Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Given that Beaconsfield went Remain the odds on the Tory look

SystemSystem Posts: 12,745
edited November 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Given that Beaconsfield went Remain the odds on the Tory look too short and Grieve too long

Oddschecker

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,353
    First like the Tories in Beaconsfield.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    From BBC....

    Labour is putting forward one candidate of Indian heritage in the 2019 general election across its 39 safest seats. That is not going down well in the Leicester East seat, home to a large Indian community, where Keith Vaz is not seeking re-election. Politics Live reporter Greg Dawson spoke to people of Indian heritage about “strained” relations with the party they have traditionally supported.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Second
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,939
    I have met Joy Morrissey she is a hard-working campaigner and will win easily, South Bucks also voted Leave, I also cannot see many Labour voters voting for Grieve
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,939
    https://twitter.com/RealDMitchell/status/1196499722741137409?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,939
    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,939
    https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1196772932636282881?s=20
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    The Afghan Taliban have freed two Western academics held hostage since 2016 in exchange for three imprisoned senior militants.

    American Kevin King and Australian Timothy Weeks were released three years after being kidnapped outside the American University of Afghanistan in Kabul where they worked as professors.

    The three militants arrived in Qatar from Afghanistan as part of the swap.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50471186

    I wonder what the Donald will be saying about this?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 68,525
    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1196776643727106050
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,960
    So Labour's election offering today is to spend millions of pounds of tax payers money paying compensation for things that happens 250 years ago as well as throwing companies off the London stock exchange if they aren't green enough... Not doubt leading to years of litigation between said companies and government wasting more millions of tax payers money.

    And the days not even half over yet! :D
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    FPT
    eek said:

    Stereotomy said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Swinson appears to be turning a golden opportunity into a disaster, shes really very poor. She might also single handedly save the Labour party at this rate

    The LDs are facing a less severe version of the problem the CUKs had. You can't just say that you're sensible and that you're centrist and wait for the voters to run into your arms.

    For one thing, most voters have a set of values and priorities, and want a party they feel will back those values. There's really no group to whom the lib dems have signalled "We're on your side, and come what may we've got your back."

    In addition to that, there seems to be some assumption that the default state for a party is "sensible centrist". What have the lib dems actually done to show they're sensible? Just because you support maintaining the status quo doesn't automatically make you a paragon of hard-nosed pragmatism. Ask yourself- imagine the lib dems somehow won a majority. And now imagine that they proceeded to do all sorts of loopy nonsense with their newfound power. Would you really be surprised about the latter?
    I think it's worse than that. People pick the least worst candidate that has a chance of winning the seat and in most places (as demonstrated by 30 years of LD leaflets) it isn't the LD candidate.

    So a lot of people will go into the booth and pick their least worst option from the Tory / Labour candidates.
    I actually want to do some more research and maybe write a header about this but my belief is that the LDs overestimate how much effect "lib dems can't win here" has on their overall vote share. Obviously it has some effect, but if the Cleese argument ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gv4Abt3sZU ) was correct you'd expect things like the Cleggasm or the most recent post-EU-election spike in lib dem support to be self-sustaining, and to keep snowballing after it reached critical mass. Instead it just fades away like bounces normally do.

  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    More like 1/400 for Morrisey

    No-one is going to vote for that CORBYNISTA helper Grieve which would only help to bring in a Corbyn government.

    CON maj 40%
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Morrissey is favourite? I didn;t even realise Britain First was running.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,251
    Interesting:

    BritainElects has been acquired by the New Statesman.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Much though I would like Dominic Grieve, one of the most distinguished, principled and independent-minded MPs of the last parliament, to win, I fear he has little chance.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,087
    Is @HYUFD still banging on about the Laffer Curve?

    https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1196778080506920960?s=21
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    edited November 2019
    El_Capitano said:

    Interesting:

    BritainElects has been acquired by the New Statesman.

    Has it? Or are they just doing working together on the election polling analysis? The report i saw was "in association with", which I took to be the same as the way Thrasher works in association with Sky on elections.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,508
    KentRising said:

    Boris needs to lose the bluster and the wordplay and just play calm and statesmanlike, look reasonable, no raising of voice. It's the way that he carries himself that will be the most important thing.

    His strength is his wild energy and charisma - if he tries to restrain himself he might trip up.
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,528
    Grieve could be in with a chance. The locals will know that, independent or not, he's politically a diehard conservative, so will have no concerns on that score. It all depends how much they want to screw over Boris, Central Office and the ERG types. If they've got a sense of humour they'll probably go for it.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,574
    Grieve stands as much chance of retaining his seat as Blair had of winning it in 1983.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,789
    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    edited November 2019
    Sweden drops rape case against Assange.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-julian-assange-investigation
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Gallowgate said:

    Is @HYUFD still banging on about the Laffer Curve?

    https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1196778080506920960?s=21

    He should be. That rate is on the left-hand side of the Laffer curve where the gradient is positive.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,267
    edited November 2019
    Sorry Mike, I don’t think Grieve’s got a chance.

