politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big question is whether and how the debate impacts on v
Comments
-
If that does now become UKIP's official position then as an atheist it is one I would be able to support. However my perception is that there is a strong Christian element to UKIP support and the suggestion of separation of church and marriage is not one that would necessarily go down well so I would be surprised if that plan became the mainstream official position of UKIP.isam said:
Didn't Farage articulate UKIPs view on SSM last week as taking the legal version of marriage away from churches, so everyone had equal rights to marriage under the law of the land, and allowing churches to conduct ceremonies for people who wanted a religiously blessed marriage?Richard_Tyndall said:
But since Farage has always made clear his opposition to the ECHR this would seem to be far more about that organisation and its ability to over-rule current SSM legislation than about SSM per se which I get the impression he doesn't have any hugely strong feelings about.JackW said:
There has been confusion on Ukip's position on SSM but unless I misheard last night Farage stated unequivocally that he opposed SSM whilst the ECHR had a potential say over whether or not some churches should be able to reject SSM.Richard_Tyndall said:
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.JosiasJessop said:Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
That said I still disagree with the basic UKIP position on SSM.
Then churches could choose (or discriminate against) who they were prepared to marry, without states sanctions, and it wouldn't matter which sex was marrying which under the law.0 -
SA V NL in 20/20 up shortly. NL won toss and elected to bowl.0
-
I thought their Gt Yarmouth agent was being done for election malpractice? Forging nomination papers or some such. Wouldn’t that upset their applecart a bit?dyedwoolie said:Ultimately, the Kippers will get a huge boost for the Euros, no one really cares and it's a chance to register a protest. That in itself says everything you need to know about project democracy out.
When it comes to the GE, UKIP will have increased coverage and exposure and will need to bring forward some of its others as spokesmen. I expect some or many of its '11%' to recoil and reassess. Look at its leader before Farage. Straight out of The Tory 1986 conference.
Angry old buffers party (no offence). Not for government. They will win Gt Yarmouth though0 -
If he is arguing for the Church to be able to decide who it will marry and that citizens will no longer have a legal right to be married in their parish church then he is arguing for disestablishment and I can't see that going down well in the Kipper heartlands.Richard_Tyndall said:
If that does now become UKIP's official position then as an atheist it is one I would be able to support. However my perception is that there is a strong Christian element to UKIP support and the suggestion of separation of church and marriage is not one that would necessarily go down well so I would be surprised if that plan became the mainstream official position of UKIP.isam said:
Didn't Farage articulate UKIPs view on SSM last week as taking the legal version of marriage away from churches, so everyone had equal rights to marriage under the law of the land, and allowing churches to conduct ceremonies for people who wanted a religiously blessed marriage?Richard_Tyndall said:
But since Farage has always made clear his opposition to the ECHR this would seem to be far more about that organisation and its ability to over-rule current SSM legislation than about SSM per se which I get the impression he doesn't have any hugely strong feelings about.JackW said:
There has been confusion on Ukip's position on SSM but unless I misheard last night Farage stated unequivocally that he opposed SSM whilst the ECHR had a potential say over whether or not some churches should be able to reject SSM.Richard_Tyndall said:
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.JosiasJessop said:Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
That said I still disagree with the basic UKIP position on SSM.
Then churches could choose (or discriminate against) who they were prepared to marry, without states sanctions, and it wouldn't matter which sex was marrying which under the law.0 -
Actually there are some cracking good comments under that piece of SeanT's:
"yesterday Nigel Farage pointed out that our food is better as a result of European influence. Yet Gordon Brown still munches his own bogies."
"Scotch whiskey is like Californian wine. It's perfectly OK"
Tee hee.0 -
Tbh, I'm a patriotic Englishman in favour of Yes because I want the Scots to go their own way. I spend a lot of time up here in Scotland, adore it and consider it the second loveliest place on Earth behind Norfolk, but the culture, the law and the vision is not that of England. That's where the acrimony comes in. Cut the cords and we can snuggle together happily going our own ways.Bond_James_Bond said:
I liked the one who said that "every patriotic Englishman should be on his knees praying for Scottish independence morning, noon and night."Financier said:
@SeanTSeanT said:I'm in Heathrow, off to Ireland. Talking of English colonies, I did a blog on indyref
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100265140/without-scotland-labour-will-be-mutilated-and-traumatised-for-a-generation/
Pb-ers may recognise some of the sentiments.
There are some lovely comments on your piece including: "Without Scotland Labour would just be the Immigrants Party."
So it's not just me.
0 -
We're not dealing with the smartest apples in the world. Gt. Yarmouth is a hole. The only hole in Norfolk, but a hole nonetheless. Full of angry chavs and greasy chips. They just want to do different as we say here. UKIP to win a three way struggle.OldKingCole said:
I thought their Gt Yarmouth agent was being done for election malpractice? Forging nomination papers or some such. Wouldn’t that upset their applecart a bit?dyedwoolie said:Ultimately, the Kippers will get a huge boost for the Euros, no one really cares and it's a chance to register a protest. That in itself says everything you need to know about project democracy out.
When it comes to the GE, UKIP will have increased coverage and exposure and will need to bring forward some of its others as spokesmen. I expect some or many of its '11%' to recoil and reassess. Look at its leader before Farage. Straight out of The Tory 1986 conference.
Angry old buffers party (no offence). Not for government. They will win Gt Yarmouth though
0 -
Scotch whisky doesn't have an e. Naughty Sean did that deliberately.Bond_James_Bond said:Actually there are some cracking good comments under that piece of SeanT's:
"yesterday Nigel Farage pointed out that our food is better as a result of European influence. Yet Gordon Brown still munches his own bogies."
"Scotch whiskey is like Californian wine. It's perfectly OK"
Tee hee.0 -
We didn't really have a dog in the fight, so it's a more or less objective view. I'd have said Farage on the "who won" basis, even though I disagreed with most of what he said, but it wan't a huge margin.MonikerDiCanio said:
I note that Labour voters split 50:50 between Farage and Clegg. What do you make of that ?NickPalmer said:I've only seen the 5-minute highlights on the Guardian page. Based on those, I felt that the EU membership cause (which I favour) wasn't very well served by Clegg - he had IMO good arguments but just seemed underpowered. Farage seemed objectively quite good, foreceful but not hectoring - in the extracts he doesn't shout or interrupt, though maybe he did elsewhere.
0 -
oh and as I find myself repeating ad nauseam on here, which is surprising given the clientele, the ECHR issue is often (wilfully?) misunderstood and is a red herring.
Under the Margin of Appreciation doctrine the ECHR prefers to allow individual member states to rule on religious issues such as this.
In short there is no way in the world that the ECHR, or the High Court for that matter, would even contemplate forcing religious organisations to carry out SSM against their will.0 -
Weirdly obsessed with my back story. Ugh.TheWatcher said:
Why not repost some of the comments from your 'lurkers archive' as a reminder?BobaFett said:So the energy companies who were not ripping us off have been referred to Ofgem amid fears that they might be ripping us off after all.
One for the PB Conservatives who assured us that Ed was wrong and all was rosy in the garden to consider on this sunny spring morn.-1 -
Woolie. Even I wouldn't want UKIP as it is currently configured and with its current social policies to become the party of government and I am a party member!dyedwoolie said:Ultimately, the Kippers will get a huge boost for the Euros, no one really cares and it's a chance to register a protest. That in itself says everything you need to know about project democracy out.
When it comes to the GE, UKIP will have increased coverage and exposure and will need to bring forward some of its others as spokesmen. I expect some or many of its '11%' to recoil and reassess. Look at its leader before Farage. Straight out of The Tory 1986 conference.
Angry old buffers party (no offence). Not for government. They will win Gt Yarmouth though
0 -
Do people have a legal right to be married in their parish church? I thought there were certain criteria - such as attendance - that could be enforced (don't know though, as we got married under an Archbishop's Licence).TOPPING said:
If he is arguing for the Church to be able to decide who it will marry and that citizens will no longer have a legal right to be married in their parish church then he is arguing for disestablishment and I can't see that going down well in the Kipper heartlands.
