politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So Team Corbyn decide to take a massive gamble and IGNORE LAB

> @Nigelb said:
> He is, but with a disciplined campaign team, which thus far he seems to have, any gaffes might not be particularly salient.
> He’s very far from a certainty, but he has to be favourite at this point.
>
> Agree with others that Warren is (at the very least trading) value, and had a dabble yesterday.
>
> Biden would be the worst pick in US politics since Barry Goldwater. Apart from the career of gaffes, how on earth could the Dems pick a candidate who is older than Trump?
>
>
>
> Out of a belief that he is the candidate most likely to beat Trump.
> And while that’s not a particularly good reason, and might be wrong, it could equally likely be true.
>
> What’s more certain is that whoever might beat him (and I exclude Sanders) would have to surprise on the upside.
>
> The Democrats haven’t chosen yet - and most who vote will at this stage have very little knowledge of the other candidates

Biden's Veep choice will be key.

Picking Michelle Obama would see him elected as President.....

https://twitter.com/fidelmacook/status/1123363454470037506

Mr. Meeks, it'd be significant, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Mr. Me, indeed. Labour types often have a strong emotional attachment to the party (more, I would argue, than is healthy). The desire to 'stay and fight' will be strong. (Plus, inertia is a powerful force).

But in reality, that means campaigning for Corbyn, who utterly ignores what Watson et al want, to be PM. The loyalty choice isn't for or against Labour. It's for the values that Watson believes in, or the party banner to which he's belonged for a long time. Those two things no longer coincide.

> @JosiasJessop said:
> > @CarlottaVance said:
> > How Labour handles complaints:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1123168443975520258
>
> That is absolutely classic.

Who wrote the rules, Kafka?

> @Morris_Dancer said:
> Mr. Meeks, it'd be significant, but I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> Mr. Me, indeed. Labour types often have a strong emotional attachment to the party (more, I would argue, than is healthy). The desire to 'stay and fight' will be strong. (Plus, inertia is a powerful force).
>
> But in reality, that means campaigning for Corbyn, who utterly ignores what Watson et al want, to be PM. The loyalty choice isn't for or against Labour. It's for the values that Watson believes in, or the party banner to which he's belonged for a long time. Those two things no longer coincide.

Tories often have 'a strong emotional attachment' to the Party as well. Look at the current PM!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, it'd be significant, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Mr. Me, indeed. Labour types often have a strong emotional attachment to the party (more, I would argue, than is healthy). The desire to 'stay and fight' will be strong. (Plus, inertia is a powerful force).

But in reality, that means campaigning for Corbyn, who utterly ignores what Watson et al want, to be PM. The loyalty choice isn't for or against Labour. It's for the values that Watson believes in, or the party banner to which he's belonged for a long time. Those two things no longer coincide.

We could be about to see major splits in the two largest parties.

(But many of us have been saying that for at least a couple of years now, so it’s definitely a case of seeing is believing. The minor split that was TIG/CUK appears to be fizzling out - unless of course they become the vehicle for a much wider split).

> @Charles said:
> ‘TBH it does read like incompetence and rigidity to me. Them's the rules etc. Bit like the DWP and the Home Office; we don't make mistakes. Even when we do, it's your fault.“
>
> That doesn’t wash.
> If this came out of the blue, then that might be plausible, but in the context of the last year it is simply inexcusable.
>
> Labour’s defence is plausible and not unreasonable.

How?

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

‘TBH it does read like incompetence and rigidity to me. Them's the rules etc. Bit like the DWP and the Home Office; we don't make mistakes. Even when we do, it's your fault.“

That doesn’t wash.
If this came out of the blue, then that might be plausible, but in the context of the last year it is simply inexcusable.

Labour’s defence is plausible and not unreasonable.

(Just testing the Quote function)

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, it'd be significant, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Mr. Me, indeed. Labour types often have a strong emotional attachment to the party (more, I would argue, than is healthy). The desire to 'stay and fight' will be strong. (Plus, inertia is a powerful force).