    He has very much been a TINO in recent months and particularly obstructionist and unhelpful to a conservative government. I cannot see the Tory faithful of Beaconsfield taking particularly well to that. I suspect he’ll garner a few thousand votes but quite possibly at the expense of remainery parties as much as the Tories.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    I am surprised the police scandal under his watch as mayor didn't make more waves.
  • NoSpaceNameNoSpaceName Posts: 132
    I would expect that Grieve is more likely to lose by a wide margin, at least 10% of the vote, say, then to win. Whether that makes the odds to back him value depends on how wide you think the probability distribution is.

    While I generally emphasise uncertainty, I don't think it's that uncertain, and I'd have thought that Grieve was a firm outsider.

    I would have thought that at least two-thirds of the Tory share in 2017 was Leavers, which would give the Tory candidate this time a firm 40-45% of the vote, even if all Tory Remainers voted for Grieve.

    That then means that Grieve has to squeeze the Labour/Green vote down to ~10% - down at the disastrous levels polled by Tony Blair at the 1982 by-election - as well as winning over all Tory Remainers. I just can't see it. He'd be doing pretty well to come second 20% behind.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,389
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Much though I would like Dominic Grieve, one of the most distinguished, principled and independent-minded MPs of the last parliament, to win, I fear he has little chance.

    You forgot most vilified.
    But otherwise, agreed.
  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 1,729
    Ah, old Dominic "decision of the electorate in the referendum must be respected" Grieve!

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,276
    Let's remember this thread when the Tories win by an overwhelming margin there.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    edited November 2019
    HYUFD said:

    //twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    Uncle Thickie didn't get confused and go through the wrong lobby?
  • eekeek Posts: 31,574
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Is @HYUFD still banging on about the Laffer Curve?

    https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1196778080506920960?s=21

    He should be. That rate is on the left-hand side of the Laffer curve where the gradient is positive.
    If no other countries have reduced rates below 19% and the rate in other countries is higher how do we know what the actual Laffer curve is?

  • eekeek Posts: 31,574
    edited November 2019
    Julian Assange is off to the USA for the rest of his days
    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1196776396078637057
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,165
    edited November 2019
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
    Perhaps he's just phobia-curious?
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,251
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    Interesting:

    BritainElects has been acquired by the New Statesman.

    Has it? Or are they just doing working together on the election polling analysis? The report i saw was "in association with", which I took to be the same as the way Thrasher works in association with Sky on elections.
    The page footer on britainelects.com now says "© copyright 2019 New Statesman Ltd. Privacy policy | Terms and conditions", with the two links leading to the NS privacy policy and T&Cs, and the top right says "An election website by NewStatesman". So it looks like it to me.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,165
    TrèsDifficile said:

    Ah, old Dominic "decision of the electorate in the referendum must be respected" Grieve!

    Lying git.....
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,458
    edited November 2019
    eek said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Is @HYUFD still banging on about the Laffer Curve?

    https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1196778080506920960?s=21

    He should be. That rate is on the left-hand side of the Laffer curve where the gradient is positive.
    If no other countries have reduced rates below 19% and the rate in other countries is higher how do we know what the actual Laffer curve is?

    We can never know as it moves over time. At best, we can guess, which is why politicians love it as their claims can never be disproved.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,789
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    I am surprised the police scandal under his watch as mayor didn't make more waves.
    It did come up at a previous debate - that was what made me think he isn't the guy: Not that the scandal was appaulingly bad, but his defence was incredibly weak.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    edited November 2019
    El_Capitano said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    Interesting:

    BritainElects has been acquired by the New Statesman.

    Has it? Or are they just doing working together on the election polling analysis? The report i saw was "in association with", which I took to be the same as the way Thrasher works in association with Sky on elections.
    The page footer on britainelects.com now says "© copyright 2019 New Statesman Ltd. Privacy policy | Terms and conditions", with the two links leading to the NS privacy policy and T&Cs, and the top right says "An election website by NewStatesman". So it looks like it to me.
    Fair enough....not everybody is happy.

    https://twitter.com/SmithSpeak/status/1196519744314183680?s=20
  • eekeek Posts: 31,574
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    HYUFD said:

    //twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    Uncle Thickie didn't get confused and go through the wrong lobby?
    I doubt it - it was probably a rebelling to support some Muslim or other views. It's worrying but hardly surprising labour decided to focus on something without doing a bit of research first.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,267
    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    Uh oh.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,165
    "At GE2017 Grieve won with a whopping 65.3% of the vote nearly 44% ahead of LAB in second place."

    At GE2017 the Conservatives won with a whopping 65.3% of the vote nearly 44% ahead of LAB in second place.

  • NoSpaceNameNoSpaceName Posts: 132
    Stereotomy said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Stereotomy said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Swinson appears to be turning a golden opportunity into a disaster, shes really very poor. She might also single handedly save the Labour party at this rate

    The LDs are facing a less severe version of the problem the CUKs had. You can't just say that you're sensible and that you're centrist and wait for the voters to run into your arms.

