politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Based on current Betfair WH2016 odds why Nate Silver thinks Be

This is from a discussion on Nate’s site – Fivethirtyeight on Beto O’Rourke’s chances of becoming his party’s Vice Presidential nominee. This is, of course, chosen by the nominee for President and takes place just before the convention. He notes.
Comments
-
Bet on Beto?0
-
Goddammit, I'm not having my only comment of the day lost to the curse. I don't care how bad a joke it is.
FPT:
She looks like a character from "Guess Who?"El_Capitano said:Intriguing. The official Lib Dem Press account drawing people's attention to an interview in which Layla Moran didn't rule out standing for leader:
https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/10957719578434109450 -
Third like Man City come the end of the season.0
-
Beto O’Rourke is a bit too much like a Tom Hanks movie character to take seriously.0
-
On topic. Even the very slightest, most miniscule possibility of flipping Texas to the Dems might well be worth a go. Would leave the Orange One with an Everest to climb.0
-
There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.0
-
Is Beto a villain?0
-
A reference to this?TGOHF said:Is Beto a villain?
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/10958031281239203850 -
I've just done that poll as wellNickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
0 -
Bet 0 on Beto?Jonathan said:Bet on Beto?
0 -
Better to be a Hasbro than a never was......Anorak said:Goddammit, I'm not having my only comment of the day lost to the curse. I don't care how bad a joke it is.
FPT:
She looks like a character from "Guess Who?"El_Capitano said:Intriguing. The official Lib Dem Press account drawing people's attention to an interview in which Layla Moran didn't rule out standing for leader:
https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/10957719578434109450 -
Captain Miller?williamglenn said:Beto O’Rourke is a bit too much like a Tom Hanks movie character to take seriously.
0 -
A representative sample of what exactly?MikeSmithson said:
I've just done that poll as wellNickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
0 -
Spurs imperious tonight. Enthralling match.0
-
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1095809676212690944NickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
0 -
Isnt this what he wants?Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1095809676212690944NickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
0 -
-
John McDonnell playing the Tonypandy card for all its worth 109 years later.0
-
The Tories surely need to go easy on Corbyn. The last thing they need is an electable Labour leader like Yvette Cooper.Scott_P said:0 -
I'm sure he's super worried, they've never threatened to quit before.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1095809676212690944NickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
He'll change position when he'd damn well ready, not before, and they don't have the balls to do more than whinge before he does.0 -
I suppose the one advantage of May's "nothing has changed I'm not pivoting to anything else regardless of how many people tell me it's stupid and not gonna work" clog-iron stubbornness does mean that it's considerably easier to go "well what does Jezza think about Brexit now since 20 minutes ago?"0
-
Kevin Maguire on Sky confirmed that splits are expected in the next couple of weeks in labour as the two opposites for and against brexit fight for their side. He said that while the conservatives are divided they will hold together as a party of government, but he said it is labour who now have real problemskle4 said:
I'm sure he's super worried, they've never threatened to quit before.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1095809676212690944NickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
He'll change position when he'd damn well ready, not before, and they don't have the balls to do more than whinge before he does.0 -
-
-
My understanding is that there are those who are trying to set up a party/grouping but are facing two problems: (1) no-one wants to be the first mover; and (2) all the usual suspects are scared of making a move, think they will be attacked, don't want to give up their party, want to stay and fight etc, blah, blah, all the usual excuses for not doing anything.MikeSmithson said:
I've just done that poll as wellNickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
0 -
-
The Coyle tweet says councillors are already leaving, but I haven't seen many Labour defections recently? The slow trickle of councillors the LibDems have picked up have mostly been from the Tories (in some cases via Independents), apart from the one in Rochdale.0
-
And are they ignoring the deadlock in the HOCScott_P said:0 -
Who was ultimately more successful, the SDP gang of four, or the little known Tony Blair elected in 1983 on a unilateralist, Brexiting, out of NATO manifesto?Cyclefree said:
My understanding is that there are those who are trying to set up a party/grouping but are facing two problems: (1) no-one wants to be the first mover; and (2) all the usual suspects are scared of making a move, think they will be attacked, don't want to give up their party, want to stay and fight etc, blah, blah, all the usual excuses for not doing anything.MikeSmithson said:
