politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Let us not forget how much Corbyn contributed to Johnson’s GE2

eek said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019

Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense

Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority

I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated

The other thing to remember is that a very large number of dud (Pidcock) or superannuated (Skinner) MPs have now lost their seats. Seats that in some cases they were parachuted into against the wishes of the constituency party and then more or less ignored.

So next time in those seats there will be younger, more ambitious and probably more determined candidates under no illusion that they can take voters for granted.

Will that help Labour retake them? Possibly, although it has to be said the example of Mansfield, which has a dud Tory MP whose majority skyrocketed, isn’t encouraging for Labour.

For a lot of the northern seats Labour is being punished for their running of local councils that had their budgets destroyed by Austerity and Osbourne changing the rules on council tax...

kle4 said:

I do think the testiness of Corbyn showed much of his true character. Its certainly true that he was not someone who had spent his time grasping for power all his career, and he had a rather pleasant and mild demeanour which is admirable to a degree, but his supposed humility I never quite bought.

He was so self righteous, so clearly irritated when pressed, so so angry and simply not competent and yet I think quite vain. Not in the same way as Boris whose vanity reveals in other ways, but in how the most important thing seems to be his own image and purity, not achieving things.

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

Black_Rook said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

A curious omission from @HYUFD when posting polls:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1286321036213080066?s=09

Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling

That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.

Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.

Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is

Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age

It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.

However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.

Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.

Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.

As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.

HYUFD said:

No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so

There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.

Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.

If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100

Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.

GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.

(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)

Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.

Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

I do think the testiness of Corbyn showed much of his true character. Its certainly true that he was not someone who had spent his time grasping for power all his career, and he had a rather pleasant and mild demeanour which is admirable to a degree, but his supposed humility I never quite bought.

He was so self righteous, so clearly irritated when pressed, so so angry and simply not competent and yet I think quite vain. Not in the same way as Boris whose vanity reveals in other ways, but in how the most important thing seems to be his own image and purity, not achieving things.

This reads like a review of PMQs...

Bereft of intellectual weight, with nothing much in his head and painfully conscious of the deficiency, BoZo's options were to lean heavily on unctuous self-righteousness or, when that failed, to lash out. Unable to provide good reasons, or any reasons, for his decisions, he simply acted with erratic impunity and got instantly testy if anyone questioned his authority.

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1286537570478940160

Interesting the Tories and Labour are both seen by 12% as in the centre

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

BoZo begging letter

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1286563803564576769

Begging letter?

Are you new to this whole politics malarkey? Parties are always emailing their lists asking for fundraising. Would you have been so snarkey to Cameron? I doubt it.

Dont american presidents spend most of their time fundraising? Our politicians are probably hard working by comparison.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

Black_Rook said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

A curious omission from @HYUFD when posting polls:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1286321036213080066?s=09

Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling

That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.

Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.

Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is

Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age

It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.

However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.

Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.

Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.

As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.

HYUFD said:

No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so

There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.

Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.

If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100

Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.

GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.

(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)

Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.

Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK

Come now, a federal UK is about as plausible as a chocolate SpaceX launchpad until England is broken up into more appropriate chunks, which the English wil never accept especially in their current mood (and under Tory domination, though this time the SNP could and would intervene in the vote as it would pertain to a UK wide matter, which would give the Tories more excuse for malice and bile). We discussed all this - including the return of the A/S Heptarchy - back in 2013-2014 and pretty much concluded that the only stable states for Scotland in the UK are as a colony under the rule of a Tory satrap, as when Messrs Forsyth and Rifkind were i/c, or as an independent state.

BluestBlue said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

Black_Rook said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

A curious omission from @HYUFD when posting polls:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1286321036213080066?s=09

Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling

That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.

Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.

Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is

Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age

It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.

However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.

Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.

Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.

As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.

HYUFD said:

No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so

There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.

Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.

If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100

Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.

GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.

(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)

Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.

Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK

Come now, a federal UK is about as plausible as a chocolate SpaceX launchpad until England is broken up into more appropriate chunks, which the English wil never accept especially in their current mood (and under Tory domination, though this time the SNP could and would intervene in the vote as it would pertain to a UK wide matter, which would give the Tories more excuse for malice and bile). We discussed all this - including the return of the A/S Heptarchy - back in 2013-2014 and pretty much concluded that the only stable states for Scotland in the UK are as a colony under the rule of a Tory satrap, as when Messrs Forsyth and Rifkind were i/c, or as an independent state.

A Tory satrap? Now we're talking! How many parasangs is Scotland from North to South?

ydoethur said:

Dura_Ace said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/OlafStorbeck/status/1286552312081797122

If you will insist on riding around on a steel relic of a bygone age...

Says a vintage car enthusiast.

kinabalu said:

On topic -

The BBC election. Brexit. "Boris". Corbyn.

And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.

Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.

Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.

What can you do?

kle4 said:

Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

Black_Rook said:

kle4 said:

Black_Rook said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

A curious omission from @HYUFD when posting polls:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1286321036213080066?s=09

Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling

That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.

Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.

Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is

Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age

It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.

However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.

Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.

Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.

As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.

HYUFD said:

No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so

There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.

Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.

If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100

Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.

GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.

(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)

Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.

Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK

kle4 said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

ydoethur said:

BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.

I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-hard-left-antisemitism-whistleblowers-561470

I think makes sense. Keir is fixing an image as politically very different to Corbyn without yet changing policy much, through competence, tone and some appropriate gestures. No need to go on the front foot against Corbyn. If he does something expulsion worthy all the better but just wait and ease him and his cohorts out. Corbyn himself might never go but his followers will.

It is truly remarkable, considering we are told Corbyn is such a nice and humble man (he does seem like hed be a nice person to talk to) just how viscerally so many MPs disliked him or distrusted his leadership after knowing him for so long.

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Labour have written to Ofcom asking for an urgent review into RT's licence to broadcast inthe UK

You could not have conceived that 6 months ago

Not sure why tbh. It is blatant propaganda but the idea that it genuinely influences people is a bit of a stretch. Maybe the odd Salmonista but no one even vaguely sensible.

I'd be inclined to agree in general, but then most attempts to influence people taken individually are not likely hugely effective. A lot of people, a lot, thought or think the Brexir vote did not count if the Russians put out some Facebook ads and twitter bots.

Sandpit said:

it seems we’re willing to walk out and negotiate again with no-deal as the status quo next year - which would put much more pressure on all sides to compromise.

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!

That's both teams

MaxPB said:

I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.

Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1286537570478940160

Interesting the Tories and Labour are both seen by 12% as in the centre

Ah - so that's where the LibDem votes went.....

The LDs are still seen as the most centrist party though

Not a great USP in a time of political polarisation.

edmundintokyo said:

On the VP, I missed the last thread but did we do this story?
https://californiaglobe.com/congress/source-coelho-pushing-biden-to-pick-bass/

Not massively well sourced but FWIW they're claiming it comes down to
𝄢 vs 🦆

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

On topic -

The BBC election. Brexit. "Boris". Corbyn.

And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.

Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.

Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.

What can you do?

There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".

Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Composite PMI of 57.1 in June. That's surprisingly good, I has it pencilled in at 54 with lower expectations in services for sure.

Obviously this is growing from a low base, however, there is now mounting evidence that there is a V shaped recovery underway, a second lockdown will severely set us back. The US is proof of this.

Absolutely agreed. We need to at all costs avoid a second lockdown. That means being smart, wear a mask etc.

We need to keep our liberties. If that means wearing a cloth mask then do it ... It's nothing compared to a second lockdown.

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

Kicking Corbyn out the party would be a master stroke. Would send a crystal clear message to the electorate. Next target Tony Blair.

The SNP must be praying any purge doesn’t encompass Richard Leonard.

Edit - mind you, they were worried that Wendy Alexander being forced out would be bad news. Didn’t turn out that way...

Kind of right. I admit that a lot of my colleagues value Leonard because he is so utterly useless (heck, witness my own gif), but personally I would prefer to see a brighter, more competent and pro-Scottish SLab leader. My logic being that independence is going to be very demanding not just on the winning Yes team, but equally so on the losing Opposition. It is in all our interests that *all* parties are lead by intelligent, pleasant, constructive, well-meaning people. Labour and the Lib Dems are getting there. Tories are miles off.

I’m a big Wendy fan, and always have been. She was the last good SLab leader. It was Gordon Brown who bullied her out, one of his biggest mistakes. Wendy was a truly strategic Unionist thinker. Gey few of those about.

rkrkrk said:

MaxPB said:

I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.

Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.

I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.

What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!

That's both teams

That's nearly 40 people per team!

I can only imagine it's the full squad (including reserves etc) not the full team. Or are there really that many per team?

There’s 9 people in a baseball team, in the same way as there’s 11 in a cricket team.

StuartDickson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, I must've missed the meeting where it was decided Scotland's a cohesive unit, Wales is a cohesive unit, and England has to be sliced into pieces.

Do you want these petty fiefdoms to have power equal to Holyrood?

If you do, then you're advocating different rates of income tax and educational policies within different parts of England. If you do not, then you're arguing the English deserve an inferior level of devolution.

England is one land. It isn't yours or some here today, gone tomorrow politician's to carve up into administratively convenient pieces.

I agree. I see no merit in splitting up England, other than into units of local government. I’m actually a bit of a convert to simply reverting to the old shires and be done with it: an awful lot of people are still fiercely proud of their old counties, despite being abolished (by the Tories!?!) way back in the 1970s.

England is one nation. Scots, and others, should respect that.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

rkrkrk said:

MaxPB said:

I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.

Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.

I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.

What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.

Not just the Tory party, the rest of the country as well. Robbins' deal was an absolute turd and those FT reports and reports from Bruno Waterfield were always extremely on point and quite depressing at the time. The Frost approach is the correct one.