    For one thing, most voters have a set of values and priorities, and want a party they feel will back those values. There's really no group to whom the lib dems have signalled "We're on your side, and come what may we've got your back."

    In addition to that, there seems to be some assumption that the default state for a party is "sensible centrist". What have the lib dems actually done to show they're sensible? Just because you support maintaining the status quo doesn't automatically make you a paragon of hard-nosed pragmatism. Ask yourself- imagine the lib dems somehow won a majority. And now imagine that they proceeded to do all sorts of loopy nonsense with their newfound power. Would you really be surprised about the latter?
    I think it's worse than that. People pick the least worst candidate that has a chance of winning the seat and in most places (as demonstrated by 30 years of LD leaflets) it isn't the LD candidate.

    So a lot of people will go into the booth and pick their least worst option from the Tory / Labour candidates.
    I actually want to do some more research and maybe write a header about this but my belief is that the LDs overestimate how much effect "lib dems can't win here" has on their overall vote share. Obviously it has some effect, but if the Cleese argument ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gv4Abt3sZU ) was correct you'd expect things like the Cleggasm or the most recent post-EU-election spike in lib dem support to be self-sustaining, and to keep snowballing after it reached critical mass. Instead it just fades away like bounces normally do.

    The evidence from countries with proportional voting systems does not provide support for the idea that voters will flock to vote for a centrist party once free of the shackles of FPTP.

    Although I'm a supporter of electoral reform, centrist politicians also have to learn how to be persuasive rather than relying on what they see as the self-evident truth of their opinion. They're not the only people who could do with learning this, of course.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    eek said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Is @HYUFD still banging on about the Laffer Curve?

    https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1196778080506920960?s=21

    He should be. That rate is on the left-hand side of the Laffer curve where the gradient is positive.
    If no other countries have reduced rates below 19% and the rate in other countries is higher how do we know what the actual Laffer curve is?

    We don't, for sure, but we can make an educated guess that no company is going to make a big fuss about whether it's 19% or 17%, so it won't alter behaviour.

    In the particular case of Corporation Tax it's especially important to look at the tax as a whole - the UK raised the total tax take over the last few years by lowering the headline rate and at the same time tightening up on loopholes and anomalies. There may be more to do on the latter but the headline rate is now competitive by international standards and there are higher priorities - the government is right to prioritise business rates for reform, they are seriously distorting.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,458
    NoSpaceName said:

    Stereotomy said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Stereotomy said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Swinson appears to be turning a golden opportunity into a disaster, shes really very poor. She might also single handedly save the Labour party at this rate

    The LDs are facing a less severe version of the problem the CUKs had. You can't just say that you're sensible and that you're centrist and wait for the voters to run into your arms.

    For one thing, most voters have a set of values and priorities, and want a party they feel will back those values. There's really no group to whom the lib dems have signalled "We're on your side, and come what may we've got your back."

    In addition to that, there seems to be some assumption that the default state for a party is "sensible centrist". What have the lib dems actually done to show they're sensible? Just because you support maintaining the status quo doesn't automatically make you a paragon of hard-nosed pragmatism. Ask yourself- imagine the lib dems somehow won a majority. And now imagine that they proceeded to do all sorts of loopy nonsense with their newfound power. Would you really be surprised about the latter?
    I think it's worse than that. People pick the least worst candidate that has a chance of winning the seat and in most places (as demonstrated by 30 years of LD leaflets) it isn't the LD candidate.

    So a lot of people will go into the booth and pick their least worst option from the Tory / Labour candidates.
    I actually want to do some more research and maybe write a header about this but my belief is that the LDs overestimate how much effect "lib dems can't win here" has on their overall vote share. Obviously it has some effect, but if the Cleese argument ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gv4Abt3sZU ) was correct you'd expect things like the Cleggasm or the most recent post-EU-election spike in lib dem support to be self-sustaining, and to keep snowballing after it reached critical mass. Instead it just fades away like bounces normally do.

    The evidence from countries with proportional voting systems does not provide support for the idea that voters will flock to vote for a centrist party once free of the shackles of FPTP.

    Although I'm a supporter of electoral reform, centrist politicians also have to learn how to be persuasive rather than relying on what they see as the self-evident truth of their opinion. They're not the only people who could do with learning this, of course.
    They also need clearer policies that really bring change. Saying they are better than the others isnt enough.
  • NoSpaceNameNoSpaceName Posts: 132
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
    I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
  • NoSpaceNameNoSpaceName Posts: 132
    edited November 2019
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
    Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,310
    eek said:

    Julian Assange is off to the USA for the rest of his days
    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1196776396078637057

    The irony is that had he gone to Sweden in the first place he would not now be awaiting extradition to the US, and would probably have been out of prison even if he had been convicted.

    He must have been really worried about what his reputation would have suffered with a rape conviction.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,747
    eek said:

    Julian Assange is off to the USA for the rest of his days
    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1196776396078637057

    Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
  • eekeek Posts: 31,574
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    eek said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Is @HYUFD still banging on about the Laffer Curve?

    https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1196778080506920960?s=21

    He should be. That rate is on the left-hand side of the Laffer curve where the gradient is positive.
    If no other countries have reduced rates below 19% and the rate in other countries is higher how do we know what the actual Laffer curve is?