But in reality, that means campaigning for Corbyn, who utterly ignores what Watson et al want, to be PM. The loyalty choice isn't for or against Labour. It's for the values that Watson believes in, or the party banner to which he's belonged for a long time. Those two things no longer coincide.

We could be about to see major splits in the two largest parties.

(But many of us have been saying that for at least a couple of years now, so it’s definitely a case of seeing is believing. The minor split that was TIG/CUK appears to be fizzling out - unless of course they become the vehicle for a much wider split).

The climax has yet to happen (indeed, it has been deferred so often precisely because of the risk of a split). There are three separate faultlines, all of which look overdue a seismic event - one in the Labour party, and one on each wing of the Conservative party. It's hard to see a resolution, or even a non-resolution, of Brexit this year that now does not result in one or more of those producing something measurable on the Richter scale. I think we've only seen early shocks.

Unlike some here I fully expect Sanders to beat Trump if nominated. I also think his chances of nomination are decent, but very far from certain.

King Cole, people in charge often conflate their own desires with a wider (party or national) interest. It's possible May does have a real affection for the Conservative Party, but I'd still argue such sentiments are more prevalent for the reds than the blues.

> @kle4 said:
> Have a wild rumour for free:
>
> https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/1123357647573520385
>
>
>
> Haha. April fools already is it?

Can't see it; why would he move into politics, and a senior role, only to find himself shunted out in fairly short order.

I suspect Tiggers will be much worse at defending their seats than the SDP were.

> @Morris_Dancer said:
> King Cole, people in charge often conflate their own desires with a wider (party or national) interest. It's possible May does have a real affection for the Conservative Party, but I'd still argue such sentiments are more prevalent for the reds than the blues.

Perhaps I'm thinking more of a time gone by. However, I offer you Cameron and Osborne. Can't see them ever being involved with another party. Suspect Conservatism is deep in their genes.

JosiasJessop said:

> @Charles said:

> ‘TBH it does read like incompetence and rigidity to me. Them's the rules etc. Bit like the DWP and the Home Office; we don't make mistakes. Even when we do, it's your fault.“

>

> That doesn’t wash.

> If this came out of the blue, then that might be plausible, but in the context of the last year it is simply inexcusable.

>

> Labour’s defence is plausible and not unreasonable.



How?

*if* what they say is true.

They took written evidence from both parties and declined to take additional verbal evidence. They didn’t decide “no case to answer” on the basis of zero evidence

At the least the accusation is deliberately misleading by only providing part of the facts

> @AlastairMeeks said:
> Have a wild rumour for free:
>
> https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/1123357647573520385

Having had enough of being kept under the stairs, the boy wizzard makes a break for freedom from the Demented.

Teaming up with Chuka Weasely. And the insufferable Hermione Soubry.

Can they all escape from the Cloak of Invisibility?

In "Hogwash - the musical".

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, it'd be significant, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Mr. Me, indeed. Labour types often have a strong emotional attachment to the party (more, I would argue, than is healthy). The desire to 'stay and fight' will be strong. (Plus, inertia is a powerful force).

But in reality, that means campaigning for Corbyn, who utterly ignores what Watson et al want, to be PM. The loyalty choice isn't for or against Labour. It's for the values that Watson believes in, or the party banner to which he's belonged for a long time. Those two things no longer coincide.

We could be about to see major splits in the two largest parties.

(But many of us have been saying that for at least a couple of years now, so it’s definitely a case of seeing is believing. The minor split that was TIG/CUK appears to be fizzling out - unless of course they become the vehicle for a much wider split).

The climax has yet to happen (indeed, it has been deferred so often precisely because of the risk of a split). There are three separate faultlines, all of which look overdue a seismic event - one in the Labour party, and one on each wing of the Conservative party. It's hard to see a resolution, or even a non-resolution, of Brexit this year that now does not result in one or more of those producing something measurable on the Richter scale. I think we've only seen early shocks.

