politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A reminder of the last July’s YouGov LAB members’ polling on t

The rules for the election are set. The timetable is what needs to be decided.

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

DavidL said:

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

We also know that, once the contest is formally announced and nominations are in, there will be a time when anyone on the electoral roll not currently a member, will be able to quite literally buy a vote in the election - and we have no idea, as yet, who they will be and who they will support.

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

The key one is the Liberal Democrat figure, which plummeted again. And that I think does show that the party’s key strength at the moment is in local areas, not at Westminster, as with, say, Plaid Cymru or the Greens.

But that needn’t last for ever - there was a party up in Scotland that started out that way and ended up with quite a few seats at Westminster in the last go...

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

OK, so the Tory and Liberal Democrat figures are both way off.

The others are pretty close though. It forecast the collapse of Labour, if not quite its extent, and the SNP resurgence.

Its a remarkable coincidence that the people who obsess about local byelections seem to be pro LibDem and anti-Conservative.

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

If they want to Boris to have a hard time, then they should elect an attractive young woman...

For a man who spends a lot of his time playing with his horn you sure know how to cast aspersions.

I beg to differ. I am quite sparing in the way I use my eight foot horn. I only pull it out when I want a grand climax.

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

Wouldn't Boris just keep saying that he's proud to be a toff who waves the flag, whereas Thornberry is ashamed of herself for being a toff and sneers at those who wave flags?

Both Long Bailey and Pidcock were relatively unknown when this poll took place. Pidcock doesn’t count anymore, but Long Bailey has hardly made much of a mark since. Starmer has a very good chance.

ydoethur said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

I’m more surprised that 44% didn’t know much about her. I thought of her as quite high profile within Labour.

Interesting that Rayner and Long Bailey don’t seem to have high name recognition either.

There's a lot of new and young faces in labour, Tories would be known more.

ydoethur said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

OK, so the Tory and Liberal Democrat figures are both way off.

The others are pretty close though. It forecast the collapse of Labour, if not quite its extent, and the SNP resurgence.

Anyone could tell you 18 from Northern Ireland, that's all we have.

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

We also know that, once the contest is formally announced and nominations are in, there will be a time when anyone on the electoral roll not currently a member, will be able to quite literally buy a vote in the election - and we have no idea, as yet, who they will be and who they will support.

We don’t know if the registered voter scheme will apply in this election. All we know for certain is that party and affiliate members will be able to. The rest is up to the NEC.

I thought the registered voter scheme was formally part of the process, and it was up to the NEC to set the price?

IIRC it was famously three quid in 2015, but was changed to be a score (same price as a normal menbership) in 2016?

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

We also know that, once the contest is formally announced and nominations are in, there will be a time when anyone on the electoral roll not currently a member, will be able to quite literally buy a vote in the election - and we have no idea, as yet, who they will be and who they will support.

We don’t know if the registered voter scheme will apply in this election. All we know for certain is that party and affiliate members will be able to. The rest is up to the NEC.

I thought the registered voter scheme was formally part of the process, and it was up to the NEC to set the price?

IIRC it was famously three quid in 2015, but was changed to be a score (same price as a normal menbership) in 2016?

Yep, you could be right. And also how long people have to apply.

"Britain First says 5,000 of its members have joined Tories"
Can we expect them all to be kicked out?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/britain-first-says-5000-of-its-members-have-joined-tories/ar-BBYqbP2?ocid=spartandhp

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So we know from this that the average Labour member is delusional, way to the left of where the party needs to be to win and not a good judge of who or what is electable. Bet accordingly. Makes Wrong Daily a bit of a shoo in my opinion.

We also know that, once the contest is formally announced and nominations are in, there will be a time when anyone on the electoral roll not currently a member, will be able to quite literally buy a vote in the election - and we have no idea, as yet, who they will be and who they will support.

We don’t know if the registered voter scheme will apply in this election. All we know for certain is that party and affiliate members will be able to. The rest is up to the NEC.

