Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Long-Bailey back as next LAB leader favourite in very edgy bet

SystemSystem Posts: 12,671
edited December 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Long-Bailey back as next LAB leader favourite in very edgy betting market

There’s been a lot more movement on the Corbyn’s successor betting market on Betfair as the betdata.io chart with Starmer now losing his lead and Long-Bailey moving again into the top slot in the betting.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    edited December 2019
    Is there anybody there?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Black_Rook said:

    Is there anybody there?

    No.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    "Of course it is members of the party’s selectorate who will decide and my reading is that after a fourth successive defeat finding a leader with the potential to win back power might be paramount. That I use the term “might” here speaks volumes."

    Still think they'll pick the most left-wing candidate available.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,315
    Black_Rook said:

    Is there anybody there?

    Said the traveller knocking on the moonlit door
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    2nd like the BBC, as they can't be bothered showing the news as the Apprentice needs a crappy follow-up programme.

    What idiot thought that was a good idea.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Jonathan said:

    Black_Rook said:

    Is there anybody there?

    No.
    Oh.

    OK.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,315
    rottenborough said:

    2nd like the BBC, as they can't be bothered showing the news as the Apprentice needs a crappy follow-up programme.

    What idiot thought that was a good idea.

    You’re right. The Apprentice is a completely ridiculous program.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,085
    Overseas - Impeachment, it's Cooper-Letwin-Grieve-Benn once more isn't it ?
  • isamisam Posts: 42,536
    edited December 2019
    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet to go with the others...

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    DavidL said:

    rottenborough said:

    2nd like the BBC, as they can't be bothered showing the news as the Apprentice needs a crappy follow-up programme.

    What idiot thought that was a good idea.

    You’re right. The Apprentice is a completely ridiculous program.
    Might as well just throw raw petrol onto the burning fire that is marked 'BBC Review' under Johnson's new administration. Crazy.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1207424699904462848

    This. One thousand times.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Loving the "we" in the header, in relation to the Conservatives.

    I cannot understand why the only declared candidate (Thornberry) is still only a 3% chance. Surely she's a similar enough prospect to Starmer, only more left (tick), closer to Corbyn (big tick) and more personality (tick, sort of)?

    Is suing Flinty really that harmful to one's prospects? If so then Nandy looks great value as the only moderately comparable candidate.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    nunu2 said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Labour's combined leadership and EU position has done something which has been a long running issue for the Tories.

    It's (For electoral purposes) expunged the ghost of Thatcher in England's old coalfields. Seismic.

    Millions of new voters now have the blue taint.
    It can be overcome!

    I think.
    Labour will never win (as in gain a majority) ever gain. This is much worse than what the tories faced in 1997.
    Hubris. Then Nemesis.

    I won't believe that Labour's been staked until its very last MP gets voted out - and somehow I don't see it losing the urban cores, the university towns and the seats with very high BAME votes no matter what happens.

    FWIW, I expect Labour will be back in business before too many more years have passed. People will get sick of the Tories - though hopefully not until after Labour has purged its system properly of the Corbyn-Momentum Far Left - and there needs to be an Opposition.
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,097
    Off-Topic



    Man City are very easy to lay at that price.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1207424699904462848

    This. One thousand times.

    Unless what comes afterwards is something with slightly less of an image problem but the same rotten interior.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1207341959536414726
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Black_Rook said:

    nunu2 said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I think Labour's combined leadership and EU position has done something which has been a long running issue for the Tories.

    It's (For electoral purposes) expunged the ghost of Thatcher in England's old coalfields. Seismic.

    Millions of new voters now have the blue taint.
    It can be overcome!

    I think.
    Labour will never win (as in gain a majority) ever gain. This is much worse than what the tories faced in 1997.
    Hubris. Then Nemesis.

    I won't believe that Labour's been staked until its very last MP gets voted out - and somehow I don't see it losing the urban cores, the university towns and the seats with very high BAME votes no matter what happens.

    FWIW, I expect Labour will be back in business before too many more years have passed. People will get sick of the Tories - though hopefully not until after Labour has purged its system properly of the Corbyn-Momentum Far Left - and there needs to be an Opposition.
    It's fine. Farage and the Reform Party have the Opposition thing covered. Politics will be much simpler once we have an actual fake right wing party performing that role, rather than the fake fake right wing version that Blair was so enamoured with.
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,097
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1207341959536414726

    Tony Blair speaks sense.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheGreenMachine said:

    Off-Topic



    Man City are very easy to lay at that price.

    Given the draw Leicester are the clear value at those prices. They should be strong odds-on to beat Villa and odds-on to beat United if United beat City, or only just the underdogs against City.

    Leicester should be about 5/2 max not 7/2
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    TheGreenMachine said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1207341959536414726

    Tony Blair speaks sense.
    Yeh, but, he's a Tory and his administration was a waste of time and did nothing, whereas St Jeremy has built a shining city on the hill.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1207343404625125378
  • isamisam Posts: 42,536
    edited December 2019
    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheGreenMachine said:

    Off-Topic



    Man City are very easy to lay at that price.