I've just done that poll as wellNickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
0 -
They might well believe it, it might even be true he will never be able to win a GE, but given they, like most people, thought he'd do a lot worse than he did they are completely undercut from convincing people,. They know that, hence the whines every few months then they sit back down and behave until the next crunch point.TheJezziah said:
But next time they totally won't stand for it you guys, for realsies.0 -
While May's indecision has made things so much worse than they already were, these business leaders and the EU too for that matter do sometimes appear to act as though they think May is the master of events right now, rather than recognising the obvious truth that she is trying something akin to pulling off the most energetic and complex orchestral conducting ever attempted, while having her arms tied to two separate windmills.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And are they ignoring the deadlock in the HOCScott_P said:0 -
After the GE in 2017 where he wasnt elected you mean?TheJezziah said:0 -
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:0 -
1983 elected for the first timeFoxy said:
Who was ultimately more successful, the SDP gang of four, or the little known Tony Blair elected in 1983 on a unilateralist, Brexiting, out of NATO manifesto?Cyclefree said:
My understanding is that there are those who are trying to set up a party/grouping but are facing two problems: (1) no-one wants to be the first mover; and (2) all the usual suspects are scared of making a move, think they will be attacked, don't want to give up their party, want to stay and fight etc, blah, blah, all the usual excuses for not doing anything.MikeSmithson said:
I've just done that poll as wellNickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
Tony Blair
Gordon Brown
Jeremy Corbyn
Paddy Ashdown
Michael Howard0 -
Would we have had New Labour without the SDP fiasco?Foxy said:
Who was ultimately more successful, the SDP gang of four, or the little known Tony Blair elected in 1983 on a unilateralist, Brexiting, out of NATO manifesto?Cyclefree said:
My understanding is that there are those who are trying to set up a party/grouping but are facing two problems: (1) no-one wants to be the first mover; and (2) all the usual suspects are scared of making a move, think they will be attacked, don't want to give up their party, want to stay and fight etc, blah, blah, all the usual excuses for not doing anything.MikeSmithson said:
I've just done that poll as wellNickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
0 -
Where he increased Labour's share of the vote by the most since 1948.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasnt elected you mean?TheJezziah said:0 -
But it just wasn’t enough was it.bigjohnowls said:
Where he increased Labour's share of the vote by the most since 1948.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasnt elected you mean?TheJezziah said:0 -
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.0 -
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.0 -
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.0 -
The left have more of a splitting problem due to their attitude to Purity of opinion. It’s amazing really that the Labour Party exists and is able to hold together a reasonably broad group of supportersBig_G_NorthWales said:
Kevin Maguire on Sky confirmed that splits are expected in the next couple of weeks in labour as the two opposites for and against brexit fight for their side. He said that while the conservatives are divided they will hold together as a party of government, but he said it is labour who now have real problemskle4 said:
I'm sure he's super worried, they've never threatened to quit before.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1095809676212690944NickPalmer said:There's an Opinium survey out probing for potential support for a new centre-left party, though it loads the dice by some leading questions to think about whether existing parties are extreme or racist - I'd guess designed to elicit an interesting story rather than disinterested research for someone really trying to set such a party up.
He'll change position when he'd damn well ready, not before, and they don't have the balls to do more than whinge before he does.0 -
Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.
Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.0 -
You guys are so deluded.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=210 -
Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.Foxy said:Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.
Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.0 -
We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.Gallowgate said:
You guys are so deluded.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=210 -
Sure, but I can see the advantage for both sides of converting the WA timeframe to status quo.RobD said:
Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.Foxy said:Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.
Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.