I thought the registered voter scheme was formally part of the process, and it was up to the NEC to set the price?

IIRC it was famously three quid in 2015, but was changed to be a score (same price as a normal menbership) in 2016?

Yep, you could be right. And also how long people have to apply.

I guess we soon find out, you said earlier that they're meeting in the first week of Jan to discuss - assuming a formal resignation or a formal challenge turns up in the meantime?

TheGreenMachine said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Underpriced or overpriced?

I think kyf means overpriced (too long)

logical_song said:

"Britain First says 5,000 of its members have joined Tories"
Can we expect them all to be kicked out?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/britain-first-says-5000-of-its-members-have-joined-tories/ar-BBYqbP2?ocid=spartandhp

They will be dealt with on an individual basis if complaints are raised, with anyone failing a background check either rejected or expelled as appropriate.

Tories are better than most parties for vetting associates and especially candidates, and any that slip through are quickly removed when it's brought to the attention of the central party. Contrast with another political party, who suspended alleged racists for a few months before quietly reinstating them, when they thought the story had gone quiet.

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Well it predicted Labour correctly xD

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

Look again.

Did you read 386 for 286 ?

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

Look again.

Did you read 386 for 286 ?

Share of vote - up about 1%.

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

Look again.

Did you read 386 for 286 ?

The vote share changes from the by-elections had positive information content. You could have forecast: the Conservative vote share up, Labour collapsing, the SNP surging, and the LDs up. All those were correctly forecast.

What was completely wrong was the (of the top of the head, I reckon) conversion of those factors into parliamentary seats.

Under no circumstances would Con +1% vote share on 2017 result in lost parliamentary seats, especially if Labour was -9%.

WhisperingOracle said:

"Britain First’s spokeswoman, Ashlea Simon, who was questioned under terrorism laws at Heathrow airport last October after a trip to Russia, said Britain First members wanted to form a movement of far-right activists within the Conservative party that would back Johnson in the same way supporters of Momentum joined Labour to solidify Jeremy Corbyn’s grip on the party.

The mass defection of Britain First supporters confirms the backing of Johnson by far-right figures following his election triumph.

Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, recently told followers on the encrypted messaging service Telegram that he has become a paid-up member.

The leader of Britain First, Paul Golding, also claimed to have joined the Conservatives."

They'd stand out in our association....

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

I see that local byelections maintained their record of being crap predictors of general elections:

Since August, the Conservative vote has gone up a tad (+0.82%), the Labour vote has collapsed (-9%) and the Liberal Democrat vote has shot up (+9%), so based on all that, if I was to make an estimate of the general election, I would say the following:

Conservatives 286 seats, Labour 222 seats, Liberal Democrats 66 seats, Scottish National Party 52 seats, Plaid Cymru 3 seats, Independents 2 seats, Green Party 1 seat, Northern Ireland Parties 18.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/11/02/local-by-election-review-the-2017-2019-parliament/

Not too far away for Tory and Labour to be fair.

Look again.

Did you read 386 for 286 ?

The vote share changes from the by-elections had positive information content. You could have forecast: the Conservative vote share up, Labour collapsing, the SNP surging, and the LDs up. All those were correctly forecast.

What was completely wrong was the (of the top of the head, I reckon) conversion of those factors into parliamentary seats.

Under no circumstances would Con +1% vote share on 2017 result in lost parliamentary seats, especially if Labour was -9%.

The seat calculation must have been on the assumption of 50 LibDem gains and 10 SNP gains from the Conservatives only partially offset by Conservative gains from Labour.

Shall we say its not the first time LibDem supporters have produced models which overestimate the LibDems and underestimate the Conservatives.

TheScreamingEagles said:

My friend who follows the far right says Britain First have a membership of between 100 to 500, the 5,000 figure is bullshit.

It is a publicity stunt by Britain First, don't fall for it.

