed in the referendum. Dreadful, isn't it?619 said:Nah, it'll be Brexit's fault, which is a Tory obsession
0 -
Presumably the SNCF office workers will now go on strike until this disgraceful anomaly is rectified.FF43 said:
They had a piece on the French news a couple of days ago where they interviewed Macron. He made a big play on this being unsustainable.(train drivers retire at 52; SNCF office workers at 57)Casino_Royale said:
Source?FF43 said:
Macron is picking his battles. For example train drivers retire at 52, SNCF office workers at 57.SouthamObserver said:Many on the left and right in the UK will be very disappointed that the day of action against Macron's labour reforms in France has been a complete damp squib.
0 -
After WWII the Nazi list of people to be eliminated in an occupied Britain was released - Trades Unionists, Communists and other 'undesirables' - including Noel Coward - who quipped 'to think, the people we'd have been seen dead with'.....Charles said:
You may joke.Richard_Nabavi said:
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.Anorak said:
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
I'll probably be first against the wall.0 -
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.0 -
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just because a single policy was in the 83 manifesto doesn't mean it is definitely wrong - especially when circumstances have since changed.TheScreamingEagles said:
You're implementing some parts of Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto, Corbyn's wanting to implement other parts of that manifesto.Casino_Royale said:
But, it's going to happen, isn't it?Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
Unless the Conservatives can start arguing again (confidently, reasonably and unapologetically) from first principles, and demonstrate theirs is a better way for the under 40s, we will learn all the same old lessons the hard way again.
Just saying....
Many "Loony" policies have subsequently become law too.0 -
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.0 -
Did it not include the editor of the Beano?CarlottaVance said:
After WWII the Nazi list of people to be eliminated in an occupied Britain was released - Trades Unionists, Communists and other 'undesirables' - including Noel Coward - who quipped 'to think, the people we'd have been seen dead with'.....Charles said:
You may joke.Richard_Nabavi said:
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.Anorak said:
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
I'll probably be first against the wall.0 -
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.Philip_Thompson said:
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.0 -
Whereas the Tories blame the BBC, the Guardian, trade unions, public service workers, the EU, the feckless poor and each other for their failures!!Richard_Nabavi said:
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.Anorak said:
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
0 -
Doesn't that he BBC count him as CON?Sunil_Prasannan said:
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.Philip_Thompson said:
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.0 -
No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.Sunil_Prasannan said:
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.Philip_Thompson said:
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.0 -
Yep, but Wikipedia don'tRobD said:
Doesn't that he BBC count him as CON?Sunil_Prasannan said:
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.Philip_Thompson said:
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect. 0 -
I'm gonna go with the BBC on this oneSunil_Prasannan said:
Yep, but Wikipedia don'tRobD said:
Doesn't that he BBC count him as CON?Sunil_Prasannan said:
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.Philip_Thompson said:
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
0 -
Of course it could, the real question is will it.SouthamObserver said:0 -
The Ballot Paper in Buckingham looked like this:Philip_Thompson said:
No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.Sunil_Prasannan said:
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.Philip_Thompson said:
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
The Speaker seeking re-election John Bercow
UKIP Brian Mapletoft
Independent Scott Raven
Green Michael Sheppard0 -
It depends entirely on what deal if any we get. I don't think that there can be any doubt that our car industry is one of the most vulnerable sectors.RobD said:
Of course it could, the real question is will it.SouthamObserver said:0 -
What kind of crappy printing service are they using in Buckingham?Sunil_Prasannan said:
The Ballot Paper in Buckingham looked like this:Philip_Thompson said:
No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.Sunil_Prasannan said:
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.Philip_Thompson said:
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
The Speaker seeking re-election John Bercow
UKIP Brian Mapletoft
Independent Scott Raven
Green Michael Sheppard 0 -
Let the cat out of the bag? The EU have been banging on for months that they won't talk about trade.williamglenn said:0 -
Mr. Glenn, if the EU won't discuss a matter with us then they'll be blamed for the failure of any deal.