28 well worth a nibble IMO.0 -
Would be a big concession from the EU, to admit how wrong they were in terms of sequencing.Foxy said:
Sure, but I can see the advantage for both sides of converting the WA timeframe to status quo.RobD said:
Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.Foxy said:Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.
Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.
28 well worth a nibble IMO.0 -
But Corbyn still lost against the worst general election campaign by a major party in recent history.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.0 -
Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?TheJezziah said:
We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.Gallowgate said:
You guys are so deluded.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=210 -
It is people like you who are going to be responsible for a Tory majority.TheJezziah said:
We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.Gallowgate said:
You guys are so deluded.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=210 -
Did he win then?Foxy said:
Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?TheJezziah said:
We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.Gallowgate said:
You guys are so deluded.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21
0 -
It gives the EU more time to encourage more companies to move there, which they have been very open about. It gives them more time to change rules making it necessary for banks to move more of their operations across. Rinse and repeat for loads of attractive industries and sectors.RobD said:
Would be a big concession from the EU, to admit how wrong they were in terms of sequencing.Foxy said:
Sure, but I can see the advantage for both sides of converting the WA timeframe to status quo.RobD said:
Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.Foxy said:Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.
Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.
28 well worth a nibble IMO.
If the EU agree to this it's not because they're admitting they're wrong, it's because they can sense the mess and weakness on our side and can see how giving this allows them even more time to take advantage of our confusion and the uncertainty for companies while avoiding the disadvantages for them of a No Deal exit.0 -
He lostFoxy said:
Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?TheJezziah said:
We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.Gallowgate said:
You guys are so deluded.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=210 -
Though it does resolve all 3 issues of the WA in the short term, and open up FTA terms for negotiation. It moves things on by cunningly bypassing a meaningful vote. If course it is very possible that at the end of the extension Brexit has been reversed/abandoned too.RobD said:
Would be a big concession from the EU, to admit how wrong they were in terms of sequencing.Foxy said:
Sure, but I can see the advantage for both sides of converting the WA timeframe to status quo.RobD said:
Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.Foxy said:Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.
Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.
28 well worth a nibble IMO.
I can see it getting EU and Labour support.0 -
Gained seats while May lost them.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He lostFoxy said:
Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?TheJezziah said:
We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.Gallowgate said:
You guys are so deluded.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=210 -
He lostFoxy said:
Gained seats while May lost them.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He lostFoxy said:
Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?TheJezziah said:
We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.Gallowgate said:
You guys are so deluded.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=210 -
If we have another GE soon I think the Tories will manage to exceed that. Last time they at least had most pretending they were united.MikeSmithson said:
But Corbyn still lost against the worst general election campaign by a major party in recent history.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.0 -
"In recent history"?MikeSmithson said:
But Corbyn still lost against the worst general election campaign by a major party in recent history.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
I think you are being kind.
In living memory?
Maybe Foot's campaign is a close runner up?0 -
May lost too.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He lostFoxy said:
Gained seats while May lost them.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He lostFoxy said:
Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?TheJezziah said:
We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.Gallowgate said:
You guys are so deluded.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
After the GE in 2017 where he wasn't elected you mean?TheJezziah said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21
Sure Jezza lost, but he is just a few seats away from bringing down the Tories. 2 years ago the talk was of a 3 figure Tory majority.0 -
Nobody denies that Corbyn did much better than expected in 2017, but he still got less seats than Neil Kinnock in 1992 and only 4 more than Gordon Brown in 2010.TheJezziah said:0 -
Oh dear, the mask slipped there didn't it John?williamglenn said:
A reference to this?TGOHF said:Is Beto a villain?