    Given the draw Leicester are the clear value at those prices. They should be strong odds-on to beat Villa and odds-on to beat United if United beat City, or only just the underdogs against City.

    Leicester should be about 5/2 max not 7/2
    Each way bet on Leicester is surely huuuuge value? 2.17 to beat Villa over two legs

    Actually isn’t it worth backing Villa each way as well? Are they really offering 1/3 1-2?

    Is the place book overbroke?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1207428344741953536
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Endillion said:

    Loving the "we" in the header, in relation to the Conservatives.

    I cannot understand why the only declared candidate (Thornberry) is still only a 3% chance. Surely she's a similar enough prospect to Starmer, only more left (tick), closer to Corbyn (big tick) and more personality (tick, sort of)?

    Is suing Flinty really that harmful to one's prospects? If so then Nandy looks great value as the only moderately comparable candidate.

    She's not closer to Corbyn. She's seen as the great betrayer.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet

    When you are in the hole you need to stop digging.
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,097
    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheGreenMachine said:

    Off-Topic



    Man City are very easy to lay at that price.

    Given the draw Leicester are the clear value at those prices. They should be strong odds-on to beat Villa and odds-on to beat United if United beat City, or only just the underdogs against City.

    Leicester should be about 5/2 max not 7/2
    I was thinking the exact same.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    Thornberry on Peston. Doubt she has a chance, but she has moments when she can explain things in a clear way that other pols can't do.
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,097
    rottenborough said:

    TheGreenMachine said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1207341959536414726

    Tony Blair speaks sense.
    Yeh, but, he's a Tory and his administration was a waste of time and did nothing, whereas St Jeremy has built a shining city on the hill.
    I thought Blair was in Labour.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,154
    Alistair said:

    Endillion said:

    Loving the "we" in the header, in relation to the Conservatives.

    I cannot understand why the only declared candidate (Thornberry) is still only a 3% chance. Surely she's a similar enough prospect to Starmer, only more left (tick), closer to Corbyn (big tick) and more personality (tick, sort of)?

    Is suing Flinty really that harmful to one's prospects? If so then Nandy looks great value as the only moderately comparable candidate.

    She's not closer to Corbyn. She's seen as the great betrayer.
    She kept too close to him. She is odious imho. Another loser trying to hide her title and be ons of the bruvvers....
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,125
    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet to go with the others...

    isam that's savage. That's worse than the time in 2016 when I gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation in the expectation of some cushy contracts from Uncle Sam.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,008
    isam said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheGreenMachine said:

    Off-Topic



    Man City are very easy to lay at that price.

    Given the draw Leicester are the clear value at those prices. They should be strong odds-on to beat Villa and odds-on to beat United if United beat City, or only just the underdogs against City.

    Leicester should be about 5/2 max not 7/2
    Each way bet on Leicester is surely huuuuge value? 2.17 to beat Villa over two legs

    Actually isn’t it worth backing Villa each way as well? Are they really offering 1/3 1-2?
    We have a home draw in the FA Cup on Sat 4th of Jan against Wigan, and Southampton at home on the 11th, so I would expect to see the reserves in the FA cup and the first team in the Carabao that week. We should be good to beat the Villa, but we are lacking a bit of depth in the squad, particularly as Centrebacks and striker.

    I wouldn't expect to see any first teamer to go in January (our owners have established that now after Mahrez and Maguire) and we may well make a couple of signings. We do have a very busy January though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    TheGreenMachine said:

    rottenborough said:

    TheGreenMachine said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1207341959536414726

    Tony Blair speaks sense.
    Yeh, but, he's a Tory and his administration was a waste of time and did nothing, whereas St Jeremy has built a shining city on the hill.
    I thought Blair was in Labour.
    You obviously haven't been keeping up :smiley:
  • isamisam Posts: 42,536
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheGreenMachine said:

    Off-Topic



    Man City are very easy to lay at that price.

    Given the draw Leicester are the clear value at those prices. They should be strong odds-on to beat Villa and odds-on to beat United if United beat City, or only just the underdogs against City.

    Leicester should be about 5/2 max not 7/2
    Each way bet on Leicester is surely huuuuge value? 2.17 to beat Villa over two legs

    Actually isn’t it worth backing Villa each way as well? Are they really offering 1/3 1-2?
    We have a home draw in the FA Cup on Sat 4th of Jan against Wigan, and Southampton at home on the 11th, so I would expect to see the reserves in the FA cup and the first team in the Carabao that week. We should be good to beat the Villa, but we are lacking a bit of depth in the squad, particularly as Centrebacks and striker.

    I wouldn't expect to see any first teamer to go in January (our owners have established that now after Mahrez and Maguire) and we may well make a couple of signings. We do have a very busy January though.
    My brain may be frazzled but isn’t the place part of that book wrong?