AIUI, the legal "marriage" in a church actually takes place when the register is signed. The rest of the service is ancillary and religious, but not legal. I don't see why requiring the paperwork to have been done beforehand would be equivalent to disestablishment0 -
Obviously you want it to come, that's not in doubt. You are the one predicting it so why not say when you will think it will occur?SquareRoot said:BobaFett said:
Well yes it is indeed quite possible. It has been quite possible for a while. We have been subject to crossover forecasts for about a year or more now so, for the record, when do you expect crossover to occur?SquareRoot said:
That's true , but Ed is crap with them too but not quite so crap. I expect he will have taken a knock when the nextMori ratings come out so don't hold your breath.BobaFett said:
Are Best PM stats meaningful? My understanding is that the Mori leader ratings are the only ones worth bothering withFinancier said:Re;YouGov
App: -16
Best PM (compared to one week ago)
Dave:37(+3)
Ed: 22 (-3)
Just 55% of LAB VI support Ed, whilsl 94% of CON VI and 6% of LAB VI support Dave
What excuses are you going to use if and when crossover happens?> its quite possible it will happen soon.
P.S. I'm not making excuses, merely pointing out that Best PM metrics are pointless as they always massively favour the, erm, PM.
If crossover happens , it will certainly knock the overconfidence of the left leaning posters on here. If for only that reason, crossover cannot come soon enough.0 -
Hehehehe, good man yourself.Richard_Tyndall said:
Woolie. Even I wouldn't want UKIP as it is currently configured and with its current social policies to become the party of government and I am a party member!dyedwoolie said:Ultimately, the Kippers will get a huge boost for the Euros, no one really cares and it's a chance to register a protest. That in itself says everything you need to know about project democracy out.
When it comes to the GE, UKIP will have increased coverage and exposure and will need to bring forward some of its others as spokesmen. I expect some or many of its '11%' to recoil and reassess. Look at its leader before Farage. Straight out of The Tory 1986 conference.
Angry old buffers party (no offence). Not for government. They will win Gt Yarmouth though
It's not the revolution I am waiting for, that's for sure.
0 -
As gay marriage is now legal - and will never be rescinded - it might be time for those who seek to deny joy to others for no good reason to focus on some other liberalising measure that they want to stop.0
-
Right, off for tea with Nessie. Laters, pundits.0
-
I don't think you really understand how the "margin of appreciation" doctrine works in practice. I would direct you to Lord Hoffmann's excellent 2009 lecture on the 'The Universality of Human Rights' at [27] and [43] (pp. 14 & 25-26). The English courts take a different approach.TOPPING said:oh and as I find myself repeating ad nauseam on here, which is surprising given the clientele, the ECHR issue is often (wilfully?) misunderstood and is a red herring.
Under the Margin of Appreciation doctrine the ECHR prefers to allow individual member states to rule on religious issues such as this.
In short there is no way in the world that the ECHR, or the High Court for that matter, would even contemplate forcing religious organisations to carry out SSM against their will.0 -
Yep it is a legal right as the Church acts as part of goverment in this instance. There are exemptions such as the CoE's attitude to divorce whereby individual ministers can effectively decide for themselves.Charles said:
Do people have a legal right to be married in their parish church? I thought there were certain criteria - such as attendance - that could be enforced (don't know though, as we got married under an Archbishop's Licence).TOPPING said:
If he is arguing for the Church to be able to decide who it will marry and that citizens will no longer have a legal right to be married in their parish church then he is arguing for disestablishment and I can't see that going down well in the Kipper heartlands.
AIUI, the legal "marriage" in a church actually takes place when the register is signed. The rest of the service is ancillary and religious, but not legal. I don't see why requiring the paperwork to have been done beforehand would be equivalent to disestablishment
This exemption is not being afforded to SSM because Canon Law still prohibits it (SSM) so in order not to set up a conflict between Canon Law and statute law (and thereby provoke a route to disestablishment), SSM in the CoE has to remain illegal.
Until the CoE decides, of course, to amend Canon Law in favour of SSM (edit: which will trigger a change to statute law).0 -
Here's the Indy report on the debate.. they seem to think Putin was watching, how ridiculous!
Everyone knows Vladimir watches Masterchef on Wednesday evenings
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-vs-nick-clegg--was-the-real-winner-putin-9218302.html0 -
Conservative voters (as of 2013) tended to split fairly evenly. People who voted Conservative in 2010 tended to be opposed by a net 15% or so, according to Yougov. The former were about 32% of the voters, the latter 37%.JackW said:
Sean, IIRC the figure for Conservative voters on SSM was pretty even. Do you have the exact numbers to hand ?Sean_F said:
Yougov surveyed Conservative members last July. They split 60/24% against gay marriage, 67/18% against protecting the overseas aid budget.JosiasJessop said:
Has there been a survey, or is this opinion?Sean_F said:
Farage's opinions are of course, shared by many, if not most, Conservative members.Easterross said:The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
0 -
Yesterday the thread header said it would be interesting to see what todays papers made of the debate as to who did best...
4-0 to Farage according to the BBCs round up
Most newspapers declared the UKIP leader the winner of the first round, taking their cue from the YouGov poll.
The Times said the margin of the UKIP leader's victory was "convincing"
"Instant poll says Feisty Farage beat cool Clegg," said the Guardian, but accused the UKIP leader of trading in "polemic and distorted facts".
The Telegraph said both men will be satisfied with the event, which has "whetted the appetite for similar televised clashes in the general election campaign next year".
But Mark Wallace, , writing on Conservative Home, said it could establish a precedent for "Second Division" political debates, adding "might Cameron and Miliband be able to do a head to head First Division debate next year?"
The Daily Mail declared "First blood to Farage"
The Sun said: "Nigel fries Clegg for breakfast - he wins TV debate."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-267612580 -
Banning payment for sex?BobaFett said:As gay marriage is now legal - and will never be rescinded - it might be time for those who seek to deny joy to others for no good reason to focus on some other liberalising measure that they want to stop.
Although that's more of a left-wing cause.0 -
Make that 4-1! Here is The Mirrors verdict..
My oh my, my parents still buy this rag!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-lets-mask-slip-3290406
NewsNow is quite good here as it lists the headlines from all publications
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Current+Affairs/Government+&+Politics/Nick+Clegg0 -
Carnyx, naive to think that people on here would want to see the truth re the bias in the media on the referendum. Do you not read the bollox written on here about it.Carnyx said:http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8937-fairness-in-february
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.0 -
The cost of living crisis is really biting.
Year on year, people are buying 3.7% more stuff, and paying 0.2% less for each item of stuff.0 -
Year-on-year estimates of the quantity bought in the retail industry continued to show growth. In February 2014, the quantity bought increased by 3.7% compared with February 2013.
The three month on previous three month movement in the quantity bought showed continued growth for the twelfth consecutive period increasing by 1.6%. This has been the longest period of sustained growth since November 2007.
The average prices of goods sold showed deflation of 0.2% with fuel providing the greatest contribution to this at 4.4%. The last time store price deflation occurred was September 2009 (0.8%) when fuel was again the main contributor at 5.8%.
In February 2014, the amount spent in the retail industry increased by 3.5% compared with February 2013 and by 1.3% compared with January 2014. Non seasonally adjusted data show that the average weekly spend in the retail industry in February 2014 was £6.6 billion compared with £6.3 billion in February 2013 and £6.4 billion in January 2014.
The amount spent online increased by 12.4% in February 2014 compared with February 2013 and by 2.5% compared with January 2014.0 -
Dear elderly working class people
As a reward for working hard your whole life, and maybe serving your country in war, we are going to transform the area you have called home so much, and so quickly, that you hate living there and feel like a stranger, change the law on marriage so that it no longer means what you thought it did when you signed the contract 50 years ago, and pay you 0.25% interest on your hard earned savings
Any complaints will see you branded a racist, homophobic old bigot
Regards
Middle Class Lefties
PS Hope we can count on your vote at the forthcoming election
0 -
For Isam, Francis, Saddened and The Watcher, the quartet who spend far too much energy obsessing over my back story, I have exciting news.