    We don't, for sure, but we can make an educated guess that no company is going to make a big fuss about whether it's 19% or 17%, so it won't alter behaviour.

    In the particular case of Corporation Tax it's especially important to look at the tax as a whole - the UK raised the total tax take over the last few years by lowering the headline rate and at the same time tightening up on loopholes and anomalies. There may be more to do on the latter but the headline rate is now competitive by international standards and there are higher priorities - the government is right to prioritise business rates for reform, they are seriously distorting.
    Business rate reform would be a far better argument than saying the money would be spent on the NHS.

    Sadly the Tories said the money would go to the NHS so where does the money that would allow Business Rate reform come from?
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    GIN1138 said:

    So Labour's election offering today is to spend millions of pounds of tax payers money paying compensation for things that happens 250 years ago as well as throwing companies off the London stock exchange if they aren't green enough... Not doubt leading to years of litigation between said companies and government wasting more millions of tax payers money.

    And the days not even half over yet! :D

    What is the next category on from "bat shit crazy"?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    NoSpaceName said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
    I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
    He didn't vote against, he wasn't in the chamber:

    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2003-03-10-109-commons/mp/10133

    Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,574
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    Interesting:

    BritainElects has been acquired by the New Statesman.

    Has it? Or are they just doing working together on the election polling analysis? The report i saw was "in association with", which I took to be the same as the way Thrasher works in association with Sky on elections.
    The page footer on britainelects.com now says "© copyright 2019 New Statesman Ltd. Privacy policy | Terms and conditions", with the two links leading to the NS privacy policy and T&Cs, and the top right says "An election website by NewStatesman". So it looks like it to me.
    Fair enough....not everybody is happy.

    https://twitter.com/SmithSpeak/status/1196519744314183680?s=20
    That's simple with BXP not standing in some seats the leave vote went to the other leave party. It twas inevitable
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,824
    eek said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    eek said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Is @HYUFD still banging on about the Laffer Curve?

    https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1196778080506920960?s=21

    He should be. That rate is on the left-hand side of the Laffer curve where the gradient is positive.
    If no other countries have reduced rates below 19% and the rate in other countries is higher how do we know what the actual Laffer curve is?

    We don't, for sure, but we can make an educated guess that no company is going to make a big fuss about whether it's 19% or 17%, so it won't alter behaviour.

    In the particular case of Corporation Tax it's especially important to look at the tax as a whole - the UK raised the total tax take over the last few years by lowering the headline rate and at the same time tightening up on loopholes and anomalies. There may be more to do on the latter but the headline rate is now competitive by international standards and there are higher priorities - the government is right to prioritise business rates for reform, they are seriously distorting.
    Business rate reform would be a far better argument than saying the money would be spent on the NHS.

    Sadly the Tories said the money would go to the NHS so where does the money that would allow Business Rate reform come from?
    I'm sure they can find some more money down the back of the sofa, or make the reforms revenue neutral.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    eek said:

    Business rate reform would be a far better argument than saying the money would be spent on the NHS.

    Sadly the Tories said the money would go to the NHS so where does the money that would allow Business Rate reform come from?

    Better ask Boris!

    Actually I think business rates could be improved a lot without necessarily losing income from the tax. The structure is all wrong, with an excessive rate being paid by some businesses and none at all, or very little, by others. The well-intentioned measure to exempt small businesses altogether has just made that worse, with very arbitrary rules.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,528
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    Says here that Jezza was merely absent from the vote.

    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=826
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,894
    I've felt pretty comfortable betting against independents so far in Ashfield and Birkenhead. They just won't be able compete with party machines.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    edited November 2019
    eek said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    Interesting:

    BritainElects has been acquired by the New Statesman.

    Has it? Or are they just doing working together on the election polling analysis? The report i saw was "in association with", which I took to be the same as the way Thrasher works in association with Sky on elections.
    The page footer on britainelects.com now says "© copyright 2019 New Statesman Ltd. Privacy policy | Terms and conditions", with the two links leading to the NS privacy policy and T&Cs, and the top right says "An election website by NewStatesman". So it looks like it to me.
    Fair enough....not everybody is happy.

    https://twitter.com/SmithSpeak/status/1196519744314183680?s=20
    That's simple with BXP not standing in some seats the leave vote went to the other leave party. It twas inevitable
    I know...it was more that some Corbynista think Britain Elects / New Statesman / whole polling industry is against the Messiah.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    Julian Assange is off to the USA for the rest of his days
    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1196776396078637057

    Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
    Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sexual assault. And he would not face extradition to the US had he not been a Russian puppet and leaked national security secrets.

    Maybe he will get a pardon, but that would just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
  • NoSpaceNameNoSpaceName Posts: 132
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    Interesting:

    BritainElects has been acquired by the New Statesman.