I wonder how many actual names can be produced to back the 5,000 claim.

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

Flavour of the times in a lot of places. I'm not one for bemoaning the state of the world generally, but I do think in some places/issues we are going backwards.

Here's something positive in football.

https://twitter.com/TheAnfieldWrap/status/1210301098466172939

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

Flavour of the times in a lot of places. I'm not one for bemoaning the state of the world generally, but I do think in some places/issues we are going backwards.

Indeed.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1210993841936818176

Maybe this poll is what is responsible for Starmer being so short in the betting market.

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

The difference in price between Thornberry (confirmed runner, feisty, people have heard of) and Starmer (unconfirmed, bland nobody) seems ridiculous to me

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/28/labour-course-become-third-party-future-not-promising-warns/

WhisperingOracle said:

"Britain First’s spokeswoman, Ashlea Simon, who was questioned under terrorism laws at Heathrow airport last October after a trip to Russia, said Britain First members wanted to form a movement of far-right activists within the Conservative party that would back Johnson in the same way supporters of Momentum joined Labour to solidify Jeremy Corbyn’s grip on the party.

The mass defection of Britain First supporters confirms the backing of Johnson by far-right figures following his election triumph.

Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, recently told followers on the encrypted messaging service Telegram that he has become a paid-up member.

The leader of Britain First, Paul Golding, also claimed to have joined the Conservatives."

There’s precisely no chance that ‘Tommy Robinson’ and Paul Golding have joined the Conservatives. They may have filled in a form and paid the subs online, but they won’t have been accepted as members. ‘TR’ has a conviction for perverting the course of justice, and PG a Wiki Page that’s the first hit on his name.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Irrelevant.

But you keep on defending the cow bothering nationalists.

isam said:

ydoethur said:

isam said:

DavidL said:

kyf_100 said:

Quite astonishing that a mere 13% of Labour members thought Pidcock would make a bad leader.

Thornberry still looks underpriced to me. She's a competent performer, people have actually heard of her, she's said she's standing. And she's still available at around 49/1.

Of that somewhat disappointing field I think that Thornberry is the one who would give Boris the hardest time. Starmer is too much the lawyer.

The difference in price between Thornberry (confirmed runner, feisty, people have heard of) and Starmer (unconfirmed, bland nobody) seems ridiculous to me

While I do not rate Starmer, as a successful QC, a former DPP and a long serving shadow minister I don’t think it’s fair to call him a ‘nobody’ - even if in two of his roles he was pretty unsuccessful.

Well I am something of a political nerd, and wouldn't be able to tell you how he spoke, whether it was with fiery passion or quietly precise, or what he stood for. A human rights lawyer type who defends the rights of perceived wronguns? Time will tell, but he seems a genuine lay at 2/1. I think they will choose a woman, and female candidates will press home the point that it is time for a change.

Can you tell me how Thornberry speaks? Leaving aside her fairly significant truth issues...

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Irrelevant.

But you keep on defending the cow bothering nationalists.

I'm not! But just pointing out Pakistan (your ancestors' country) is particularly susceptible to military dictatorship.

Also remind me the number of Muslim-majority countries where gay sex is legal, please?

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

We’re better than them so we can lower our standards isn’t the most compelling if arguments...

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

Every other major sport manages, at the top level, to use technology in such a way that accuracy of decision making is significantly improved. For ages, football, for no reason that made sense from outside the sport, resisted - then changed its mind, started acting as if it invented the idea of having a video referee, and made an incomprehensibly terrible job of implementing it.
Just like every other time football attempts to do something.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

I thought mine was a long enough list, but now I look at Hetherington oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So since the CPS was founded in 1986, I agree there is a very good case to be made that Starmer was by far its best chief, and that’s without any starry eyed views on how good he actually was.

Sadly for him, he's not competing against them in the Labour leadership contest.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Irrelevant.

But you keep on defending the cow bothering nationalists.