Disney are planning a film about it.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/02/06/star-wars-spin-offs-young-han-solo-movie-boba-fett/-1 -
Past caring really now, just astonished that I got banned for 14 days for mentioning it, when you admit it freelyBobaFett said:For Isam, Francis, Saddened and The Watcher, the quartet who spend far too much energy obsessing over my back story, I have exciting news.
Disney are planning a film about it.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/02/06/star-wars-spin-offs-young-han-solo-movie-boba-fett/
Your strange behaviour must make it very difficult for the Moderators and Mike who, rightly in my opinion, take a low view of posters accusing newcomers of being an old poster under a new name0 -
When UKIP has friends like Richard_Tyndall, who needs enemies?dyedwoolie said:
Hehehehe, good man yourself.Richard_Tyndall said:
Woolie. Even I wouldn't want UKIP as it is currently configured and with its current social policies to become the party of government and I am a party member!dyedwoolie said:Ultimately, the Kippers will get a huge boost for the Euros, no one really cares and it's a chance to register a protest. That in itself says everything you need to know about project democracy out.
When it comes to the GE, UKIP will have increased coverage and exposure and will need to bring forward some of its others as spokesmen. I expect some or many of its '11%' to recoil and reassess. Look at its leader before Farage. Straight out of The Tory 1986 conference.
Angry old buffers party (no offence). Not for government. They will win Gt Yarmouth though
It's not the revolution I am waiting for, that's for sure.0 -
Sam quite a lot has changed over the past 50 years. And 50 years prior to that the world was a world away in difference as well. I am far far far far far from being a middle class lefty but I think if you take a step back and examine what you want, you might see that you are arguing (pining) for a lost world and one which doesn't change. And that just isn't the way it works.isam said:Dear elderly working class people
As a reward for working hard your whole life, and maybe serving your country in war, we are going to transform the area you have called home so much, and so quickly, that you hate living there and feel like a stranger, change the law on marriage so that it no longer means what you thought it did when you signed the contract 50 years ago, and pay you 0.25% interest on your hard earned savings
Any complaints will see you branded a racist, homophobic old bigot
Regards
Middle Class Lefties
PS Hope we can count on your vote at the forthcoming election0 -
@isam
"change the law on marriage so that it no longer means what you thought it did when you signed the contract 50 years ago,"
I'm pretty sure not a single couple married 50 years ago has seen their contract changed, unless they themselves got divorced. In terms of the overall meaning of marriage, it's still exactly the same: two people that are in love resolving to spend their lives together, in front of witnesses and, possibly, God. I don't see why so many people have a problem with that.0 -
Here here.dyedwoolie said:
Tbh, I'm a patriotic Englishman in favour of Yes because I want the Scots to go their own way. I spend a lot of time up here in Scotland, adore it and consider it the second loveliest place on Earth behind Norfolk, but the culture, the law and the vision is not that of England. That's where the acrimony comes in. Cut the cords and we can snuggle together happily going our own ways.Bond_James_Bond said:
I liked the one who said that "every patriotic Englishman should be on his knees praying for Scottish independence morning, noon and night."Financier said:
@SeanTSeanT said:I'm in Heathrow, off to Ireland. Talking of English colonies, I did a blog on indyref
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100265140/without-scotland-labour-will-be-mutilated-and-traumatised-for-a-generation/
Pb-ers may recognise some of the sentiments.
There are some lovely comments on your piece including: "Without Scotland Labour would just be the Immigrants Party."
So it's not just me.
0 -
Thankfully there's no chance Farage's foolish comments on Ukraine will affect things. That does not make those comments any less stupid however. I strongly believe we should leave the EU, but that does not mean we should stop being close allies with them, particularly if that means blaming people who have done nothing wrong for Russia's land grab from a neighbour.isam said:Here's the Indy report on the debate.. they seem to think Putin was watching, how ridiculous!
Everyone knows Vladimir watches Masterchef on Wednesday evenings
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-vs-nick-clegg--was-the-real-winner-putin-9218302.html0 -
Is "here here" Swedish for "hear,hear"?Stuart_Dickson said:
Here here.dyedwoolie said:
Tbh, I'm a patriotic Englishman in favour of Yes because I want the Scots to go their own way. I spend a lot of time up here in Scotland, adore it and consider it the second loveliest place on Earth behind Norfolk, but the culture, the law and the vision is not that of England. That's where the acrimony comes in. Cut the cords and we can snuggle together happily going our own ways.Bond_James_Bond said:
I liked the one who said that "every patriotic Englishman should be on his knees praying for Scottish independence morning, noon and night."Financier said:
@SeanTSeanT said:I'm in Heathrow, off to Ireland. Talking of English colonies, I did a blog on indyref
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100265140/without-scotland-labour-will-be-mutilated-and-traumatised-for-a-generation/
Pb-ers may recognise some of the sentiments.
There are some lovely comments on your piece including: "Without Scotland Labour would just be the Immigrants Party."
So it's not just me.
0 -
Anglicans that believe such a thing are foolish. Their church would be far more successful if it was free from interference from the state.Richard_Tyndall said:
If that does now become UKIP's official position then as an atheist it is one I would be able to support. However my perception is that there is a strong Christian element to UKIP support and the suggestion of separation of church and marriage is not one that would necessarily go down well so I would be surprised if that plan became the mainstream official position of UKIP.isam said:
Didn't Farage articulate UKIPs view on SSM last week as taking the legal version of marriage away from churches, so everyone had equal rights to marriage under the law of the land, and allowing churches to conduct ceremonies for people who wanted a religiously blessed marriage?Richard_Tyndall said:
But since Farage has always made clear his opposition to the ECHR this would seem to be far more about that organisation and its ability to over-rule current SSM legislation than about SSM per se which I get the impression he doesn't have any hugely strong feelings about.JackW said:
There has been confusion on Ukip's position on SSM but unless I misheard last night Farage stated unequivocally that he opposed SSM whilst the ECHR had a potential say over whether or not some churches should be able to reject SSM.Richard_Tyndall said:
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.JosiasJessop said:Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
That said I still disagree with the basic UKIP position on SSM.
Then churches could choose (or discriminate against) who they were prepared to marry, without states sanctions, and it wouldn't matter which sex was marrying which under the law.0 -
BobaFett said:
For Isam, Francis, Saddened and The Watcher, the quartet who spend far too much energy obsessing over my back story, I have exciting news.
Disney are planning a film about it.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/02/06/star-wars-spin-offs-young-han-solo-movie-boba-fett/
In fairness to you Isam you haven't mentioned it for a while so I am happy to call the matter closed. I hope the other three will talk about something else too.isam said:
Past caring really now, just astonished that I got banned for 14 days for mentioning it, when you admit it freelyBobaFett said:For Isam, Francis, Saddened and The Watcher, the quartet who spend far too much energy obsessing over my back story, I have exciting news.
Disney are planning a film about it.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/02/06/star-wars-spin-offs-young-han-solo-movie-boba-fett/
Your strange behaviour must make it very difficult for the Moderators and Mike who, rightly in my opinion, take a low view of posters accusing newcomers of being an old poster under a new name
0 -
Not at all. UKIP like all parties is a tool to achieve certain political ends. If those ends can be achieved through pressure rather than direct rule then all the better. There are large parts of the UKIP agenda I am strongly supportive of and others that I strongly oppose. As such I will be pleased to see UKIP do well to the extent of getting MPs and putting pressure on the other parties over issues like Europe, grammar schools and flat taxes whilst being opposed to the idea they might get into power with their current very conservative social policies.MikeK said:
When UKIP has friends like Richard_Tyndall, who needs enemies?dyedwoolie said:
Hehehehe, good man yourself.Richard_Tyndall said:
Woolie. Even I wouldn't want UKIP as it is currently configured and with its current social policies to become the party of government and I am a party member!dyedwoolie said:Ultimately, the Kippers will get a huge boost for the Euros, no one really cares and it's a chance to register a protest. That in itself says everything you need to know about project democracy out.