    Has it? Or are they just doing working together on the election polling analysis? The report i saw was "in association with", which I took to be the same as the way Thrasher works in association with Sky on elections.
    The page footer on britainelects.com now says "© copyright 2019 New Statesman Ltd. Privacy policy | Terms and conditions", with the two links leading to the NS privacy policy and T&Cs, and the top right says "An election website by NewStatesman". So it looks like it to me.
    Fair enough....not everybody is happy.

    https://twitter.com/SmithSpeak/status/1196519744314183680?s=20
    As I posted the other day, I think you can explain it with facebook advertising dominating the campaign that isn't visible to the traditional political commentariat. Still, it will give them something to talk about when they catch up on it next summer.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    NoSpaceName said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    Interesting:

    BritainElects has been acquired by the New Statesman.

    Has it? Or are they just doing working together on the election polling analysis? The report i saw was "in association with", which I took to be the same as the way Thrasher works in association with Sky on elections.
    The page footer on britainelects.com now says "© copyright 2019 New Statesman Ltd. Privacy policy | Terms and conditions", with the two links leading to the NS privacy policy and T&Cs, and the top right says "An election website by NewStatesman". So it looks like it to me.
    Fair enough....not everybody is happy.

    https://twitter.com/SmithSpeak/status/1196519744314183680?s=20
    As I posted the other day, I think you can explain it with facebook advertising dominating the campaign that isn't visible to the traditional political commentariat. Still, it will give them something to talk about when they catch up on it next summer.
    I am certainly getting the paper version of that from the Lib Dems, no Facebook though.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    So we have cleared up the issue of Jezza not being a homophobe, just his comments on the Jews and their powerful influential media stuff then.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    numbertwelve said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    Uh oh.
    He said what other people believed, not that they were his views. Seems like a storm in a teacup.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,310
    148grss said:

    NoSpaceName said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
    I hadn't heard of this. I wonder whether he voted against the Blair government on everything in 2003, perhaps as part of a nihilistic anti-Blair crusade following the Iraq War, or if it was just on LGBT rights.
    He didn't vote against, he wasn't in the chamber:

    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2003-03-10-109-commons/mp/10133

    Someone on twitter said it was because he was at an anti Iraq war event, although over 200 MPs were absent for that vote, and I would imagine that not wanting to be on the record as pro LGBT would have been a consideration for some of them. But considering his previous votes on LGBT issues, including on child adoption in 02 and age of consent in 98, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
    Could he have been paired?


    Having said that, sound bites and internet ads are not known for “giving the benefit of the doubt”.
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
    Seems he abstained, as did over 200 other MPs including Diane Abbott. The repeal passed by a huge margin, so maybe they were in committees or paired.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,735
    NoSpaceName said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
    Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
    Original tweet slightly disingenuous - it implies that Corbyn voted against repeal, but in fact he was absent. No idea whether he had a good reason to be absent, but he did not actively oppose repeal.

    Johnson, yes, voted for. He was on the liberal wing at the time. Maybe he still is.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Much though I would like Dominic Grieve, one of the most distinguished, principled and independent-minded MPs of the last parliament, to win, I fear he has little chance.

    Is he any more principled and independent minded than Jeremy Corbyn?

    Are these necessarily positive attributes?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,412
    Prince Andrew made 'unbelievable' racist comments about Arabs including camel jokes at state dinner for Saudi Royal family, claims ex-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7701201/Prince-Andrew-unbelievable-racist-comments-Arabs-claims-ex-Home-Secretary-Jacqui-Smith.html
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,310
    PaulM said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
    Seems he abstained, as did over 200 other MPs including Diane Abbott. The repeal passed by a huge margin, so maybe they were in committees or paired.
    All true. Nevertheless, Boris voted for it and they didn’t. Probably not a good idea for the Labour Party to raise it as an issue, particularly if they don’t want all the other things Blair did in that parliament taken into consideration.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

    If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    NoSpaceName said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    Interesting:

    BritainElects has been acquired by the New Statesman.

    Has it? Or are they just doing working together on the election polling analysis? The report i saw was "in association with", which I took to be the same as the way Thrasher works in association with Sky on elections.
    The page footer on britainelects.com now says "© copyright 2019 New Statesman Ltd. Privacy policy | Terms and conditions", with the two links leading to the NS privacy policy and T&Cs, and the top right says "An election website by NewStatesman". So it looks like it to me.
    Fair enough....not everybody is happy.

    https://twitter.com/SmithSpeak/status/1196519744314183680?s=20
    As I posted the other day, I think you can explain it with facebook advertising dominating the campaign that isn't visible to the traditional political commentariat. Still, it will give them something to talk about when they catch up on it next summer.
    I think the act of Farage stepping down in half the seats helped Boris's message that he has a "real" Brexit in all seats.
  • NorthernPowerhouseNorthernPowerhouse Posts: 557
    RobD said:

    eek said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    eek said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Is @HYUFD still banging on about the Laffer Curve?

    https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1196778080506920960?s=21

    He should be. That rate is on the left-hand side of the Laffer curve where the gradient is positive.
    If no other countries have reduced rates below 19% and the rate in other countries is higher how do we know what the actual Laffer curve is?