It's ridiculous to have the Irish border as a top priority and then refusing to discuss a key aspect of resolving it to mutual satisfaction.0 -
You broke it, you own it.williamglenn said:
If any of this sort of chaos actually transpires then Corbyn is in Downing Street.0 -
I couldn't edit it properly within the 6 minutesRobD said:
What kind of crappy printing service are they using in Buckingham?Sunil_Prasannan said:
The Ballot Paper in Buckingham looked like this:Philip_Thompson said:
No they had a Speaker who counts as Con for voting purposes.Sunil_Prasannan said:
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.Philip_Thompson said:
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
The Speaker seeking re-election John Bercow
UKIP Brian Mapletoft
Independent Scott Raven
Green Michael Sheppard 0 -
Agreed. Along with foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, aeronautics and services, in particular financial services.Richard_Nabavi said:
It depends entirely on what deal if any we get. I don't think that there can be any doubt that our car industry is one of the most vulnerable sectors.RobD said:
Of course it could, the real question is will it.SouthamObserver said:0 -
He stood as The Speaker, not a CONRobD said:
I'm gonna go with the BBC on this oneSunil_Prasannan said:
Yep, but Wikipedia don'tRobD said:
Doesn't that he BBC count him as CON?Sunil_Prasannan said:
In Buckingham they didn't have a Con candidate.Philip_Thompson said:
He doesn't vote at all, but nor does a Lab Deputy Speaker whom he cancels out - so effectively he does vote as a Con.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But he doesn't stand as a CON, nor does he vote as a CON.MikeSmithson said:None of them played for Tranmere, has a PhD or lives in Stoke.
But that is what sitting Speaker's always do. He is INCLUDED in CON totals for betting purposes. If he wasn't I would have made even more with my GE17 CON sell spread bet at 393Sunil_Prasannan said:
Yebbut he stood as "The Speaker" or "The Speaker seeking re-election" in 2010, 2015 and 2017.Philip_Thompson said:
Mathematically he's a Tory.Sunil_Prasannan said:He hasn't stood as a Tory since 2005. But yes May did better than Dave in 2010.
The Speaker and the three deputy Speakers don't vote. Because the Speaker came from the Tory party originally, the two deputy Speakers are made up one Tory and two Labour. The deputy speakers do count in the party figures but don't vote so it makes sense when looking at party maths to count Bercow as a Tory. Regardless of his views or neutrality he cancels out one of the Labour deputy speakers.
You can either look at it as he is a Con or his presence reduces Lab by one, either way same net effect.
0 -
Great idea for a referendum Cameron!rottenborough said:
You broke it, you own it.williamglenn said:
If any of this sort of chaos actually transpires then Corbyn is in Downing Street.0 -
Actually it was a reference to a comment that a friend of mine at school (who is using his not inconsiderable family resources to support communism in the UK) made...Theuniondivvie said:
Wow.Charles said:
You may joke.Richard_Nabavi said:
True, the failure will be because the full socialist revolution will have been thwarted by the Blairites in league with big business, the US, Murdoch, the Daily Mail, landowners, Goldman Sachs and other Jewish bankers.Anorak said:
But when it happens it will still be the fault of the Blairites.Richard_Nabavi said:
The difference is that Corbyn has laid out in his manifesto exactly how he proposes to collapse the economy.Recidivist said:The trouble is a lot of voters are suffering from fearmonger fatigue. Gordon Brown was supposed to have collapsed the economy. Ed Miliband was going to. Brexit was going to. How is Corbyn any different?
I'll probably be first against the wall.
The shark of self importance is cleared by several meters.
And he backs Corbyn... but only as a first step...0 -
You were at school with Seamas Milne?Charles said:Actually it was a reference to a comment that a friend of mine at school (who is using his not inconsiderable family resources to support communism in the UK) made...
And he backs Corbyn... but only as a first step...0