When it comes to the GE, UKIP will have increased coverage and exposure and will need to bring forward some of its others as spokesmen. I expect some or many of its '11%' to recoil and reassess. Look at its leader before Farage. Straight out of The Tory 1986 conference.
Angry old buffers party (no offence). Not for government. They will win Gt Yarmouth though
It's not the revolution I am waiting for, that's for sure.
Unlike some on here, apparently including yourself, I do not see blind loyalty to a party to be a good thing. You should be grateful I am giving UKIP money and support at the moment (and have given far more in the past in terms of research and support for the anti-EU movement) because some of our aims coincide.
A critical friend is far more valuable than a sycophantic enemy.0 -
Agreed. But again I am probably not the best person to comment on this given my staunch atheism.Socrates said:
Anglicans that believe such a thing are foolish. Their church would be far more successful if it was free from interference from the state.Richard_Tyndall said:
If that does now become UKIP's official position then as an atheist it is one I would be able to support. However my perception is that there is a strong Christian element to UKIP support and the suggestion of separation of church and marriage is not one that would necessarily go down well so I would be surprised if that plan became the mainstream official position of UKIP.isam said:
Didn't Farage articulate UKIPs view on SSM last week as taking the legal version of marriage away from churches, so everyone had equal rights to marriage under the law of the land, and allowing churches to conduct ceremonies for people who wanted a religiously blessed marriage?Richard_Tyndall said:
But since Farage has always made clear his opposition to the ECHR this would seem to be far more about that organisation and its ability to over-rule current SSM legislation than about SSM per se which I get the impression he doesn't have any hugely strong feelings about.JackW said:
There has been confusion on Ukip's position on SSM but unless I misheard last night Farage stated unequivocally that he opposed SSM whilst the ECHR had a potential say over whether or not some churches should be able to reject SSM.Richard_Tyndall said:
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.JosiasJessop said:Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
That said I still disagree with the basic UKIP position on SSM.
Then churches could choose (or discriminate against) who they were prepared to marry, without states sanctions, and it wouldn't matter which sex was marrying which under the law.0 -
1. The marriage contract hasn't changed as it's still a contract if love between two human beings.isam said:Dear elderly working class people
As a reward for working hard your whole life, and maybe serving your country in war, we are going to transform the area you have called home so much, and so quickly, that you hate living there and feel like a stranger, change the law on marriage so that it no longer means what you thought it did when you signed the contract 50 years ago, and pay you 0.25% interest on your hard earned savings
Any complaints will see you branded a racist, homophobic old bigot
Regards
Middle Class Lefties
PS Hope we can count on your vote at the forthcoming election
2. It's not the "lefties" fault that interest rates are low. And it's a good thing as the last thing we need is excessive saving in the foothills of recovery. Paradox of thrift.
0 -
New Ladbrokes market: Edinburgh North & Leith (Lab Maj = 1,724)
Lab 1/20
LD 8/1
SNP 50/1
Con 100/1
UKIP 100/1
Result 2011:
Lab 12,858
SNP 12,263
Con 2,928
LD 2,836
It is very hard to see why the SNP is priced at 50/1. I realise that Holyrood and Westminster VI patterns are different, but not *that* different.0 -
Are you a monarchist or a republican, out of interest?Richard_Tyndall said:
Agreed. But again I am probably not the best person to comment on this given my staunch atheism.Socrates said:
Anglicans that believe such a thing are foolish. Their church would be far more successful if it was free from interference from the state.Richard_Tyndall said:
If that does now become UKIP's official position then as an atheist it is one I would be able to support. However my perception is that there is a strong Christian element to UKIP support and the suggestion of separation of church and marriage is not one that would necessarily go down well so I would be surprised if that plan became the mainstream official position of UKIP.isam said:
Didn't Farage articulate UKIPs view on SSM last week as taking the legal version of marriage away from churches, so everyone had equal rights to marriage under the law of the land, and allowing churches to conduct ceremonies for people who wanted a religiously blessed marriage?Richard_Tyndall said:
But since Farage has always made clear his opposition to the ECHR this would seem to be far more about that organisation and its ability to over-rule current SSM legislation than about SSM per se which I get the impression he doesn't have any hugely strong feelings about.JackW said:
There has been confusion on Ukip's position on SSM but unless I misheard last night Farage stated unequivocally that he opposed SSM whilst the ECHR had a potential say over whether or not some churches should be able to reject SSM.Richard_Tyndall said:
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.JosiasJessop said:Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
That said I still disagree with the basic UKIP position on SSM.
Then churches could choose (or discriminate against) who they were prepared to marry, without states sanctions, and it wouldn't matter which sex was marrying which under the law.
0 -
Im not arguing for a lost world etcTOPPING said:
Sam quite a lot has changed over the past 50 years. And 50 years prior to that the world was a world away in difference as well. I am far far far far far from being a middle class lefty but I think if you take a step back and examine what you want, you might see that you are arguing (pining) for a lost world and one which doesn't change. And that just isn't the way it works.isam said:Dear elderly working class people
As a reward for working hard your whole life, and maybe serving your country in war, we are going to transform the area you have called home so much, and so quickly, that you hate living there and feel like a stranger, change the law on marriage so that it no longer means what you thought it did when you signed the contract 50 years ago, and pay you 0.25% interest on your hard earned savings
Any complaints will see you branded a racist, homophobic old bigot
Regards
Middle Class Lefties
PS Hope we can count on your vote at the forthcoming election
What I am saying is that more consideration should be given to those who feel that they have lost something important to them because of rapid social change. Instead they are smeared and cast out as bigots and homophobes.
As I have said before, I studied Humanities at Brighton Uni, possibly the most LGBT friendly place on earth, in 2010-2011. Not once was the unfairness of the marriage laws to gay people mentioned, and believe me, they thought the world should be turned upside down.
Yet two years later, people who said they didn't approve of it were shouted down as bigoted homophobes etc.
Listen to the this from 25:30 on.. Anastasia Duval of Civitas
"it worries me that we are very intolerant of views we see as illiberal. I was a big supporter of same sex marriage, and very keen on the legislation coming through, but I was equally shocked by the fact that people who wanted to talk about why they had an issue with same sex marriage were not really able to.. there was too much of a sense of 'these are views that I must not hear because they are illegitimate views... liberalism needs to include illiberalism in discussion, and if you don't have that, its not liberalism"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03yn83q0 -
John Rentoul takes a perspective on the debate last night that I disagree with more or less from beginning to end:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/clegg-vs-farage-both-leaders-achieved-what-they-set-out-to-do-9218482.html0 -
I hope some of the ice between you two is thawing. Your differences on Ukraine ought not lead to personal enmity.Socrates said:
Are you a monarchist or a republican, out of interest?Richard_Tyndall said:
Agreed. But again I am probably not the best person to comment on this given my staunch atheism.Socrates said:
Anglicans that believe such a thing are foolish. Their church would be far more successful if it was free from interference from the state.Richard_Tyndall said:
If that does now become UKIP's official position then as an atheist it is one I would be able to support. However my perception is that there is a strong Christian element to UKIP support and the suggestion of separation of church and marriage is not one that would necessarily go down well so I would be surprised if that plan became the mainstream official position of UKIP.isam said:
Didn't Farage articulate UKIPs view on SSM last week as taking the legal version of marriage away from churches, so everyone had equal rights to marriage under the law of the land, and allowing churches to conduct ceremonies for people who wanted a religiously blessed marriage?Richard_Tyndall said:JackW said:
There has been confusion on Ukip's position on SSM but unless I misheard last night Farage stated unequivocally that he opposed SSM whilst the ECHR had a potential say over whether or not some churches should be able to reject SSM.Richard_Tyndall said:
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.JosiasJessop said:Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
That said I still disagree with the basic UKIP position on SSM.