    We don't, for sure, but we can make an educated guess that no company is going to make a big fuss about whether it's 19% or 17%, so it won't alter behaviour.

    In the particular case of Corporation Tax it's especially important to look at the tax as a whole - the UK raised the total tax take over the last few years by lowering the headline rate and at the same time tightening up on loopholes and anomalies. There may be more to do on the latter but the headline rate is now competitive by international standards and there are higher priorities - the government is right to prioritise business rates for reform, they are seriously distorting.
    Business rate reform would be a far better argument than saying the money would be spent on the NHS.

    Sadly the Tories said the money would go to the NHS so where does the money that would allow Business Rate reform come from?
    I'm sure they can find some more money down the back of the sofa, or make the reforms revenue neutral.
    Interesting tidbit, hospitals pay business rates, and theres currently a case going through the courts challenging that. If the challenge succeeds and the nhs exempt will be a boon to the local hospital but a crushing reduction in rates for your local council.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    https://twitter.com/AndyD5000/status/1196781116071522306
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,789
    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

    If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
    At the time they were deeply concerned about the deficit, weirdly their concern disappeared once Obama was gone.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,747
    edited November 2019
    Gabs3 said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    Julian Assange is off to the USA for the rest of his days
    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1196776396078637057

    Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
    Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sexual assault. And he would not face extradition to the US had he not been a Russian puppet and leaked national security secrets.

    Maybe he will get a pardon, but that would just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
    In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process. National security secrets were unsafely held on Clinton's illegal private server apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts of the Republican party.
    What, precisely, has Trump done that is crooked? Not just, I dont like him, hes a fruitcake nonsense, but actual corruption?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

    If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
    I mean, Reagan's GOP was obviously racist, still running a southern strategy, literally known for making the welfare queen and young buck narratives racialised. Everything Atwater said in that famous quote is exactly how Reagan campaigned.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,290
    edited November 2019
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
    [Deleted: response based on a false premise]
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

    If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
    The Tea Party which started organising the moment Obama became president? Yeah, totally not racist.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edmundintokyo said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

    If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
    At the time they were deeply concerned about the deficit, weirdly their concern disappeared once Obama was gone.
    And didn't exist whilst Bush was President and racking up the debt. Just inexplicable.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,446
    On topic: regarding Grieve at 5/2, let`s compare with other similarly priced opportunities: Norfolk North 2/1 (was 3/1) Tories, Richmond Park 7/2 Tories.

    I`d say that Tories have a better chance of winning either Norfolk North or Richmond Park compared to Grieve winning in Beaconsfield.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    edited November 2019
    FPT: Does anyone know if the Labour party plans to provide reparations to compensate historic victims of Ian Lavery?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    NoSpaceName said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    El_Capitano said:

    Interesting:

    BritainElects has been acquired by the New Statesman.

    Has it? Or are they just doing working together on the election polling analysis? The report i saw was "in association with", which I took to be the same as the way Thrasher works in association with Sky on elections.
    The page footer on britainelects.com now says "© copyright 2019 New Statesman Ltd. Privacy policy | Terms and conditions", with the two links leading to the NS privacy policy and T&Cs, and the top right says "An election website by NewStatesman". So it looks like it to me.
    Fair enough....not everybody is happy.

    https://twitter.com/SmithSpeak/status/1196519744314183680?s=20
    As I posted the other day, I think you can explain it with facebook advertising dominating the campaign that isn't visible to the traditional political commentariat. Still, it will give them something to talk about when they catch up on it next summer.
    I am finding on many left spaces a desire to unskew the polls, al la the Romney campaign v Obama where they just assumed polling was biased in favour of Obama.

    I can understand why, and obviously the last GE polling did underestimate Labour, but not hugely. I generally think Britain Elects does a goodish job of the polling aggregate, even if I wished I lived in a world where those numbers weren't true.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,461
    Selebian said:

    NoSpaceName said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
    Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
    Original tweet slightly disingenuous - it implies that Corbyn voted against repeal, but in fact he was absent. No idea whether he had a good reason to be absent, but he did not actively oppose repeal.

    Johnson, yes, voted for. He was on the liberal wing at the time. Maybe he still is.
    Are they talking about the same vote? The link suggests a March vote and a November "on this day".
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,735
    Selebian said:

    NoSpaceName said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
    Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
    Original tweet slightly disingenuous - it implies that Corbyn voted against repeal, but in fact he was absent. No idea whether he had a good reason to be absent, but he did not actively oppose repeal.

    Johnson, yes, voted for. He was on the liberal wing at the time. Maybe he still is.
    I think this is the relevant vote. Could be wrong
    https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-10&number=109&display=allpossible&sort=name

    Can't yet find a relevant vote on 18th, but the relevant act came into force on that day, I think.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,747
    Endillion said:

    FPT: Does anyone know if that Labour party plans to compensate victims of Ian Lavery?

    Yes, by screwing up and him losing Wansbeck
  • eekeek Posts: 31,574
    wooliedyed said:

    Gabs3 said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    Julian Assange is off to the USA for the rest of his days
    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1196776396078637057

    Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
    Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sexual assault. And he would not face extradition to the US had he not been a Russian puppet and leaked national security secrets.