You could well be right there. Usually, the locals would be the focus point for an epic fallout, but with the two new parties sitting out, the losses for the established parties could be more contained than most commentators expect.

That the locals lead straight into the Euros is more of a problem, with both main parties taking a massive hit as their internal splits become obvious to the wider public - who don’t follow things as closely as we all do on here.

We could also have the announcement of a by-election tonight, which will add fuel to the fire. I’ve a feeling Farage has a high-profile local candidate ready to go, on a platform of honesty and trust in politics.

> @kle4 said:
> > @Scott_P said:
>
> > https://twitter.com/rustinpeace00/status/1123481137010155526
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Watson has some difficult choices to make. Inaction is a choice. His post-TIG strategy looks to be in tatters. What does he do?
>
> Nothing. They've in essence already admitted the party leader could do anything, and the party move in any direction, and they would stay and try to fight for how they think things should go. The commitment is impressive but does rather bind their hands.

In physics there are many phenomena where incremental changes over a long period of time appear to have no effect, but then a transition point is reached and change is sudden and drastic. Think of the cooling of water to the freezing point.

Everyone has their breaking point.

Labour needs a leadership challenge this summer. There is at least a sliver of a chance that Jezza's refusal to give the 2nd vote will make some of momentum think again.

> @AlastairMeeks said:
> Have a wild rumour for free:
>
> https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/1123357647573520385

Wouldn't he be several weeks too late for the @TheIndGroup?

rottenborough said:

Labour needs a leadership challenge this summer. There is at least a sliver of a chance that Jezza's refusal to give the 2nd vote will make some of momentum think again.

They’ll need someone better than Owen Who? if they’re to challenge Corbyn though. If it’s not Starmer or Watson, there’s no point doing it.

> @Theuniondivvie said:
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > Have a wild rumour for free:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/1123357647573520385
>
> Wouldn't he be several weeks too late for the @TheIndGroup?

Perhaps he going to set up an Independent Independent Group?

i-TIG

> @Sandpit said:
> Labour needs a leadership challenge this summer. There is at least a sliver of a chance that Jezza's refusal to give the 2nd vote will make some of momentum think again.
>
> They’ll need someone better than Owen Who? if they’re to challenge Corbyn though. If it’s not Starmer or Watson, there’s no point doing it.

Agreed. Although add Emily to the list.

Maduro says the coup attempt in Venezuela has been defeated, though Mike Pompeo said he had a plane on the tarmac waiting to take him to Cuba

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-48117238

> @AlastairMeeks said:
> Good thread from John Rentoul on the likelihood of Theresa May caving into Labour's demands:
>
> https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1123493187165794304

Jezza won't do a deal.

rottenborough said:

> @AlastairMeeks said:

> Good thread from John Rentoul on the likelihood of Theresa May caving into Labour's demands:

>

>

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1123493187165794304

Jezza won't do a deal.

No, he won't.

As I pointed out to @isam yesterday, with the Conservatives desperate to do a deal to get shot of Brexit and Labour nervous about more Remainy parties, any cross-party deal would have to be super-soft. Even then I am very doubtful whether the leaderships could sell such deals to their respective parties. There are too many zealots on both sides to make this work.

AlastairMeeks said:

Good thread from John Rentoul on the likelihood of Theresa May caving into Labour's demands:

ttps://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1123493187165794304

The naked politics of this is just far too obvious. Labour aren’t going to actually agree to anything, certainly not to the point of actually voting for a compromise. They’ll keep going on about the possibility of one, even if they seem to agree at some point, before doing an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria on the day of the vote.

They’re talking up the most bonkers of all Brexit proposals, a customs union, to try and split the Tories straight down the middle - knowing that half the cabinet would resign to vote against any CU proposal.

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Good thread from John Rentoul on the likelihood of Theresa May caving into Labour's demands:

ttps://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1123493187165794304

The naked politics of this is just far too obvious. Labour aren’t going to actually agree to anything, certainly not to the point of actually voting for a compromise. They’ll keep going on about the possibility of one, even if they seem to agree at some point, before doing an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria on the day of the vote.