Then churches could choose (or discriminate against) who they were prepared to marry, without states sanctions, and it wouldn't matter which sex was marrying which under the law.0 -
Rentoul makes the winners to be Cameron, Farage, and Clegg. What does that make EdM?antifrank said:John Rentoul takes a perspective on the debate last night that I disagree with more or less from beginning to end:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/clegg-vs-farage-both-leaders-achieved-what-they-set-out-to-do-9218482.html
0 -
An apology for getting me banned under false pretences would have been the right course of action, but as that is beyond you, Im happy to call the matter closed.BobaFett said:BobaFett said:For Isam, Francis, Saddened and The Watcher, the quartet who spend far too much energy obsessing over my back story, I have exciting news.
Disney are planning a film about it.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/02/06/star-wars-spin-offs-young-han-solo-movie-boba-fett/
In fairness to you Isam you haven't mentioned it for a while so I am happy to call the matter closed. I hope the other three will talk about something else too.isam said:
Past caring really now, just astonished that I got banned for 14 days for mentioning it, when you admit it freelyBobaFett said:For Isam, Francis, Saddened and The Watcher, the quartet who spend far too much energy obsessing over my back story, I have exciting news.
Disney are planning a film about it.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/02/06/star-wars-spin-offs-young-han-solo-movie-boba-fett/
Your strange behaviour must make it very difficult for the Moderators and Mike who, rightly in my opinion, take a low view of posters accusing newcomers of being an old poster under a new name0 -
Here's your chance to talk about it. Do you oppose gay marriage? If so, why?isam said:
Im not arguing for a lost world etcTOPPING said:
Sam quite a lot has changed over the past 50 years. And 50 years prior to that the world was a world away in difference as well. I am far far far far far from being a middle class lefty but I think if you take a step back and examine what you want, you might see that you are arguing (pining) for a lost world and one which doesn't change. And that just isn't the way it works.isam said:Dear elderly working class people
As a reward for working hard your whole life, and maybe serving your country in war, we are going to transform the area you have called home so much, and so quickly, that you hate living there and feel like a stranger, change the law on marriage so that it no longer means what you thought it did when you signed the contract 50 years ago, and pay you 0.25% interest on your hard earned savings
Any complaints will see you branded a racist, homophobic old bigot
Regards
Middle Class Lefties
PS Hope we can count on your vote at the forthcoming election
What I am saying is that more consideration should be given to those who feel that they have lost something important to them because of rapid social change. Instead they are smeared and cast out as bigots and homophobes.
As I have said before, I studied Humanities at Brighton Uni, possibly the most LGBT friendly place on earth, in 2010-2011. Not once was the unfairness of the marriage laws to gay people mentioned, and believe me, they thought the world should be turned upside down.
Yet two years later, people who said they didn't approve of it were shouted down as bigoted homophobes etc.
Listen to the this from 25:30 on.. Anastasia Duval of Civitas
"it worries me that we are very intolerant of views we see as illiberal. I was a big supporter of same sex marriage, and very keen on the legislation coming through, but I was equally shocked by the fact that people who wanted to talk about why they had an issue with same sex marriage were not really able to.. there was too much of a sense of 'these are views that I must not hear because they are illegitimate views... liberalism needs to include illiberalism in discussion, and if you don't have that, its not liberalism"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03yn83q
0 -
Pragmatic monarchist.Socrates said:
Are you a monarchist or a republican, out of interest?
I am not particularly taken with the current lot and feel no real loyalty to them as individuals but appreciate the value of a figure head separate from the political process to whom army and police swear allegiance and who can represent the country in a non political way on the world stage. Any elected head of state would inevitably be politicised to the detriment of our foreign and domestic affairs.
I also see the huge amounts of wealth and good will generated for the UK by the Royal Family.
So my monarchism is entirely practical rather than heartfelt.0 -
A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?0 -
It can only be so long before we have a Dan Hodges post explaining why last night's debate was a disaster for Ed Miliband.MonikerDiCanio said:
Rentoul makes the winners to be Cameron, Farage, and Clegg. What does that make EdM?antifrank said:John Rentoul takes a perspective on the debate last night that I disagree with more or less from beginning to end:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/clegg-vs-farage-both-leaders-achieved-what-they-set-out-to-do-9218482.html0 -
Do we know what the viewing figures for the debate were?0
-
Once again I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the very wise Richard T.Richard_Tyndall said:
Pragmatic monarchist.Socrates said:
Are you a monarchist or a republican, out of interest?
I am not particularly taken with the current lot and feel no real loyalty to them as individuals but appreciate the value of a figure head separate from the political process to whom army and police swear allegiance and who can represent the country in a non political way on the world stage. Any elected head of state would inevitably be politicised to the detriment of our foreign and domestic affairs.
I also see the huge amounts of wealth and good will generated for the UK by the Royal Family.
So my monarchism is entirely practical rather than heartfelt.
Were it not for our fundamental differences in how much state involvement we advocate in the economy, I suspect we would agree on almost everything.
A classic case of the old Left-Right measure being a flawed model.0 -
SA 120:6 after 16 overs against NL0
-
JR: - "But the other consequence is more important. Last night’s debate was between two clear poles of an argument. In unconditionally versus out unconditionally. And we know where the British voter prefers to be when presented with a choice like that.antifrank said:John Rentoul takes a perspective on the debate last night that I disagree with more or less from beginning to end:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/clegg-vs-farage-both-leaders-achieved-what-they-set-out-to-do-9218482.html
David Cameron’s policy will be easily most popular position when it comes to the general election next year. “Renegotiate and decide” is the third-way winner."
Not sure if Rentoul is correct in his assessment, but it certainly doesn't chime with the PB doctrine that Cameron and Miliband are the losers in the Clegg/Farage face off.0 -
New Ladbrokes market: Montgomeryshire (Con maj = 1,184)
Con 1/3
LD 2/1
UKIP 50/1
Lab 100/1
PC 100/1
Is Lembit Öpik going to be the Lib Dem candidate again?
0 -
Hehehehe, good man yourself.
It's not the revolution I am waiting for, that's for sure.
When UKIP has friends like Richard_Tyndall, who needs enemies?
Not at all. UKIP like all parties is a tool to achieve certain political ends. If those ends can be achieved through pressure rather than direct rule then all the better. There are large parts of the UKIP agenda I am strongly supportive of and others that I strongly oppose. As such I will be pleased to see UKIP do well to the extent of getting MPs and putting pressure on the other parties over issues like Europe, grammar schools and flat taxes whilst being opposed to the idea they might get into power with their current very conservative social policies.
Unlike some on here, apparently including yourself, I do not see blind loyalty to a party to be a good thing. You should be grateful I am giving UKIP money and support at the moment (and have given far more in the past in terms of research and support for the anti-EU movement) because some of our aims coincide.
A critical friend is far more valuable than a sycophantic enemy.
-----------------------------------------------------
The supreme fact, Richard, is that you do not want a UKIP governed Britain. You are satisfied to be ruled by the Lab/Lib/Con establishment, as long as a few of your wants are granted.
Only a UKIP controlled government will give some hope for a revival of the British nation. But perhaps the rot has spread so much that even lukewarm supporters like you are not ready for a real revolution to happen.
Be aware that I do not blindly support all that the UKIP executive say, or come up with, and I argue my points of difference at branch level or e-mail to the relevant persons. There is still a massive amount of work to do before UKIP becomes a real political fighting machine, but it is on it's way and the past year has seen enormous growth, not only in members, but also in attitude.