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1095803128123920385
0 -
Good point, a reason not to take them up on the offer.Cyclefree said:
It gives the EU more time to encourage more companies to move there, which they have been very open about. It gives them more time to change rules making it necessary for banks to move more of their operations across. Rinse and repeat for loads of attractive industries and sectors.RobD said:
Would be a big concession from the EU, to admit how wrong they were in terms of sequencing.Foxy said:
Sure, but I can see the advantage for both sides of converting the WA timeframe to status quo.RobD said:
Starting discussions on the future arrangement first would have avoided all of this.Foxy said:Watching ITV News at Ten was a little nugget that I had missed from the reporting of Tessas little indicate barfly sidekick. He was talking about a Deal vs 21 month extension. That coincides with the duration of the proposed WA. Now we know that the WA is largely a standstill arrangement, so keeping the timing and going straight to FTA is actually pretty similar. The advantage for Tess is time for a GE or #peoplesvote, for the EU, the completion of the budget cycle. For both it is the FTA that matters. I can see it happening.
Betfair has an exit date of last quarter 2020 as 28, so worth a punt in my analysis.
28 well worth a nibble IMO.
If the EU agree to this it's not because they're admitting they're wrong, it's because they can sense the mess and weakness on our side and can see how giving this allows them even more time to take advantage of our confusion and the uncertainty for companies while avoiding the disadvantages for them of a No Deal exit.0 -
Danny Finkelstein wrote a more balanced article about Winston Churchill the other day.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/churchill-was-a-racist-but-still-a-great-man-vnhkhfnpm0 -
And so dysfunctional has been Labour under Corbyn that in a period of just 20 months since 2017 no less than 6 MPs have given up the Labour whip. So Corbyn now has 2 fewer Labour MPs than Gordon Brown was left with after the 2010 election.AndyJS said:
Nobody denies that Corbyn did much better than expected in 2017, but he still got less seats than Neil Kinnock in 1992 and only 4 more than Gordon Brown in 2010.TheJezziah said:0 -
Exactly, unelectable is someone who would get smashed in an election, doesn't stand a chance. Landslide territory.Foxy said:
May lost too.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He lostFoxy said:
Gained seats while May lost them.Big_G_NorthWales said:
He lostFoxy said:
Yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is what they were saying 2 years ago in spring 2017. How did that workout?TheJezziah said:
We just maybe have a preference for using votes in elections for judging electability, those shouting about Corbyn being unelectable have mostly gone quiet for good reason.Gallowgate said:
You guys are so deluded.TheJezziah said:
As we saw with the period before GE'17 it is the votes that actually count.Gallowgate said:
He’s what, 7 points behind the worst government in living memory? Sounds like it does apply to Corbyn.TheJezziah said:
If the definition of unelectable is has not won an election (a national one to become PM) then Labour don't have an electable possible leader anyway among MPs, Blair is the only candidate really.kle4 said:
Which does not prove he is unelectable. Such things are hard to prove. But getting so much closer than nearly anyone thought he would definitely shows it is not as ridiculous idea that he is electable as many thought.Gallowgate said:
If unelectable means can't possibly win an election then clearly that doesn't apply to Corbyn.
If electable means good looking opinion polls then we should go back to the heydays of Ed Miliband, I'd rather have a shot at winning the next election instead, which is my prefered definition of electable.
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1095607178952617984?s=21
Sure Jezza lost, but he is just a few seats away from bringing down the Tories. 2 years ago the talk was of a 3 figure Tory majority.
Corbyn is clearly not this, he may well never win an election, plenty of politicians don't that doesn't mean they are all unelectable. Otherwise every politician who has never won an election is unelectable which makes any swap in Labour (aside from Tony Blair coming back) pointless on that basis alone.0 -
He is just echoing this weird movement among the young lefties that have decided that Churchill legacy now needs to be rewritten as an evil man on par with Hitler, mostly based upon some non-pc stuff (that was the norm at the time) and some twisting of historical events.williamglenn said:
A reference to this?TGOHF said:Is Beto a villain?