    City 87% chance of making final
    Utd 38%
    Leicester 46%
    Villa 20%

    191%

    Or am I going mad?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1207402621188935682

    Yeh, these people need better, so learn why you lost. The victims of Jezza's vanity and left wing fantasy are the poorest and the most deserving.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Alistair said:

    Endillion said:

    Loving the "we" in the header, in relation to the Conservatives.

    I cannot understand why the only declared candidate (Thornberry) is still only a 3% chance. Surely she's a similar enough prospect to Starmer, only more left (tick), closer to Corbyn (big tick) and more personality (tick, sort of)?

    Is suing Flinty really that harmful to one's prospects? If so then Nandy looks great value as the only moderately comparable candidate.

    She's not closer to Corbyn. She's seen as the great betrayer.
    Apparently; I just seem to have missed the bit where Starmer somehow got away with it, even though he was the one in charge of the policy.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,008
    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheGreenMachine said:

    Off-Topic



    Man City are very easy to lay at that price.

    Given the draw Leicester are the clear value at those prices. They should be strong odds-on to beat Villa and odds-on to beat United if United beat City, or only just the underdogs against City.

    Leicester should be about 5/2 max not 7/2
    Each way bet on Leicester is surely huuuuge value? 2.17 to beat Villa over two legs

    Actually isn’t it worth backing Villa each way as well? Are they really offering 1/3 1-2?
    We have a home draw in the FA Cup on Sat 4th of Jan against Wigan, and Southampton at home on the 11th, so I would expect to see the reserves in the FA cup and the first team in the Carabao that week. We should be good to beat the Villa, but we are lacking a bit of depth in the squad, particularly as Centrebacks and striker.

    I wouldn't expect to see any first teamer to go in January (our owners have established that now after Mahrez and Maguire) and we may well make a couple of signings. We do have a very busy January though.
    My brain may be frazzled but isn’t the place part of that book wrong?

    City 87% chance of making final
    Utd 38%
    Leicester 46%
    Villa 20%

    191%

    Or am I going mad?
    Looking at the FA Cup matches. Man City are at home to Port Vale, Man United are away at Wolves, Villa away at Fulham and Leicester at home to my home town of Wigan. I think Man City and Leicester City are in the best position to rest players.

    I think Man United have the toughest League games over the holidays, so would favour the blue side of Manchester for the final.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Endillion said:

    Alistair said:

    Endillion said:

    Loving the "we" in the header, in relation to the Conservatives.

    I cannot understand why the only declared candidate (Thornberry) is still only a 3% chance. Surely she's a similar enough prospect to Starmer, only more left (tick), closer to Corbyn (big tick) and more personality (tick, sort of)?

    Is suing Flinty really that harmful to one's prospects? If so then Nandy looks great value as the only moderately comparable candidate.

    She's not closer to Corbyn. She's seen as the great betrayer.
    Apparently; I just seem to have missed the bit where Starmer somehow got away with it, even though he was the one in charge of the policy.
    Starmer was not in charge of policy. That’s the point.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,536
    Drutt said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet to go with the others...

    isam that's savage. That's worse than the time in 2016 when I gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation in the expectation of some cushy contracts from Uncle Sam.
    Alistair said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet

    When you are in the hole you need to stop digging.
    It’s getting better! Earlier it was -£303
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    If there’s anything anyone should learn in this political climate it’s not to say something will ‘never’ happen. I’ve certainly learned that lesson myself.
  • NorthernPowerhouseNorthernPowerhouse Posts: 557
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1207402621188935682

    Yeh, these people need better, so learn why you lost. The victims of Jezza's vanity and left wing fantasy are the poorest and the most deserving.

    WCAs were literally brought in by the last labour government !
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,008
    isam said:

    Drutt said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet to go with the others...

    isam that's savage. That's worse than the time in 2016 when I gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation in the expectation of some cushy contracts from Uncle Sam.
    Alistair said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet

    When you are in the hole you need to stop digging.
    It’s getting better! Earlier it was -£303
    I am only green on Rayner, Phillips, Benn, Lammy and Ashworth. Rayner may be a good bet if RLB drops out, and both Phillips and Lammy have the egos to run as reformist candidates. I wonder about Lucy Powell as a long shot candidate.

    I cannot see value in the prices on RLB, Starmer and Nandy. They are too short and all are charisma vacuums.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Above. Who is Rachel Swindon and why are her opinions worth anything more than anybody else’s? Why post them?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,371
    NorthernPowerhouse said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1207402621188935682

    Yeh, these people need better, so learn why you lost. The victims of Jezza's vanity and left wing fantasy are the poorest and the most deserving.

    WCAs were literally brought in by the last labour government !
    Yes, but the last Labour government was actually a Tory government.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,371
    The_Apocalypse said:

    If there’s anything anyone should learn in this political climate it’s not to say something will ‘never’ happen. I’ve certainly learned that lesson myself.