    Maybe he will get a pardon, but that would just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
    In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process. National security secrets were unsafely held on Clinton's illegal private server apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts of the Republican party.
    What, precisely, has Trump done that is crooked? Not just, I dont like him, hes a fruitcake nonsense, but actual corruption?
    On the basis of no fire without wood he does seem to have a lot of former advisers who are now subject to criminal proceedings or have already been found guilty in such proceedings.

    Personally I expect it will be health issues that result in Trump leaving rather than impeachment https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hospital-visit-health-doctor-ill-sean-conley-walter-reed-a9208606.html
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    viewcode said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    This is both bizarre and true. I've always wondered in particular why Corbyn voted the way he did. Not like he has much history of homophobia AFAIK.
    Apart from the "voting against Section 28 repeal" thing?????
    He didn't vote against it, he was absent, as were more than 200 MPs, so I assume pairing. Someone on twitter said he was at an anti Iraq war event that day, and I found a HardTalk radio slot about the UN and Iraq War on the same date, so it looks reasonable to me.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/03_march/10/hardtalk_pletka_corbyn.shtml
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    NoSpaceName said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
    Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
    Original tweet slightly disingenuous - it implies that Corbyn voted against repeal, but in fact he was absent. No idea whether he had a good reason to be absent, but he did not actively oppose repeal.

    Johnson, yes, voted for. He was on the liberal wing at the time. Maybe he still is.
    I think this is the relevant vote. Could be wrong
    https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-10&number=109&display=allpossible&sort=name

    Can't yet find a relevant vote on 18th, but the relevant act came into force on that day, I think.
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2003-03-10-109-commons/mp/10133
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,747
    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Gabs3 said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    Julian Assange is off to the USA for the rest of his days
    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1196776396078637057

    Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
    Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sexual assault. And he would not face extradition to the US had he not been a Russian puppet and leaked national security secrets.

    Maybe he will get a pardon, but that would just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
    In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process. National security secrets were unsafely held on Clinton's illegal private server apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts of the Republican party.
    What, precisely, has Trump done that is crooked? Not just, I dont like him, hes a fruitcake nonsense, but actual corruption?
    On the basis of no fire without wood he does seem to have a lot of former advisers who are now subject to criminal proceedings or have already been found guilty in such proceedings.

    Personally I expect it will be health issues that result in Trump leaving rather than impeachment https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hospital-visit-health-doctor-ill-sean-conley-walter-reed-a9208606.html
    That is true although it says more about them and is evidence of poor judgement rather than corruption. Having said that I expect Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea and get off based on what has come out about his being set up
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Alistair said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

    If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
    The Tea Party which started organising the moment Obama became president? Yeah, totally not racist.
    They objected to his economic policies. Race wasn't discussed. So yes totally not racist.

    Or do you think it is not possible to oppose the economic policies of a black leader without mentioning race, migration or anything else without being racist? Did opposing Obama automatically make you racist?

    If so did opposing Thatcher automatically make you sexist?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    NoSpaceName said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
    Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
    Original tweet slightly disingenuous - it implies that Corbyn voted against repeal, but in fact he was absent. No idea whether he had a good reason to be absent, but he did not actively oppose repeal.

    Johnson, yes, voted for. He was on the liberal wing at the time. Maybe he still is.
    I think this is the relevant vote. Could be wrong
    https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-10&number=109&display=allpossible&sort=name

    Can't yet find a relevant vote on 18th, but the relevant act came into force on that day, I think.
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2003-03-10-109-commons/mp/10133

    A lot of Tories who were there voted against, including big names like IDS, Grieve and David Davis.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,824
    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    NoSpaceName said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
    Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
    Original tweet slightly disingenuous - it implies that Corbyn voted against repeal, but in fact he was absent. No idea whether he had a good reason to be absent, but he did not actively oppose repeal.

    Johnson, yes, voted for. He was on the liberal wing at the time. Maybe he still is.
    I think this is the relevant vote. Could be wrong
    https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-10&number=109&display=allpossible&sort=name

    Can't yet find a relevant vote on 18th, but the relevant act came into force on that day, I think.
    Received royal assent in September, so unlikely the Commons were voting on it in November.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2019
    edmundintokyo said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

    If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
    At the time they were deeply concerned about the deficit, weirdly their concern disappeared once Obama was gone.
    Indeed the deficit is an economic not a racial concern. Given the way appalling racists like Trump have completely taken over the GOP I'm not going to for one second defend the GOP of 2019. It - like Labour over here - should not be voting for until the racist element is excised.

    But when was that video filmed? Somehow I doubt that grainy footage is Buttigieg speaking in 2019?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 26,290
    wooliedyed said:

    Gabs3 said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    Julian Assange is off to the USA for the rest of his days
    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1196776396078637057

    Where he will receive a pardon for everything in return for the rest of the dirt he has on the dems
    Assange would not have had to wait 7 years if he faced justice after credible accusations of sexual assault. And he would not face extradition to the US had he not been a Russian puppet and leaked national security secrets.