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/10958031281239203850 -
He did what Kinnock did in 2 elections in one, brought Labour from a place where we didn't stand a chance of winning an election to a place where it is a real possibility whilst giving us our biggest rise in vote share since WW2.AndyJS said:
Nobody denies that Corbyn did much better than expected in 2017, but he still got less seats than Neil Kinnock in 1992 and only 4 more than Gordon Brown in 2010.TheJezziah said:
It wasn't impressive just because he did it whilst under attack from his own party and receiving some of the worst press possible for almost his entire time as leader.
It was an objectively impressive performance even disregarding all that, considering the Conservatives had Brexit which won them huge amounts of votes as well, Labour did brilliantly to not only keep up with the Conservatives but actually begin to catch up with them. The path to a Labour victory thanks to Corbyn's performance in GE'17 is a hell of a lot easier and actually realistically possible.0 -
Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?
I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...
Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.
Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.0 -
One of three schoolgirls who left east London in 2015 to join the Islamic State group says she has no regrets, but wants to return to the UK.
In an interview with the Times, Shamima Begum, now 19, talked about seeing "beheaded heads" in bins - but said that it "did not faze her".
Speaking from a camp in Syria, she said she was nine months pregnant and wanted to come home for the sake of her baby.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47229181
Equivalent of the NHS not so good in the Caliphate?0 -
Hi Seamus....TheJezziah said:Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?
I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...
Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.
Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.0 -
No. If she has no regrets about joining IS then she is a potential threat to us here. She has made her choice and can live with the consequences.FrancisUrquhart said:One of three schoolgirls who left east London in 2015 to join the Islamic State group says she has no regrets, but wants to return to the UK.
In an interview with the Times, Shamima Begum, now 19, talked about seeing "beheaded heads" in bins - but said that it "did not faze her".
Speaking from a camp in Syria, she said she was nine months pregnant and wanted to come home for the sake of her baby.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47229181
Equivalent of the NHS not so good in the Caliphate?0 -
Hi Piers....FrancisUrquhart said:
Hi Seamus....TheJezziah said:Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?
I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...
Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.
Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.0 -
Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...TheJezziah said:
Hi Piers....FrancisUrquhart said:
Hi Seamus....TheJezziah said:Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?
I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...
Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.
Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.0 -
Well that's what I thought. Not even trying to pretend to have made a mistake like the vast majority of those now trying to get back to their Western country of origin.Cyclefree said:
No. If she has no regrets about joining IS then she is a potential threat to us here. She has made her choice and can live with the consequences.FrancisUrquhart said:One of three schoolgirls who left east London in 2015 to join the Islamic State group says she has no regrets, but wants to return to the UK.
In an interview with the Times, Shamima Begum, now 19, talked about seeing "beheaded heads" in bins - but said that it "did not faze her".
Speaking from a camp in Syria, she said she was nine months pregnant and wanted to come home for the sake of her baby.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47229181
Equivalent of the NHS not so good in the Caliphate?0 -
Tbf, with some of the more hardcore lefties, it's not entirely clear whether they think the "right" side won the war...FrancisUrquhart said:
He is just echoing this weird movement among the young lefties that have decided that Churchill legacy now needs to be rewritten as an evil man on par with Hitler, mostly based upon some non-pc stuff (that was the norm at the time) and some twisting of historical events.williamglenn said:
A reference to this?TGOHF said:Is Beto a villain?
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1095803128123920385
(And before anyone says, "ahh, but they'd have wanted the Soviets to win the war", then they may not have witnessed what happens when a Trot starts laying into the Stalinists.)0 -
TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.FrancisUrquhart said:
Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...TheJezziah said:
Hi Piers....FrancisUrquhart said:
Hi Seamus....TheJezziah said:Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?
I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...
Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.
Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.
Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.
I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.
And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.0 -
Somebodies touchy....warn yourself out arguing black is white over Labour's antisemitism problem?TheJezziah said:
TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.FrancisUrquhart said:
Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...TheJezziah said:
Hi Piers....FrancisUrquhart said:
Hi Seamus....TheJezziah said:Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?
I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...
Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.
Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.
Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.
I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.