    I've not learned anything about anything since 2001. Keeps me continually surprised and excited.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Is it still the case that the members count as one third of the “selectorate’.
    ??
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,097
    The_Apocalypse said:

    If there’s anything anyone should learn in this political climate it’s not to say something will ‘never’ happen. I’ve certainly learned that lesson myself.

    How about SF will never take their seats? Can we agree on this never?

    Although, personally I think they'll give in eventually.

    Even, Gerry Adams will NEVER be British Prime Minister.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,008
    NorthernPowerhouse said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1207402621188935682

    Yeh, these people need better, so learn why you lost. The victims of Jezza's vanity and left wing fantasy are the poorest and the most deserving.

    WCAs were literally brought in by the last labour government !
    They are pretty callous. I am always getting involved with patients appeals. There are some stories that make you want to cry.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Is it still the case that the members count as one third of the “selectorate’.
    ??

    No.
  • Marcus01Marcus01 Posts: 42
    rcs1000 said:

    NorthernPowerhouse said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1207402621188935682

    Yeh, these people need better, so learn why you lost. The victims of Jezza's vanity and left wing fantasy are the poorest and the most deserving.

    WCAs were literally brought in by the last labour government !
    Yes, but the last Labour government was actually a Tory government.
    It's posts like this that give me hope that the Tories might just remain in power for 100 years!
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Drutt said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet to go with the others...

    isam that's savage. That's worse than the time in 2016 when I gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation in the expectation of some cushy contracts from Uncle Sam.
    Alistair said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet

    When you are in the hole you need to stop digging.
    It’s getting better! Earlier it was -£303
    I am only green on Rayner, Phillips, Benn, Lammy and Ashworth. Rayner may be a good bet if RLB drops out, and both Phillips and Lammy have the egos to run as reformist candidates. I wonder about Lucy Powell as a long shot candidate.

    I cannot see value in the prices on RLB, Starmer and Nandy. They are too short and all are charisma vacuums.
    Not bet yet - last, proper time I bet on creagh,cooper and latterly Corbyn and turned a profit
  • NorthernPowerhouseNorthernPowerhouse Posts: 557
    Foxy said:

    NorthernPowerhouse said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1207402621188935682

    Yeh, these people need better, so learn why you lost. The victims of Jezza's vanity and left wing fantasy are the poorest and the most deserving.

    WCAs were literally brought in by the last labour government !
    They are pretty callous. I am always getting involved with patients appeals. There are some stories that make you want to cry.
    I can imagine. You need some kind of assessment system though, and there’s always going to be terrible cases. I wonder what drives some of the more unjust decisions.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,008
    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Is it still the case that the members count as one third of the “selectorate’.
    ??

    One member one vote now, but there are thresholds for nominations from MPs (+MEPs I think), CLPs and Affiliates (ie Unions). A lot depends on the last of these.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,776
    edited December 2019
    rottenborough said:

    Thornberry on Peston. Doubt she has a chance, but she has moments when she can explain things in a clear way that other pols can't do.

    Her odds at 34 look value to me - I've had a £2 nibble on Betfair. Less unlikely than Yvette Cooper at 21 or Jess Phillips at 16. The profile of the winner is going to be someone who rejects a radical shift back to Blairism, avoids a lot of Corbyn-bashing but looks more reasonable and competent and preferably energetic too (which is where I think Nandy and Starmer need to up their game).
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Philip_Thompson said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Is it still the case that the members count as one third of the “selectorate’.
    ??

    No.
    Okay is it 50pc or 100pc ??
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,085
    @isam Have gone 35 each way on Leicester and 12.50 we on Villa. Think that's +EV ?
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Foxy said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Is it still the case that the members count as one third of the “selectorate’.
    ??

    One member one vote now, but there are thresholds for nominations from MPs (+MEPs I think), CLPs and Affiliates (ie Unions). A lot depends on the last of these.
    Thanks for this

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,816
    NickPalmer said:

    rottenborough said:

    Thornberry on Peston. Doubt she has a chance, but she has moments when she can explain things in a clear way that other pols can't do.

    Her odds at 34 look value to me - I've had a £2 nibble on Betfair. Less unlikely than Yvette Cooper at 21 or Jess Phillips at 16. The profile of the winner is going to be someone who rejects a radical shift back to Blairism, avoids a lot of Corbyn-bashing but looks more reasonable and competent and preferably energetic too (which is where I think Nandy and Starmer need to up their game).
    I agree her odds look value. Just taken a nibble.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,811
    matt said:

    Above. Who is Rachel Swindon and why are her opinions worth anything more than anybody else’s? Why post them?

    Rachel Swindon is the epitome of those influencer gobshites that Labour needs to lock under the stairs for the next fifty years.

    With no internet connection.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,008
    NorthernPowerhouse said:

    Foxy said:

    NorthernPowerhouse said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1207402621188935682

    Yeh, these people need better, so learn why you lost. The victims of Jezza's vanity and left wing fantasy are the poorest and the most deserving.