All that being said, the main point of any political party is to reap enough votes to gain power. If you cannot see that in UKIPs case, then you are surely a bewildered man, to say the least.0 -
There's a reason they're so short priced. And Labour might fail to get most seats even if they hold these seats (they don't have most seats now and they hold these seats). So I don't see this as a great hedge, no.Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?0 -
Thanks Sean.Sean_F said:
Conservative voters (as of 2013) tended to split fairly evenly. People who voted Conservative in 2010 tended to be opposed by a net 15% or so, according to Yougov. The former were about 32% of the voters, the latter 37%.JackW said:
Sean, IIRC the figure for Conservative voters on SSM was pretty even. Do you have the exact numbers to hand ?Sean_F said:
Yougov surveyed Conservative members last July. They split 60/24% against gay marriage, 67/18% against protecting the overseas aid budget.JosiasJessop said:
Has there been a survey, or is this opinion?Sean_F said:
Farage's opinions are of course, shared by many, if not most, Conservative members.Easterross said:The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
0 -
New Ladbrokes market: Newport East (Lab maj = 1,650)
Lab 1/12
LD 6/1
Con 50/1
UKIP 100/10 -
I don't think its wrong for two people that are in a relationship and want to have it recognised in law the same way as anyone else are able to do so. But I do think that the best way, in an ideal world, for children to be raised is by their biological parents in a stable relationship, and so I think that union should be the one that is most privileged.BobaFett said:
Here's your chance to talk about it. Do you oppose gay marriage? If so, why?isam said:
Im not arguing for a lost world etcTOPPING said:
Sam quite a lot has changed over the past 50 years. And 50 years prior to that the world was a world away in difference as well. I am far far far far far from being a middle class lefty but I think if you take a step back and examine what you want, you might see that you are arguing (pining) for a lost world and one which doesn't change. And that just isn't the way it works.isam said:Dear elderly working class people
As a reward for working hard your whole life, and maybe serving your country in war, we are going to transform the area you have called home so much, and so quickly, that you hate living there and feel like a stranger, change the law on marriage so that it no longer means what you thought it did when you signed the contract 50 years ago, and pay you 0.25% interest on your hard earned savings
Any complaints will see you branded a racist, homophobic old bigot
Regards
Middle Class Lefties
PS Hope we can count on your vote at the forthcoming election
Listen to the this from 25:30 on.. Anastasia Duval of Civitas
"it worries me that we are very intolerant of views we see as illiberal. I was a big supporter of same sex marriage, and very keen on the legislation coming through, but I was equally shocked by the fact that people who wanted to talk about why they had an issue with same sex marriage were not really able to.. there was too much of a sense of 'these are views that I must not hear because they are illegitimate views... liberalism needs to include illiberalism in discussion, and if you don't have that, its not liberalism"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03yn83q
My way of doing this would be to make all marriages the equivalent of civil partnerships, with Churches marrying people in religious ceremonies if they meet the specifics of that church. That way strictly religious people can believe they have a privileged marriage, and non religious cant complain they treated differently by the law.
Not that it really matters, but I am not gay, married or religious. I just try and see things from all sides rather than jump on the latest progressive bandwagon thinking the views of those who disagree are unworthy and dont matter.0 -
It is a shame, in our diverse society, that people who object to SSM are labelled as homophobes. Clearly that isn't the case in many cases.isam said:
Im not arguing for a lost world etcTOPPING said:
Sam quite a lot has changed over the past 50 years. And 50 years prior to that the world was a world away in difference as well. I am far far far far far from being a middle class lefty but I think if you take a step back and examine what you want, you might see that you are arguing (pining) for a lost world and one which doesn't change. And that just isn't the way it works.isam said:Dear elderly working class people
PS Hope we can count on your vote at the forthcoming election
What I am saying is that more consideration should be given to those who feel that they have lost something important to them because of rapid social change. Instead they are smeared and cast out as bigots and homophobes.
As I have said before, I studied Humanities at Brighton Uni, possibly the most LGBT friendly place on earth, in 2010-2011. Not once was the unfairness of the marriage laws to gay people mentioned, and believe me, they thought the world should be turned upside down.
Yet two years later, people who said they didn't approve of it were shouted down as bigoted homophobes etc.
Listen to the this from 25:30 on.. Anastasia Duval of Civitas
"it worries me that we are very intolerant of views we see as illiberal. I was a big supporter of same sex marriage, and very keen on the legislation coming through, but I was equally shocked by the fact that people who wanted to talk about why they had an issue with same sex marriage were not really able to.. there was too much of a sense of 'these are views that I must not hear because they are illegitimate views... liberalism needs to include illiberalism in discussion, and if you don't have that, its not liberalism"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03yn83q
But then where do objections to SSM come from? IMO they could stem from a) deeply held religious beliefs; b) a belief that it erodes the institution of marriage/social change; or c) homophobia.
As regards "a", suffice to say the infamous "quadruple lock" addresses this well. "b" is indicative of deeply conservative thinking; surely, in effect, pining for a lost world. "c" is self explanatory.
Even if Kippers are "b" then as mentioned, opposition to SSM doesn't sit well within a supposed libertarian party, to say nothing of the rapid change that all of society is experiencing in many areas not just the marriage of people of the same sex.
What else is there?
and I don't think any topic should be off-limits for debate btw.0 -
Shadsy is obviously a closet Unionist!Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
He's hoping SNP supporters will take advantage of these great odds and lock their money up in bets on the 2015GE, so that they have less money to donate to the Independence Referendum campaign....
0 -
Note: I am not just talking about those Edinburgh seats. They were only given as examples. I am talking about the clear trend across *nearly all* seats to price LAB extremely short.antifrank said:
There's a reason they're so short priced. And Labour might fail to get most seats even if they hold these seats (they don't have most seats now and they hold these seats). So I don't see this as a great hedge, no.Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
0 -
Im on Netherlands in this Crick... Can they chase down 155 odd?0
-
Given the long Liberal tradition of this seat (since 1880 it has returned non-Liberal/Lib Dems precisely twice), the 2/1 on the Lib Dems must be worth considering.Stuart_Dickson said:New Ladbrokes market: Montgomeryshire (Con maj = 1,184)
Con 1/3
LD 2/1
UKIP 50/1
Lab 100/1
PC 100/1
Is Lembit Öpik going to be the Lib Dem candidate again?0 -
Not sure about Socrates position but mine is very much one of disappointment rather than enmity. Even with our differences over AGW I have always considered him one of the posters I have the most in common with in terms of our views.BobaFett said:
I hope some of the ice between you two is thawing. Your differences on Ukraine ought not lead to personal enmity.0 -
SeanT on the indyref - not sure anyone can argue with it
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100265140/without-scotland-labour-will-be-mutilated-and-traumatised-for-a-generation/
"you’d think Labour would be fighting tooth and nail to retain Scotland. It isn't. Gordon Brown made his first major intervention this month.Ed Miliband only bothered to go north, to face the issue, a few days ago, and hastily hurried home 15 minutes later.
Why are they so complacent about something which might destroy their party? My guess is: Denial. "0 -
New Ladbrokes market: Southampton Itchen (Lab maj = 192)
Lab 1/4
Con 11/4
UKIP 66/1
LD 100/10 -
Richard
If I may just say a few words of support for a fellow atheist. In some countries (USA) it is still not really the done thing to be open about not believing in any deity. 'Atheist' is verging on insult in such places. And, I'm afraid, many strident atheists of the Dawkins variety are horrible bullying nannying superior people and damage all their co-non-believers by association.
It's nice to see open pleasant decent moral and calm atheists happily admitting the lure of the sky fairies has thus far totally eluded them.0 -
I didn't say that they were bad bets. Just not great hedges.Stuart_Dickson said:
Note: I am not just talking about those Edinburgh seats. They were only given as examples. I am talking about the clear trend across *nearly all* seats to price LAB extremely short.antifrank said:
There's a reason they're so short priced. And Labour might fail to get most seats even if they hold these seats (they don't have most seats now and they hold these seats). So I don't see this as a great hedge, no.Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
I actually think that some of those very long odds on the SNP in individual constituencies look quite enticing. They may prove a very advantageous way of betting on a Yes vote in the referendum at far longer odds than one can achieve elsewhere.0 -
There is no doubt that Britain should return to Absolute Monarchy. But please throw out the Windsors, first. ;^)Richard_Tyndall said:
Pragmatic monarchist.Socrates said:
Are you a monarchist or a republican, out of interest?