And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.0 -
Aren't you the one getting sensitive about insulting a white supremacist?FrancisUrquhart said:
Somebodies touchy....warn yourself out arguing black is white over Labour's antisemitism problem?TheJezziah said:
TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.FrancisUrquhart said:
Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...TheJezziah said:
Hi Piers....FrancisUrquhart said:
Hi Seamus....TheJezziah said:Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?
I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...
Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.
Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.
Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.
I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.
And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.
Considering the new Hitler youth movement the Tories have got going I thought they would be on board with the idea of Churchill as a bad guy anyway.0 -
Well. That was nice.0
-
Erhhh...again...not a Tory....and also where did I say anything you just said.TheJezziah said:
Aren't you the one getting sensitive about insulting a white supremacist?FrancisUrquhart said:
Somebodies touchy....warn yourself out arguing black is white over Labour's antisemitism problem?TheJezziah said:
TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.FrancisUrquhart said:
Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...TheJezziah said:
Hi Piers....FrancisUrquhart said:
Hi Seamus....TheJezziah said:Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?
I was hoping this was just Piers Morgan being Piers Morgan...
Its healthy to acknowledge the good and the bad, the good doesn't erase the bad and the bad doesn't erase the good.
Also if we can't accept criticism of leaders who did some good for Britain but also did very bad things then we cannot really look down on other countries who glorify leaders from their past similarly. Grey areas everywhere.
Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.
I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.
And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.
Considering the new Hitler youth movement the Tories have got going I thought they would be on board with the idea of Churchill as a bad guy anyway.
I simply stated that among a section of the hard left there is a movement to brand Churchill in a particular way. You kinda of making my case for me.0 -
I'm all for Labour's top team airing their honest opinions. I'm sure the Govt won't mind either0
-
I made a post about grey areas in regards to Churchill and you called me Seamus, it seems you are a little sensitive in that regard.FrancisUrquhart said:
Erhhh...again...not a Tory....and also where did I say anything you just said.TheJezziah said:
Aren't you the one getting sensitive about insulting a white supremacist?FrancisUrquhart said:
Somebodies touchy....warn yourself out arguing black is white over Labour's antisemitism problem?TheJezziah said:
TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.FrancisUrquhart said:
Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...TheJezziah said:
Hi Piers....FrancisUrquhart said:
Hi Seamus....TheJezziah said:Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?
Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.
I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.
And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.
Considering the new Hitler youth movement the Tories have got going I thought they would be on board with the idea of Churchill as a bad guy anyway.
I simply stated that among a section of the hard left there is a movement to brand Churchill in a particular way. You kinda of making my case for me.
TBH if people genuinely believe Churchill never did anything wrong they are ignorant of history, if they think he did nothing right then similarly.
I don't care where you are on the political spectrum if you can't see beyond people being great or terrible that is just stupid and makes conversation impossible. Everyone, even quite good people are flawed, the idea that Churchill did not do some bad things and have some bad views is just ahistorical.0 -
I called you Seamus, because you parrot lines day in day out that Seamus would be taking.TheJezziah said:
I made a post about grey areas in regards to Churchill and you called me Seamus, it seems you are a little sensitive in that regard.
TBH if people genuinely believe Churchill never did anything wrong they are ignorant of history, if they think he did nothing right then similarly.
I don't care where you are on the political spectrum if you can't see beyond people being great or terrible that is just stupid and makes conversation impossible. Everyone, even quite good people are flawed, the idea that Churchill did not do some bad things and have some bad views is just ahistorical.