How is it irrelevant, anyway, the law pertains to giving a pathway for victims of religious persecution in Muslim countries. The Muslim countries around India should fix their own house then India wouldn't have to offer minorities escaping religious persecution in them citizenship in a safe country. Jews, Christians, Buddhists and others are persecuted and murdered everyday in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. India is doing the right thing, however you want to look at it.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

I thought mine was a long enough list, but now I look at Hetherington oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So since the CPS was founded in 1986, I agree there is a very good case to be made that Starmer was by far its best chief, and that’s without any starry eyed views on how good he actually was.

Well you can say Sir Tony Hetherington was a great DPP, without him we would never have had PACE. Ahem.

Luckyguy1983 said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

I thought mine was a long enough list, but now I look at Hetherington oh dear oh dear oh dear.

So since the CPS was founded in 1986, I agree there is a very good case to be made that Starmer was by far its best chief, and that’s without any starry eyed views on how good he actually was.

Sadly for him, he's not competing against them in the Labour leadership contest.

True.

But you have to wonder a bit about an organisation that fucks up this often and this spectacularly. One for the lawyers - is it an institutional problem or do lawyers just not make very god chief execs?

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

It occurred to me, after commenting above, to wonder how many DPPs have come out of office unscathed. So I ran the rule back over a few:

Current incumbent - no need to elaborate.
Ken MacDonald - repaired his image at the end with his attacks on Tony Blair’s nutty counterterrorism proposals, but was dogged by allegations of corruption throughout his tenure.
David Calvert-Smith - Damilola Taylor (nuff said)
Barbara Mills - Stephen Lawrence (also nuff said)
Allan Green - not only oversaw a series of catastrophes involving Northern Ireland, but was arrested for kerb crawling causing his wife to kill herself.

So I think either we have been quite amazingly unlucky with our choice of DPPs, or there is something in the office that makes it pretty well unmanageable even for highly intelligent, experienced and successful people.

In which case Starmer deserves some credit for being one of the least spattered with the soft and squishy.

I think you should add Sir Tony Hetherington to your list, it really does make Sir Keir look very impressive.

Starmer held a high profile press conference to announce the decision to prosecute Huhne - quite unnecessary and so prejudicial, you would think it would render a subsequent conviction unsafe. I have thought him a complete tunc ever since.

And he appeared to be taking orders from Watson over historic CSA claims.

And yet he’s still a beacon compared to the rest...

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

You mean like the Rohingya?

That's Bangladesh's problem, not India's.

IIRC there are close to 80,000 Rohingya refugees in India.

My geography of that area is imperfect, but I think I’m right in saying Bangladesh has no border with Myanmar? So anyone going from Myanmar to Bangladesh would have to go via India.

Edit - on checking, there is a Myanmar/Bangladesh border, but it’s very short compared with the India/Myanmar border.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

Can you explain the Indian Citizenship Law in simple terms? I know loads of people really excited about it on both sides, but can’t work out why!

India is offering a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who face religious persecution in neighbouring states. It just so happens that these neighbouring states are all Muslim and persecute non-Muslims. It's been a long time coming tbh, someone in South Asia needed to stand up for minorities in Muslim countries and I'm glad it's India.

You mean like the Rohingya?

That's Bangladesh's problem, not India's.

IIRC there are close to 80,000 Rohingya refugees in India.

My geography of that area is imperfect, but I think I’m right in saying Bangladesh has no border with Myanmar? So anyone going from Myanmar to Bangladesh would have to go via India.

Edit - on checking, there is a Myanmar/Bangladesh border, but it’s very short compared with the India/Myanmar border.

Yes, your edit is correct.

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see India is tearing up its constitutional norms.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1210959838219509761

Pakistan's Army have never taken control of Pakistan?

What does a comparison with another state have to do with whether the historic position of the Indian state is changing in some way?

How does the head of the Indian Army commenting on the riots equal a military coup?