I am not particularly taken with the current lot and feel no real loyalty to them as individuals but appreciate the value of a figure head separate from the political process to whom army and police swear allegiance and who can represent the country in a non political way on the world stage. Any elected head of state would inevitably be politicised to the detriment of our foreign and domestic affairs.
I also see the huge amounts of wealth and good will generated for the UK by the Royal Family.
So my monarchism is entirely practical rather than heartfelt.0 -
Massive boost to England if NL can win this match - even a close game is a big help.
0 -
New Ladbrokes market: St Albans (Con maj = 2,305)
Con 1/8
LD 4/1
UKIP 50/1
Lab 66/10 -
I am certainly not satisfied being ruled by a Lib/Lab/Con establishment but what I want is far more radical than UKIP are offering. Simply put UKIP are not the alternative I could support for government. To try and claim that because I oppose the current 3 parties I should therefore support UKIP is clearly illogical.MikeK said:
The supreme fact, Richard, is that you do not want a UKIP governed Britain. You are satisfied to be ruled by the Lab/Lib/Con establishment, as long as a few of your wants are granted.
Only a UKIP controlled government will give some hope for a revival of the British nation. But perhaps the rot has spread so much that even lukewarm supporters like you are not ready for a real revolution to happen.
Be aware that I do not blindly support all that the UKIP executive say, or come up with, and I argue my points of difference at branch level or e-mail to the relevant persons. There is still a massive amount of work to do before UKIP becomes a real political fighting machine, but it is on it's way and the past year has seen enormous growth, not only in members, but also in attitude.
All that being said, the main point of any political party is to reap enough votes to gain power. If you cannot see that in UKIPs case, then you are surely a bewildered man, to say the least.
And I certainly cannot support the formation of a government that has the reactionary attitudes UKIP has to social issues.
If UKIP were to become a true small state libertarian party then I would be a far more enthusiastic supporter.0 -
@MikeK
Mike, UKIP isn't about having whipped views, but a party that allows different views to be aired and debated. I don't think Richard T particularly sees me as someone he has much in common with, but so what? He is an asset to UKIP, he wants out of EU, makes his case eloquently with facts to back it up and the only thing he is strictly anti UKIP seems to be gay marriage, which isn't exactly a dealbreaker.
Given the loon element that likes to attach itself to us, we'd be foolish to say "who needs the likes of Richard Tyndall?"
As he says, rather a critical friend than a sycophantic enemy.. I think that's been proved just now on this thread
"sycophantic enemy" haha0 -
Food for thought, however I tend to disagree.antifrank said:
I didn't say that they were bad bets. Just not great hedges.Stuart_Dickson said:
Note: I am not just talking about those Edinburgh seats. They were only given as examples. I am talking about the clear trend across *nearly all* seats to price LAB extremely short.antifrank said:
There's a reason they're so short priced. And Labour might fail to get most seats even if they hold these seats (they don't have most seats now and they hold these seats). So I don't see this as a great hedge, no.Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
I actually think that some of those very long odds on the SNP in individual constituencies look quite enticing. They may prove a very advantageous way of betting on a Yes vote in the referendum at far longer odds than one can achieve elsewhere.
I suspect that the SNP vote would be stronger post-No. Post-Yes I can see an awful lot of voters "returning home" to their "true" political positions. A lot of people have simply been using the SNP as a tool to lever us to our goal of independence. Once independent we can safely discard the once-useful tool. Bung it in a museum and stick a nice label on the glass case.0 -
It'd take a brave (or daft?) man to wager good cash on any LD Gains at UK GE 2015. Personally, I'd be looking for a much better price than 2/1.antifrank said:
Given the long Liberal tradition of this seat (since 1880 it has returned non-Liberal/Lib Dems precisely twice), the 2/1 on the Lib Dems must be worth considering.Stuart_Dickson said:New Ladbrokes market: Montgomeryshire (Con maj = 1,184)
Con 1/3
LD 2/1
UKIP 50/1
Lab 100/1
PC 100/1
Is Lembit Öpik going to be the Lib Dem candidate again?0 -
I'd say that's exactly back-to-front. If Yes wins, the SNP will be euphoric and their opponents dismayed and disheartened. A general election 6 months later would leave their opponents with little to fight for, while the SNP will want to assemble a raucous voice in the heart of rUK's camp. It would be a rout (cf Ireland 1918).Stuart_Dickson said:
Food for thought, however I tend to disagree.antifrank said:
I didn't say that they were bad bets. Just not great hedges.Stuart_Dickson said:
Note: I am not just talking about those Edinburgh seats. They were only given as examples. I am talking about the clear trend across *nearly all* seats to price LAB extremely short.antifrank said:
There's a reason they're so short priced. And Labour might fail to get most seats even if they hold these seats (they don't have most seats now and they hold these seats). So I don't see this as a great hedge, no.Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
I actually think that some of those very long odds on the SNP in individual constituencies look quite enticing. They may prove a very advantageous way of betting on a Yes vote in the referendum at far longer odds than one can achieve elsewhere.
I suspect that the SNP vote would be stronger post-No. Post-Yes I can see an awful lot of voters "returning home" to their "true" political positions. A lot of people have simply been using the SNP as a tool to lever us to our goal of independence. Once independent we can safely discard the once-useful tool. Bung it in a museum and stick a nice label on the glass case.
If No wins, the roles will be reversed. How to persuade SNP footsoldiers to get out of bed to canvass and cajole when the dream has been lost for a generation?0 -
OblitusSumMe said:
Shadsy is obviously a closet Unionist!Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
He's hoping SNP supporters will take advantage of these great odds and lock their money up in bets on the 2015GE, so that they have less money to donate to the Independence Referendum campaign....
Only a true cynic could think up such a dastardly plan.
0 -
SA 145:9 after all 20 overs against NL
Big comeback by NL .... but can they bat ?!?0 -
So that's why the SNP has run such a ramshackle referendum campaign. No is good for their careers.Stuart_Dickson said:
Food for thought, however I tend to disagree.antifrank said:
I didn't say that they were bad bets. Just not great hedges.Stuart_Dickson said:
Note: I am not just talking about those Edinburgh seats. They were only given as examples. I am talking about the clear trend across *nearly all* seats to price LAB extremely short.antifrank said:
There's a reason they're so short priced. And Labour might fail to get most seats even if they hold these seats (they don't have most seats now and they hold these seats). So I don't see this as a great hedge, no.Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
I actually think that some of those very long odds on the SNP in individual constituencies look quite enticing. They may prove a very advantageous way of betting on a Yes vote in the referendum at far longer odds than one can achieve elsewhere.
I suspect that the SNP vote would be stronger post-No. Post-Yes I can see an awful lot of voters "returning home" to their "true" political positions. A lot of people have simply been using the SNP as a tool to lever us to our goal of independence. Once independent we can safely discard the once-useful tool. Bung it in a museum and stick a nice label on the glass case.
0 -
You show, yet again, that you know next to nothing about the Scottish National Party and its members and supporters. And understand even less.antifrank said:
I'd say that's exactly back-to-front. If Yes wins, the SNP will be euphoric and their opponents dismayed and disheartened. A general election 6 months later would leave their opponents with little to fight for, while the SNP will want to assemble a raucous voice in the heart of rUK's camp. It would be a rout (cf Ireland 1918).Stuart_Dickson said:
Food for thought, however I tend to disagree.antifrank said:
I didn't say that they were bad bets. Just not great hedges.Stuart_Dickson said:
Note: I am not just talking about those Edinburgh seats. They were only given as examples. I am talking about the clear trend across *nearly all* seats to price LAB extremely short.antifrank said:
There's a reason they're so short priced. And Labour might fail to get most seats even if they hold these seats (they don't have most seats now and they hold these seats). So I don't see this as a great hedge, no.Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
I actually think that some of those very long odds on the SNP in individual constituencies look quite enticing. They may prove a very advantageous way of betting on a Yes vote in the referendum at far longer odds than one can achieve elsewhere.