    WCAs were literally brought in by the last labour government !
    They are pretty callous. I am always getting involved with patients appeals. There are some stories that make you want to cry.
    I can imagine. You need some kind of assessment system though, and there’s always going to be terrible cases. I wonder what drives some of the more unjust decisions.
    So far as I can make out, the private companies doing the assessments use non-medical assessors incentivised to deny people benefits.

    Like much of the welfare state, the vulnerable get screwed and the chancers get away with it. Basically because the vulnerable chronic sick are not very good at working the system.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    So what s happened today to make the punters shift from sir Keir to wrong daily???
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Is it still the case that the members count as one third of the “selectorate’.
    ??

    No.
    Okay is it 50pc or 100pc ??
    100%
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Endillion said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Is it still the case that the members count as one third of the “selectorate’.
    ??

    No.
    Okay is it 50pc or 100pc ??
    100%
    Not really. Members used to be a third so a members vote measured more than an affiliated supporters vote.

    Now its one-supporter-one-vote and it doesn't matter if that supporter is a member or not. The supporters make up 100% through all sorts of means . . . members don't.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,536
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Drutt said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet to go with the others...

    isam that's savage. That's worse than the time in 2016 when I gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation in the expectation of some cushy contracts from Uncle Sam.
    Alistair said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet

    When you are in the hole you need to stop digging.
    It’s getting better! Earlier it was -£303
    I am only green on Rayner, Phillips, Benn, Lammy and Ashworth. Rayner may be a good bet if RLB drops out, and both Phillips and Lammy have the egos to run as reformist candidates. I wonder about Lucy Powell as a long shot candidate.

    I cannot see value in the prices on RLB, Starmer and Nandy. They are too short and all are charisma vacuums.
    I thought keeping Thornberry and Rayner onside was good as they are Keir and RLB replacements. I wouldn’t vote for her, but Phillips would be best I think. Lefties would lap up her ‘gritty take it to the man’ approach I reckon, contrived as I think it is
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Foxy said:

    NorthernPowerhouse said:

    Foxy said:

    NorthernPowerhouse said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1207402621188935682

    Yeh, these people need better, so learn why you lost. The victims of Jezza's vanity and left wing fantasy are the poorest and the most deserving.

    WCAs were literally brought in by the last labour government !
    They are pretty callous. I am always getting involved with patients appeals. There are some stories that make you want to cry.
    I can imagine. You need some kind of assessment system though, and there’s always going to be terrible cases. I wonder what drives some of the more unjust decisions.
    So far as I can make out, the private companies doing the assessments use non-medical assessors incentivised to deny people benefits.

    Like much of the welfare state, the vulnerable get screwed and the chancers get away with it. Basically because the vulnerable chronic sick are not very good at working the system.
    I could say more - as pb s only out benefits guy - I feel I get a very decent income - but I didn’t t diagnose myself as schizo - the quacks did that
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Endillion said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Is it still the case that the members count as one third of the “selectorate’.
    ??

    No.
    Okay is it 50pc or 100pc ??
    100%
    Not really. Members used to be a third so a members vote measured more than an affiliated supporters vote.

    Now its one-supporter-one-vote and it doesn't matter if that supporter is a member or not. The supporters make up 100% through all sorts of means . . . members don't.
    Oh alright then. They no.longer have the three thirds system of members/MPs/trade unionists. Everyone's vote counts equally. Of the options he gave, it's 100% rather than 50%.

    I'm still a little unclear how the registered supporter system works - AIUI, last time they changed the rules mid-contest to make them pay more than just the initial £3 to get voting rights. I believe the final rules for this contest are still TBD.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Drutt said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet to go with the others...

    isam that's savage. That's worse than the time in 2016 when I gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation in the expectation of some cushy contracts from Uncle Sam.
    Alistair said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet

    When you are in the hole you need to stop digging.
    It’s getting better! Earlier it was -£303
    I am only green on Rayner, Phillips, Benn, Lammy and Ashworth. Rayner may be a good bet if RLB drops out, and both Phillips and Lammy have the egos to run as reformist candidates. I wonder about Lucy Powell as a long shot candidate.

    I cannot see value in the prices on RLB, Starmer and Nandy. They are too short and all are charisma vacuums.
    I thought keeping Thornberry and Rayner onside was good as they are Keir and RLB replacements. I wouldn’t vote for her, but Phillips would be best I think. Lefties would lap up her ‘gritty take it to the man’ approach I reckon, contrived as I think it is
    Phillip would be a lol fest - no wonder your book is terrible
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,008
    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Drutt said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet to go with the others...

    isam that's savage. That's worse than the time in 2016 when I gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation in the expectation of some cushy contracts from Uncle Sam.
    Alistair said:

    isam said:

    Had £15 on McD at 1000 earlier. Another bad bet

    When you are in the hole you need to stop digging.
    It’s getting better! Earlier it was -£303
    I am only green on Rayner, Phillips, Benn, Lammy and Ashworth. Rayner may be a good bet if RLB drops out, and both Phillips and Lammy have the egos to run as reformist candidates. I wonder about Lucy Powell as a long shot candidate.