Again, you are projecting what you think my opinions are, when I haven't said anything other than what is true about a section of the left that has a very low opinion of Churchill, much of which I see parroted based on historical inaccuracies. Even Johnny Mac latest claim is based on an incident where it is extremely disputed that what he is saying is the based on the actual facts.0 -
TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.FrancisUrquhart said:
I called you Seamus, because you parrot lines that Seamus would be taking.TheJezziah said:
I made a post about grey areas in regards to Churchill and you called me Seamus, it seems you are a little sensitive in that regard.FrancisUrquhart said:
Erhhh...again...not a Tory....and also where did I say anything you just said.TheJezziah said:
Aren't you the one getting sensitive about insulting a white supremacist?FrancisUrquhart said:
Somebodies touchy....warn yourself out arguing black is white over Labour's antisemitism problem?TheJezziah said:
TBH if describing Churchill who Danny Finkelstein described as a white supremacist and participated in some pretty heinous crap as a grey area makes me Seamus Milne then complaining about me doing so makes you Piers Morgan.FrancisUrquhart said:
Doesn't really work that does it....as I don't post anything like Piers Morgan, you on the other hand...TheJezziah said:
Hi Piers....FrancisUrquhart said:
Hi Seamus....TheJezziah said:Are people really getting touchy about the Churchill thing?
Its blind patriotism to pretend Churchill was a perfect angel who never did anything wrong, we don't look up to important figures in other countries and discount their crimes simply because they were important and did some good things.
I don't accept the argument that Stalin was a good guy or his crimes were somehow lessened because he played a huge role in defeating Hitler. Defeating Hitler was a great thing but it doesn't erase his crimes.
And before any snowflakes melt that was not me saying Churchill is the same as Stalin.
Considering the new Hitler youth movement the Tories have got going I thought they would be on board with the idea of Churchill as a bad guy anyway.
I simply stated that among a section of the hard left there is a movement to brand Churchill in a particular way. You kinda of making my case for me.
TBH if people genuinely believe Churchill never did anything wrong they are ignorant of history, if they think he did nothing right then similarly.
I don't care where you are on the political spectrum if you can't see beyond people being great or terrible that is just stupid and makes conversation impossible. Everyone, even quite good people are flawed, the idea that Churchill did not do some bad things and have some bad views is just ahistorical.
I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.0 -
You are projecting again....TheJezziah said:
TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.
I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.0 -
Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are projecting again....TheJezziah said:
TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.
I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.
0 -
You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...TheJezziah said:
Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are projecting again....TheJezziah said:
TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.
I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ0 -
Half of universities have fewer than 5% poor white students
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47227157
Its a bit hard to get into the best unis if your A-Level grades are crap. Its not the unis fault if applicants from particular demographics have far worse attainment. Its starts much lower down.0 -
Donald Trump's former election campaign chief Paul Manafort breached his plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller by lying to prosecutors, a US judge says.
US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Manafort "made multiple false statements" to the FBI, Mr Mueller's office and a grand jury.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-472344910 -
No mind reading required, look at the posts. I suggested there was a grey area and Churchill had done some bad things and you tried to insult me (usually a reaction to being hurt) by saying Hi Seamus.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...TheJezziah said:
Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are projecting again....TheJezziah said:
TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.
I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ
If you weren't sensitive to the idea that Churchill was not an angel you probably wouldn't have bothered.
0 -
No, I said Hi Seamus, because you take the lines I would expect Seamus to take on every single issue. But keep trying Clinton Baptiste.TheJezziah said:
No mind reading required, look at the posts. I suggested there was a grey area and Churchill had done some bad things and you tried to insult me (usually a reaction to being hurt) by saying Hi Seamus.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...TheJezziah said:
Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are projecting again....TheJezziah said:
TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.
I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ
If you weren't sensitive to the idea that Churchill was not an angel you probably wouldn't have bothered.0 -
You did it specifically in reply to a post about Churchill not being perfect but a grey area, that isn't a left right thing. Pretty much anyone who knows a little about Churchill would make that statement. The only reason to react negatively to such a statement is either because you are ignorant of the history or a little sensitive about the mention of Churchill's history.FrancisUrquhart said:
No, I said Hi Seamus, because you take the lines I would expect Seamus to take on every single issue. But keep trying Clinton Baptiste.TheJezziah said:
No mind reading required, look at the posts. I suggested there was a grey area and Churchill had done some bad things and you tried to insult me (usually a reaction to being hurt) by saying Hi Seamus.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...TheJezziah said:
Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are projecting again....TheJezziah said:
TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.