I suspect that the SNP vote would be stronger post-No. Post-Yes I can see an awful lot of voters "returning home" to their "true" political positions. A lot of people have simply been using the SNP as a tool to lever us to our goal of independence. Once independent we can safely discard the once-useful tool. Bung it in a museum and stick a nice label on the glass case.
If No wins, the roles will be reversed. How to persuade SNP footsoldiers to get out of bed to canvass and cajole when the dream has been lost for a generation?
0 -
You show, yet again, that you know next to nothing about the Scottish National Party and its members and supporters. And understand even less.MonikerDiCanio said:
So that's why the SNP has run such a ramshackle referendum campaign. No is good for their careers.Stuart_Dickson said:
Food for thought, however I tend to disagree.antifrank said:
I didn't say that they were bad bets. Just not great hedges.Stuart_Dickson said:
Note: I am not just talking about those Edinburgh seats. They were only given as examples. I am talking about the clear trend across *nearly all* seats to price LAB extremely short.antifrank said:
There's a reason they're so short priced. And Labour might fail to get most seats even if they hold these seats (they don't have most seats now and they hold these seats). So I don't see this as a great hedge, no.Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
I actually think that some of those very long odds on the SNP in individual constituencies look quite enticing. They may prove a very advantageous way of betting on a Yes vote in the referendum at far longer odds than one can achieve elsewhere.
I suspect that the SNP vote would be stronger post-No. Post-Yes I can see an awful lot of voters "returning home" to their "true" political positions. A lot of people have simply been using the SNP as a tool to lever us to our goal of independence. Once independent we can safely discard the once-useful tool. Bung it in a museum and stick a nice label on the glass case.0 -
Ladbrokes have now priced up North Warwickshire (Con Maj = 54), adding to the Paddy Power pricing we have had for ages.
New best prices - North Warwickshire
Lab 1/3 (Lad)
Con 7/2 (PP)
UKIP 50/1 (Lad)
LD 100/1 (both)
BNP 200/1 (PP)0 -
Looks like a Bismark - 1/3 ?Stuart_Dickson said:Ladbrokes have now priced up North Warwickshire (Con Maj = 54), adding to the Paddy Power pricing we have had for ages.
New best prices - North Warwickshire
Lab 1/3 (Lad)
Con 7/2 (PP)
UKIP 50/1 (Lad)
LD 100/1 (both)
BNP 200/1 (PP)
0 -
Nope , Lib Dem prospective candidate is Jane DoddsStuart_Dickson said:New Ladbrokes market: Montgomeryshire (Con maj = 1,184)
Con 1/3
LD 2/1
UKIP 50/1
Lab 100/1
PC 100/1
Is Lembit Öpik going to be the Lib Dem candidate again?0 -
The Sage of Uppsala has spoken.Stuart_Dickson said:
You show, yet again, that you know next to nothing about the Scottish National Party and its members and supporters. And understand even less.MonikerDiCanio said:
So that's why the SNP has run such a ramshackle referendum campaign. No is good for their careers.Stuart_Dickson said:
Food for thought, however I tend to disagree.antifrank said:
I didn't say that they were bad bets. Just not great hedges.Stuart_Dickson said:
Note: I am not just talking about those Edinburgh seats. They were only given as examples. I am talking about the clear trend across *nearly all* seats to price LAB extremely short.antifrank said:
There's a reason they're so short priced. And Labour might fail to get most seats even if they hold these seats (they don't have most seats now and they hold these seats). So I don't see this as a great hedge, no.Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
I actually think that some of those very long odds on the SNP in individual constituencies look quite enticing. They may prove a very advantageous way of betting on a Yes vote in the referendum at far longer odds than one can achieve elsewhere.
I suspect that the SNP vote would be stronger post-No. Post-Yes I can see an awful lot of voters "returning home" to their "true" political positions. A lot of people have simply been using the SNP as a tool to lever us to our goal of independence. Once independent we can safely discard the once-useful tool. Bung it in a museum and stick a nice label on the glass case.0 -
The Sewage of Monza responds.MonikerDiCanio said:
The Sage of Uppsala has spoken.Stuart_Dickson said:
You show, yet again, that you know next to nothing about the Scottish National Party and its members and supporters. And understand even less.MonikerDiCanio said:
So that's why the SNP has run such a ramshackle referendum campaign. No is good for their careers.Stuart_Dickson said:
Food for thought, however I tend to disagree.antifrank said:
I didn't say that they were bad bets. Just not great hedges.Stuart_Dickson said:
Note: I am not just talking about those Edinburgh seats. They were only given as examples. I am talking about the clear trend across *nearly all* seats to price LAB extremely short.antifrank said:
There's a reason they're so short priced. And Labour might fail to get most seats even if they hold these seats (they don't have most seats now and they hold these seats). So I don't see this as a great hedge, no.Stuart_Dickson said:A clear pattern is emerging in Shadsy's pricing behaviour. He is pricing Labour very short in nearly every seat. Eg. where LAB have a tiny majority (eg. Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N&L) he is pricing LAB at preposterously short prices (eg. 1/25 and 1/20 in those two Edinburgh seats).
I just wonder if this might be creating a great hedge for people backing LAB Most Seats and LAB MAJ?
I actually think that some of those very long odds on the SNP in individual constituencies look quite enticing. They may prove a very advantageous way of betting on a Yes vote in the referendum at far longer odds than one can achieve elsewhere.
I suspect that the SNP vote would be stronger post-No. Post-Yes I can see an awful lot of voters "returning home" to their "true" political positions. A lot of people have simply been using the SNP as a tool to lever us to our goal of independence. Once independent we can safely discard the once-useful tool. Bung it in a museum and stick a nice label on the glass case.
0 -
Rentoul also opines that the prospect of a repeat of the leaders debate in the coming election is over.SimonStClare said:
JR: - "But the other consequence is more important. Last night’s debate was between two clear poles of an argument. In unconditionally versus out unconditionally. And we know where the British voter prefers to be when presented with a choice like that.antifrank said:John Rentoul takes a perspective on the debate last night that I disagree with more or less from beginning to end:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/clegg-vs-farage-both-leaders-achieved-what-they-set-out-to-do-9218482.html
David Cameron’s policy will be easily most popular position when it comes to the general election next year. “Renegotiate and decide” is the third-way winner."
Not sure if Rentoul is correct in his assessment, but it certainly doesn't chime with the PB doctrine that Cameron and Miliband are the losers in the Clegg/Farage face off.
However what the LBC debate has shown is that the broadcasters are prepared to empty chair leaders. Will Cameron and Miliband really opt out during a general election campaign. I think not.
0 -
Filled up on NL - now just 2.5 !0
-
Dan Byles is a very good hardworking MP who has balanced loyalty and outspokenness on issues like HS2 well. Odds are a bit tight but I would not be wanting to bet Labour at 1-7 in this seatStuart_Dickson said:
Ladbrokes have now priced up North Warwickshire (Con Maj = 54), adding to the Paddy Power pricing we have had for ages.
New best prices - North Warwickshire
Lab 1/3 (Lad)
Con 7/2 (PP)
UKIP 50/1 (Lad)
LD 100/1 (both)
BNP 200/1 (PP)0 -
Looks long for Lab given that they held the seat between 1997 and 2005, and that the ex mp, Kerry Pollard is restanding.Stuart_Dickson said:New Ladbrokes market: St Albans (Con maj = 2,305)
Con 1/8
LD 4/1
UKIP 50/1
Lab 66/1
In contrast UKIP is too short, St Albans is not the right demographics for them.
0 -
NL 36:0 after 4 overs against SA0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
)