    I cannot see value in the prices on RLB, Starmer and Nandy. They are too short and all are charisma vacuums.
    I thought keeping Thornberry and Rayner onside was good as they are Keir and RLB replacements. I wouldn’t vote for her, but Phillips would be best I think. Lefties would lap up her ‘gritty take it to the man’ approach I reckon, contrived as I think it is
    What is lacking from any of the candidates is a clear direction on the issues of the day, rather than appealing as a Woman/Northerner/Corbynite loyalist/Corbynite opponent. The candidates need to come forth with a coherent idea of what the party is for, not just what it is against. Until that process starts there is no prospect of winning.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,085
    Having done the maths, both Leicester and Villa good value lol.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,115
    https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1207374790425817088?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,115
    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1207421853033205760?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,115
    https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1207303448607236096?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,115
    edited December 2019
    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1207288218099564549?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,115
    https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1207428571947503616?s=20
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    @HYUFD you a fan of Katie Hopkins now?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,371
    Marcus01 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    NorthernPowerhouse said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1207402621188935682

    Yeh, these people need better, so learn why you lost. The victims of Jezza's vanity and left wing fantasy are the poorest and the most deserving.

    WCAs were literally brought in by the last labour government !
    Yes, but the last Labour government was actually a Tory government.
    It's posts like this that give me hope that the Tories might just remain in power for 100 years!
    I was joking...
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,097
    The vast majority of humans are living in a bubble.
    Pulpstar said:

    @isam Have gone 35 each way on Leicester and 12.50 we on Villa. Think that's +EV ?

    Lovely jubbly.
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,097
    Pulpstar said:

    Having done the maths, both Leicester and Villa good value lol.

    Better value than SF taking their Westminster seats, lol.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Pour les nationalistes écossais, le scénario cauchemardesque serait que le Brexit tue non seulement le corbynisme mais aussi leur rêve d'indépendance, en rendant la rupture bien plus dure et bien plus porteuse de perturbations d’un point de vue économique, que ce que les électeurs pourraient endurer. Ce d'autant plus que dans le cadre de sa demande d’adhésion en tant qu’État dissident, l'Écosse risque de buter contre le veto espagnol (qui sera un signal envoyé par l’Espagne à la Catalogne) ; elle risque aussi de devoir s'engager à rejoindre un euro très impopulaire. Les promesses nationalistes d'une frontière ouverte, d'une adhésion facile à l'UE et du maintien de la livre sterling - voire même la tenue d’un autre référendum - risquent à l’avenir d'être présentées comme des chimères inaccessibles.
    https://www.institutmontaigne.org/blog/elections-au-royaume-uni-let-it-be
    Google:

    For the Scottish nationalists, the nightmarish scenario would be that Brexit kills not only corbynism but also their dream of independence, by making the rupture much harder and much more disturbing from an economic point of view, than what the voters could endure. This is all the more so because in the context of its application for membership as a dissident state, Scotland risks coming up against the Spanish veto (which will be a signal sent by Spain to Catalonia); it also risks having to commit to joining a very unpopular euro. Nationalist promises of an open border, easy membership of the EU and the maintenance of the pound sterling - or even the holding of another referendum - risk in the future being presented as unrealistic chimeras.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,115
    The_Apocalypse said:

    @HYUFD you a fan of Katie Hopkins now?

    She is punchy whether you like her or not, I know President Trump is a fan of hers
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,371
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1207428571947503616?s=20

    The question I have is, is there anything Trump could do that is impeachable? Or is the concept of impeachment simply outmoded, and the President of the day should have unfettered power.

    The defence I see as plausible is that impeachment is supposed to be for Treason and for High Crimes and Misdemeanours. And whatever you might think of the Ukraine call, it does not reach that bar.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Lol..

    https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/status/1207367037590364160?s=20
    https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/status/1207381347741904896?s=20
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1207428571947503616?s=20

    The question I have is, is there anything Trump could do that is impeachable? Or is the concept of impeachment simply outmoded, and the President of the day should have unfettered power.

    The defence I see as plausible is that impeachment is supposed to be for Treason and for High Crimes and Misdemeanours. And whatever you might think of the Ukraine call, it does not reach that bar.
    It would have also have helped the Democrat cause if they hadn’t t said they were aiming for impeach from day one.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1207428571947503616?s=20

    The question I have is, is there anything Trump could do that is impeachable? Or is the concept of impeachment simply outmoded, and the President of the day should have unfettered power.

    The defence I see as plausible is that impeachment is supposed to be for Treason and for High Crimes and Misdemeanours. And whatever you might think of the Ukraine call, it does not reach that bar.
    How is that plausible? A "misdemeanor" doesn't seem like a very high bar at all. It is literally a minor wrongdoing. And blackmailing an American ally with blocking critical military aid, in order for them to manufacture dirt on your campaign opponent, seems to qualify for minor wrongdoing.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,371
    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1207428571947503616?s=20

    The question I have is, is there anything Trump could do that is impeachable? Or is the concept of impeachment simply outmoded, and the President of the day should have unfettered power.