    Maybe he will get a pardon, but that would just show how far the US has fallen in terms of the rule of law. The current presidency is the most crooked in history, easily surpassing Nixon.
    In what specific sense is he crooked? There has been a campaign to impeach him since exactly 19 minutes after inauguration (Washington post article 12.19 pm jan 20 2017), the current impeachment proceedings are supported by democrats only, not a single Republican voted for and Schiff is not allowing due process. National security secrets were unsafely held on Clinton's illegal private server apparently. The rot in America runs right through the Democrats and parts of the Republican party.
    What, precisely, has Trump done that is crooked? Not just, I dont like him, hes a fruitcake nonsense, but actual corruption?
    It's a fair question. IIUC the specific thing is using the power of the office to persuade a foreign national and state to generate information against a political opponent. Technically that is crooked.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,824
    edited November 2019
    148grss said:

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    NoSpaceName said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
    Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
    Original tweet slightly disingenuous - it implies that Corbyn voted against repeal, but in fact he was absent. No idea whether he had a good reason to be absent, but he did not actively oppose repeal.

    Johnson, yes, voted for. He was on the liberal wing at the time. Maybe he still is.
    I think this is the relevant vote. Could be wrong
    https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-10&number=109&display=allpossible&sort=name

    Can't yet find a relevant vote on 18th, but the relevant act came into force on that day, I think.
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2003-03-10-109-commons/mp/10133

    A lot of Tories who were there voted against, including big names like IDS, Grieve and David Davis.
    Yes, but those are all evil baby-eating tories.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,735
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Selebian said:

    NoSpaceName said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
    Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
    Original tweet slightly disingenuous - it implies that Corbyn voted against repeal, but in fact he was absent. No idea whether he had a good reason to be absent, but he did not actively oppose repeal.

    Johnson, yes, voted for. He was on the liberal wing at the time. Maybe he still is.
    Are they talking about the same vote? The link suggests a March vote and a November "on this day".
    Think it became law "on this day" after getting through the Lords fairly slowly, but the relevant commons vote seems to be the one in March.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Alistair said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    The Tea Party isn't a racist organisation, though sadly far too many in the GOP in general are racist so there is overlap. The Tea Party includes in its number an African American GOP Senator. The Tea Party started as a movement about economic concerns and the TEA acronym stands for Taxed Enough Already. Indeed read the blurb about the Tea Party on Wikipedia and race/migration don't feature in it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

    If I was American I would vote Democrat over Donald Trump's vile GOP but I could vote for a Reagan-style GOP and I wish the GOP was more like Tea Party movement and less like the racist nationalist movement that has taken over.
    The Tea Party which started organising the moment Obama became president? Yeah, totally not racist.
    They objected to his economic policies. Race wasn't discussed. So yes totally not racist.

    Or do you think it is not possible to oppose the economic policies of a black leader without mentioning race, migration or anything else without being racist? Did opposing Obama automatically make you racist?

    If so did opposing Thatcher automatically make you sexist?
    Can you accept that people may not organise themselves in a group they outwardly accept as racist, and yet do and say racist things and have racist motivations?

    Because by your definition as long as you don't say that race is the reason for doing obviously racist things, you aren't racist.

    Also, of interest:
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/25790447?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    edited November 2019
    numbertwelve said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    OT this seems bad:

    https://twitter.com/ProudResister/status/1196624562252726272

    Uh oh.
    We need to see the whole tape.

    He describes it as a group "that's identified with the Tea Party" not that it was the Tea Party and it cuts after 40 seconds.....I wonder what he said next?

    Warren supporters running scared. The NYT covered this in October.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/buttigieg-campaign-moderate.html
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    RobD said:

    148grss said:

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    NoSpaceName said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1196478026927788032?s=20

    What an odd thing to publicise in that case by labour
    Perhaps still some moderates left in the Labour Press Team?
    Original tweet slightly disingenuous - it implies that Corbyn voted against repeal, but in fact he was absent. No idea whether he had a good reason to be absent, but he did not actively oppose repeal.

    Johnson, yes, voted for. He was on the liberal wing at the time. Maybe he still is.
    I think this is the relevant vote. Could be wrong
    https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-10&number=109&display=allpossible&sort=name

    Can't yet find a relevant vote on 18th, but the relevant act came into force on that day, I think.
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2003-03-10-109-commons/mp/10133

    A lot of Tories who were there voted against, including big names like IDS, Grieve and David Davis.
    Yes, but those are all evil baby-eating tories.
    Cameron voted the same way as Corbyn: absent.
  • A_View_From_Cumbria5A_View_From_Cumbria5 Posts: 716
    Ave_it said:

    More like 1/400 for Morrisey

    No-one is going to vote for that CORBYNISTA helper Grieve which would only help to bring in a Corbyn government.

    CON maj 40%

    There is no chance that any 2017 Tory voters will vote for Grieve - so he has to get his votes from the Lib Dems - ain't going to happen.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025