They’re talking up the most bonkers of all Brexit proposals, a customs union, to try and split the Tories straight down the middle - knowing that half the cabinet would resign to vote against any CU proposal.

Yes but what game is the Tory top brass playing by allowing themselves to be strung along so obviously?

Alistair said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Stacey Abrams was last matched at 50 for the Democrat nomination. If she stands, she'll be one to watch - she is really liked by those who know her.

Elizabeth Warren still looks too long to me.

I'm struggling with Warren, my personal like for her is making me reticent to back her as I fear my judgement is being clouded.

I've realised that one thing that helps me with betting on US politics is that I have absolutely no emotional investment in it. My reason for concluding that Elizabeth Warren is too long is that she is rising in the polls and is getting the right kind of positive coverage from commentators. She looks set to be the flavour of this month.

Farage putting an apologist for the Warrington IRA attacks at the top of the list for the Brexit party in NW England looks to be a major own goal. If Labour had a candidate with similar views to those expressed by Claire Fox it would be all over every front pages - and quite rightly so.

Farage tells us time and time again how much he cares about the victims of the paedophile gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere. Let's see what he does about the top of the list candidate for his party who backed the child killers of Warrington.

> @geoffw said:
> Good thread from John Rentoul on the likelihood of Theresa May caving into Labour's demands:
>
> ttps://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1123493187165794304
>
> The naked politics of this is just far too obvious. Labour aren’t going to actually agree to anything, certainly not to the point of actually voting for a compromise. They’ll keep going on about the possibility of one, even if they seem to agree at some point, before doing an Ed-Miliband-on-Syria on the day of the vote.
>
> They’re talking up the most bonkers of all Brexit proposals, a customs union, to try and split the Tories straight down the middle - knowing that half the cabinet would resign to vote against any CU proposal.
>
> Yes but what game is the Tory top brass playing by allowing themselves to be strung along so obviously?

Theresa May is running down the clock. For Labour to make a deal, May's successor would need to commit to keeping the Tories' end. Any idea who that will be and how they can be so bound?

> @SouthamObserver said:
> Farage putting an apologist for the Warrington IRA attacks at the top of the list for the Brexit party in NW England looks to be a major own goal. <b>If Labour had a candidate with similar views to those expressed by Claire Fox it would be all over every front pages - and quite rightly so. </b>
>
> Farage tells us time and time again how much he cares about the victims of the paedophile gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere. Let's see what he does about the top of the list candidate for his party who backed the child killers of Warrington.

It is all over the papers, what's your problem?

And Labour didn't do too badly in Warrington in 2017 despite the leadership's past with the IRA.

> @HYUFD said:
> Maduro says the coup attempt in Venezuela has been defeated, though Mike Pompeo said he had a plane on the tarmac waiting to take him to Cuba
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-48117238

A bogof 'they would say that wouldn't they'.

> @marke09 said:
> if you have 15 hours to spare and nothing better to do n Bank Holiday Monday then BBC Parliament will be re showing Election night and following morning from May 1979 - at least there will be some good news for the Tories

Well I might have done but that is a hell of a spoiler!

SouthamObserver said:

Farage putting an apologist for the Warrington IRA attacks at the top of the list for the Brexit party in NW England looks to be a major own goal. If Labour had a candidate with similar views to those expressed by Claire Fox it would be all over every front pages - and quite rightly so.



Farage tells us time and time again how much he cares about the victims of the paedophile gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere. Let's see what he does about the top of the list candidate for his party who backed the child killers of Warrington.

What price are you she wins a seat?

DavidL said:

> @marke09 said:

> if you have 15 hours to spare and nothing better to do n Bank Holiday Monday then BBC Parliament will be re showing Election night and following morning from May 1979 - at least there will be some good news for the Tories



Well I might have done but that is a hell of a spoiler!

It was clearly a very good night for me (born Feb 1980).