    The defence I see as plausible is that impeachment is supposed to be for Treason and for High Crimes and Misdemeanours. And whatever you might think of the Ukraine call, it does not reach that bar.
    It would have also have helped the Democrat cause if they hadn’t t said they were aiming for impeach from day one.
    Maybe so, but Pelosi avoided every opportunity. It was only this one, when the evidence was particularly damaging, where she went for it.
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,097
    CarlottaVance said:

    Lol..

    https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/status/1207367037590364160?s=20
    https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/status/1207381347741904896?s=20

    This is what Northern Ireland needs desperately.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,063
    HYUFD said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    @HYUFD you a fan of Katie Hopkins now?

    She is punchy whether you like her or not, I know President Trump is a fan of hers
    Avoiding the question I see.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    edited December 2019
    A very young Keir Starmer;

    https://twitter.com/JRogan3000/status/1207396361827733506?s=20

    Of course he's done a lot of other stuff since, some of it at the DPP not quite so glorious...
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    Jonathan said:

    Endillion said:

    Alistair said:

    Endillion said:

    Loving the "we" in the header, in relation to the Conservatives.

    I cannot understand why the only declared candidate (Thornberry) is still only a 3% chance. Surely she's a similar enough prospect to Starmer, only more left (tick), closer to Corbyn (big tick) and more personality (tick, sort of)?

    Is suing Flinty really that harmful to one's prospects? If so then Nandy looks great value as the only moderately comparable candidate.

    She's not closer to Corbyn. She's seen as the great betrayer.
    Apparently; I just seem to have missed the bit where Starmer somehow got away with it, even though he was the one in charge of the policy.
    Starmer was not in charge of policy. That’s the point.
    Starmer just did this:
    But Starmer, who led Labour’s side of those talks, was determined to get a commitment to a second referendum into the final package. And his lack of good faith in negotiating any sort of “compromise” Brexit deal was revealed by May’s former press chief Robbie Gibb, who wrote after May’s fall how Labour’s desire to “thwart attempts to reach common ground . . . reached an almost farcical level one April afternoon when Starmer opened his remarks by dismissing proposals, outlined in a discussion document, as ‘totally inadequate’. Gavin Barwell, then the PM’s chief of staff, sighed. ‘These are Labour’s own proposals,’ he said. ‘They have been literally cut and pasted from a document you submitted to us.’ There was a knowing and embarrassed laugh from the Labour side.”
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    edited December 2019
    CarlottaVance said:

    A very young Keir Starmer;

    https://twitter.com/JRogan3000/status/1207396361827733506?s=20

    Of course he's done a lot of other stuff since, some of it at the DPP not quite so glorious...

    Loving the the pro bono translation for the plebby labour base
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Gabs3 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Endillion said:

    Alistair said:

    Endillion said:

    Loving the "we" in the header, in relation to the Conservatives.

    I cannot understand why the only declared candidate (Thornberry) is still only a 3% chance. Surely she's a similar enough prospect to Starmer, only more left (tick), closer to Corbyn (big tick) and more personality (tick, sort of)?

    Is suing Flinty really that harmful to one's prospects? If so then Nandy looks great value as the only moderately comparable candidate.

    She's not closer to Corbyn. She's seen as the great betrayer.
    Apparently; I just seem to have missed the bit where Starmer somehow got away with it, even though he was the one in charge of the policy.
    Starmer was not in charge of policy. That’s the point.
    Starmer just did this:
    But Starmer, who led Labour’s side of those talks, was determined to get a commitment to a second referendum into the final package. And his lack of good faith in negotiating any sort of “compromise” Brexit deal was revealed by May’s former press chief Robbie Gibb, who wrote after May’s fall how Labour’s desire to “thwart attempts to reach common ground . . . reached an almost farcical level one April afternoon when Starmer opened his remarks by dismissing proposals, outlined in a discussion document, as ‘totally inadequate’. Gavin Barwell, then the PM’s chief of staff, sighed. ‘These are Labour’s own proposals,’ he said. ‘They have been literally cut and pasted from a document you submitted to us.’ There was a knowing and embarrassed laugh from the Labour side.”
    That s ace goss - what was the source?
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Endillion said:

    Alistair said:

    Endillion said:

    Loving the "we" in the header, in relation to the Conservatives.

    I cannot understand why the only declared candidate (Thornberry) is still only a 3% chance. Surely she's a similar enough prospect to Starmer, only more left (tick), closer to Corbyn (big tick) and more personality (tick, sort of)?

    Is suing Flinty really that harmful to one's prospects? If so then Nandy looks great value as the only moderately comparable candidate.