I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ
If you weren't sensitive to the idea that Churchill was not an angel you probably wouldn't have bothered.
Much like Piers Morgan.0 -
Jesus Christ, even Clinton Baptiste is better than you...he guesses right once in a while.TheJezziah said:
You did it specifically in reply to a post about Churchill not being perfect but a grey area, that isn't a left right thing. Pretty much anyone who knows a little about Churchill would make that statement. The only reason to react negatively to such a statement is either because you are ignorant of the history or a little sensitive about the mention of Churchill's history.FrancisUrquhart said:
No, I said Hi Seamus, because you take the lines I would expect Seamus to take on every single issue. But keep trying Clinton Baptiste.TheJezziah said:
No mind reading required, look at the posts. I suggested there was a grey area and Churchill had done some bad things and you tried to insult me (usually a reaction to being hurt) by saying Hi Seamus.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...TheJezziah said:
Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are projecting again....TheJezziah said:
TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.
I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ
If you weren't sensitive to the idea that Churchill was not an angel you probably wouldn't have bothered.
Much like Piers Morgan.0 -
Okay Piers calm down, it's only an historically accurate take on Churchill, not a vegan sausage roll or anything.FrancisUrquhart said:
Jesus Christ, even Clinton Baptiste is better than you...he guesses right once in a while.TheJezziah said:
You did it specifically in reply to a post about Churchill not being perfect but a grey area, that isn't a left right thing. Pretty much anyone who knows a little about Churchill would make that statement. The only reason to react negatively to such a statement is either because you are ignorant of the history or a little sensitive about the mention of Churchill's history.FrancisUrquhart said:
No, I said Hi Seamus, because you take the lines I would expect Seamus to take on every single issue. But keep trying Clinton Baptiste.TheJezziah said:
No mind reading required, look at the posts. I suggested there was a grey area and Churchill had done some bad things and you tried to insult me (usually a reaction to being hurt) by saying Hi Seamus.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are about as good a minder reader as this guy...TheJezziah said:
Churchill wasn't perfect, you may hate me for saying it or think I am some crazy far left nutter but it is historically accurate and there really doesn't seem any need to be annoyed or upset about it.FrancisUrquhart said:
You are projecting again....TheJezziah said:
TBH anyone who isn't ignorant of history would be able to acknowledge that Churchill wasn't perfect.
I called you Piers because you were very sensitive about the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd79Ie_vWyQ
If you weren't sensitive to the idea that Churchill was not an angel you probably wouldn't have bothered.
Much like Piers Morgan.0 -
What an excellent article.AndyJS said:Danny Finkelstein wrote a more balanced article about Winston Churchill the other day.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/churchill-was-a-racist-but-still-a-great-man-vnhkhfnpm0 -
That's glib to the point of being offensive.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its a bit hard to get into the best unis if your A-Level grades are crap. Its not the unis fault if applicants from particular demographics have far worse attainment. Its starts much lower down.
Universities set admission policy, they don't have to do so exclusively on the basis of "A" levels which are easy to game for rich people. There are other ways to identify talented candidates.0 -
Back on topic, this would make a great deal more.sense:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/13/schumer-beto-castro-2020-senate-bid-1168554
I’m not convinced O’Rourke would be a comfortable VP pick for the candidates Nate Silver hypothesises might pick him.
Whereas running for the Senate again in a presidential year would suit everyone; both O’Rourke and the Democrats would benefit.0 -
Of course he did.FrancisUrquhart said:Donald Trump's former election campaign chief Paul Manafort breached his plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller by lying to prosecutors, a US judge says.
US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Manafort "made multiple false statements" to the FBI, Mr Mueller's office and a grand jury.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47234491
Telling the full truth might hasten Trump’s impeachment, and would in any event destroy his hopes of a pardon from the Grifter in Chief.
0