Negotiations are always adversarial, Robbins not treating it as such is why his deal was so crap. The correct attitude is that the EU is our informal enemy until we have a treaty saying otherwise at which point they become a formal ally.

Frost capitulated and got the same deal May originally negotiated - but sure

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, I must've missed the meeting where it was decided Scotland's a cohesive unit, Wales is a cohesive unit, and England has to be sliced into pieces.

Do you want these petty fiefdoms to have power equal to Holyrood?

If you do, then you're advocating different rates of income tax and educational policies within different parts of England. If you do not, then you're arguing the English deserve an inferior level of devolution.

England is one land. It isn't yours or some here today, gone tomorrow politician's to carve up into administratively convenient pieces.

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

USA Dem Veep pick -- a new contender.

Betfair has added Nadja West to the market. There is no obvious reason for her inclusion other than some cynical layer asked Betfair to add her name but what do I know? Perhaps she is BFF with Joe.

She does have a compelling biography but no obvious link to politics that I can see from her Wikipedia page. Female, Black, orphan who rose to become Surgeon General of the US Army, from which position she has just retired.

In case anyone thinks role models do not matter, or that Wikipedia is not written and edited by nerds:
She has claimed an early, positive influence was seeing a black, female character (Uhura) on the bridge of Star Trek's USS Enterprise (NCC-1701).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadja_West

What did I say the other day, about the dangers of betting on a contest where the winner is one man’s pick from 330m eligible candidates?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

rkrkrk said:

MaxPB said:

I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.

Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.

I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.

What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.

Not just the Tory party, the rest of the country as well. Robbins' deal was an absolute turd and those FT reports and reports from Bruno Waterfield were always extremely on point and quite depressing at the time. The Frost approach is the correct one.

Negotiations are always adversarial, Robbins not treating it as such is why his deal was so crap. The correct attitude is that the EU is our informal enemy until we have a treaty saying otherwise at which point they become a formal ally.

Frost capitulated and got the same deal May originally negotiated - but sure

Err. There is no deal at present

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, the English haven't been asked.

Labour tried its Northeast Assembly bullshit, but that's been it on the political front.

I was wryly amused at the metropolitan idiocy of the BBC's Mark Easton a few years ago. He travelled to Cornwall to do a segment on devolution. He talked about a Cornish or SW body (Cornwall plus Devon) and a wider one with Somerset and Dorset. Magically managed not to ever mention the concept of an English Parliament.

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?

Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.

Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.

No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?

Because the English wont' do it.

Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?

I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.

Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?

Kicking Corbyn out the party would be a master stroke. Would send a crystal clear message to the electorate. Next target Tony Blair.

The SNP must be praying any purge doesn’t encompass Richard Leonard.

Edit - mind you, they were worried that Wendy Alexander being forced out would be bad news. Didn’t turn out that way...

Kind of right. I admit that a lot of my colleagues value Leonard because he is so utterly useless (heck, witness my own gif), but personally I would prefer to see a brighter, more competent and pro-Scottish SLab leader. My logic being that independence is going to be very demanding not just on the winning Yes team, but equally so on the losing Opposition. It is in all our interests that *all* parties are lead by intelligent, pleasant, constructive, well-meaning people. Labour and the Lib Dems are getting there. Tories are miles off.

I’m a big Wendy fan, and always have been. She was the last good SLab leader. It was Gordon Brown who bullied her out, one of his biggest mistakes. Wendy was a truly strategic Unionist thinker. Gey few of those about.

Your surely right about independence being "very demanding". The costs of a break-up will be huge and there will be zero acceptance on the part of RUK taxpayers to pay for any of it. After all, they won't have voted for it. It will be a bloody divorce with a very asymmetric cost being borne north of the border. The parallel negotiations to re-enter the EU will be fun too - wonder what price the Spanish Govt will insist on, given their pre-occupation with Catalonia?

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, the English haven't been asked.

Labour tried its Northeast Assembly bullshit, but that's been it on the political front.

I was wryly amused at the metropolitan idiocy of the BBC's Mark Easton a few years ago. He travelled to Cornwall to do a segment on devolution. He talked about a Cornish or SW body (Cornwall plus Devon) and a wider one with Somerset and Dorset. Magically managed not to ever mention the concept of an English Parliament.

True. But are the Tories going to offer it? Mr HYUFD seems to be getting a different line from CCHQ which makes me wonder ...

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!

That's both teams

I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!

That's both teams

I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.

Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed.
8 position players plus subs for injuries etc.
So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?

Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.

Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.

No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?

Because the English wont' do it.

Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?

I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.

But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.

Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.

So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: looks unlikely we'll be visiting China this year.

Shame. I was looking forward to some world class moral hypocrisy.

Not to sound rude but are you not capable of quoting the posts you respond to? I have no idea what you're referring to most of the time

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?

Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.

Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.

No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?

Because the English wont' do it.

Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?

I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.

But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.

Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.

So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

kle4 said:

Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!

That's both teams

I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.

Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed.
8 position players plus subs for injuries etc.
So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.

Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.