    She's not closer to Corbyn. She's seen as the great betrayer.
    Apparently; I just seem to have missed the bit where Starmer somehow got away with it, even though he was the one in charge of the policy.
    Starmer was not in charge of policy. That’s the point.
    Starmer just did this:
    But Starmer, who led Labour’s side of those talks, was determined to get a commitment to a second referendum into the final package. And his lack of good faith in negotiating any sort of “compromise” Brexit deal was revealed by May’s former press chief Robbie Gibb, who wrote after May’s fall how Labour’s desire to “thwart attempts to reach common ground . . . reached an almost farcical level one April afternoon when Starmer opened his remarks by dismissing proposals, outlined in a discussion document, as ‘totally inadequate’. Gavin Barwell, then the PM’s chief of staff, sighed. ‘These are Labour’s own proposals,’ he said. ‘They have been literally cut and pasted from a document you submitted to us.’ There was a knowing and embarrassed laugh from the Labour side.”
    That s ace goss - what was the source?

    It was in the Times.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    So what s happened today to make the punters shift from sir Keir to wrong daily???

    Thornberry has announced she s standing I guess
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    Gabs3 said:

    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Endillion said:

    Alistair said:

    Endillion said:

    Loving the "we" in the header, in relation to the Conservatives.

    I cannot understand why the only declared candidate (Thornberry) is still only a 3% chance. Surely she's a similar enough prospect to Starmer, only more left (tick), closer to Corbyn (big tick) and more personality (tick, sort of)?

    Is suing Flinty really that harmful to one's prospects? If so then Nandy looks great value as the only moderately comparable candidate.

    She's not closer to Corbyn. She's seen as the great betrayer.
    Apparently; I just seem to have missed the bit where Starmer somehow got away with it, even though he was the one in charge of the policy.
    Starmer was not in charge of policy. That’s the point.
    Starmer just did this:
    But Starmer, who led Labour’s side of those talks, was determined to get a commitment to a second referendum into the final package. And his lack of good faith in negotiating any sort of “compromise” Brexit deal was revealed by May’s former press chief Robbie Gibb, who wrote after May’s fall how Labour’s desire to “thwart attempts to reach common ground . . . reached an almost farcical level one April afternoon when Starmer opened his remarks by dismissing proposals, outlined in a discussion document, as ‘totally inadequate’. Gavin Barwell, then the PM’s chief of staff, sighed. ‘These are Labour’s own proposals,’ he said. ‘They have been literally cut and pasted from a document you submitted to us.’ There was a knowing and embarrassed laugh from the Labour side.”
    That s ace goss - what was the source?
    It was in the Times.

    Good stuff it s been my favourite paper for a while.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1207288218099564549?s=20

    There was a Labour mp on talk radio earlier- he also said RLB would equal destruction of Labour
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    JBriskinindyref2 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Endillion said:

    Alistair said:

    Endillion said:

    Loving the "we" in the header, in relation to the Conservatives.

    I cannot understand why the only declared candidate (Thornberry) is still only a 3% chance. Surely she's a similar enough prospect to Starmer, only more left (tick), closer to Corbyn (big tick) and more personality (tick, sort of)?

    Is suing Flinty really that harmful to one's prospects? If so then Nandy looks great value as the only moderately comparable candidate.

    She's not closer to Corbyn. She's seen as the great betrayer.
    Apparently; I just seem to have missed the bit where Starmer somehow got away with it, even though he was the one in charge of the policy.
    Starmer was not in charge of policy. That’s the point.
    Starmer just did this:
    But Starmer, who led Labour’s side of those talks, was determined to get a commitment to a second referendum into the final package. And his lack of good faith in negotiating any sort of “compromise” Brexit deal was revealed by May’s former press chief Robbie Gibb, who wrote after May’s fall how Labour’s desire to “thwart attempts to reach common ground . . . reached an almost farcical level one April afternoon when Starmer opened his remarks by dismissing proposals, outlined in a discussion document, as ‘totally inadequate’. Gavin Barwell, then the PM’s chief of staff, sighed. ‘These are Labour’s own proposals,’ he said. ‘They have been literally cut and pasted from a document you submitted to us.’ There was a knowing and embarrassed laugh from the Labour side.”
    That s ace goss - what was the source?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dominic-lawson-labour-centrists-blew-this-not-corbyn-lrg82npgk
  • AramintaMoonbeamQCAramintaMoonbeamQC Posts: 3,916
    It's everyone's favourite nut job, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, everybody!

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10583248/labour-mp-calls-colleagues-c-word/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1207443147908890625?s=20
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    https://twitter.com/ExStrategist/status/1207295649034752005?s=20
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,803
    Interesting comparisons, maybe a little far out but it tickled the current parallels between the Johnson campaign and previous populist wins in Europe.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/12/central-europe-s-authoritarians-show-where-unleashed-boris-johnson-could-lead
  • AramintaMoonbeamQCAramintaMoonbeamQC Posts: 3,916
    Period of reflection latest: There's been a breakthrough:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/18/brexit-labour-election-corbyn-left
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025