politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Was Theresa May on manoeuvres and did it cost her SPAD her

Sunil_Prasannan said:

ToryJim said:

compouter2 said:

Anyone know what the Yougov was today? It's for a tired squirrel that keeps asking me.

@YouGov: Update: Labour lead at 4 - Latest YouGov / Sunday Times results 6th June - Con 33%, Lab 37%, LD 7%, UKIP 14%; APP -27 http://t.co/e2kYz9Qi1z

The Sunil on Sunday has the following figures:

Tory/UKIP 47%
Progressives 44%

or, alternatively:

COA 40%
LAB 37%

isam said:

Mike Natrass on Sunday Politics.. The "An" in "An Independence from Europe" stood for "Anglo-Netherlands"....

HYUFD said:

Carnyx Though Salmond has refused to back Miliband's proposed restoration of the 50% top tax rate

HYUFD said:

ToryJim The Queen is committed to the institution of monarchy above all else, were Charles to be far more popular than her and she unpopular then she would consider stepping down. The fact she has done such a good job means she remains popular and will stay on

HYUFD said:

ToryJim There is a slight difference between abdicating because you want to marry a divorcee, forcing the throne on your younger brother who never wanted it and abdicating after 60 years on the throne in favour of your son. However, as the Queen remains the best asset for the crown she will stay on the throne for life and her son will then have a short reign followed by her grandson

Pulpstar Indeed

SeanT said:

Scott_P said:

SeanT said:

How many of them will actually commit suicide if and when they lose in September? Their anguish will be intolerable.

None of them.

The grievance of having their cherished dream stolen from them by the English will keep them warm for decades to come.

Stories to tell their grand-kids of the good fight they fought, over their keyboards, in Sweden and Somerset.

Dunno. It depends how much they really thought/think they are going to win. During the recent tightening (when YES definitely gained) you sensed - for the first time - genuine conviction, in the YES camp, that they had the big momentum, and it was Really Going to Happen.

Now the polls have widened again.

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-country-1#line

If someone denies your very faint hope of achieving a cherished dream, the grief is nasty but bearable. You always expected to lose. So it goes.

If someone denies your real burning expectation that your lifetime's impossible ambition is miraculously and actually going to happen, the pain is far far worse.

That's the sort of pain that could unbalance a person, especially if they are intrinsically a bit mad, smelly and obsessive, like most Scot Nats.

ToryJim said:

Interesting rumours from the court of Spain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/10884681/King-Juan-Carlos-I-dont-want-my-son-to-grow-old-waiting-like-Prince-Charles.html

Luckyguy1983 said:

perdix said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I don't trust May at all. I would like to, but I don't. I think anyone who stands down the police during the London riots, and then attempts legislation to snoop on people's BBM messages using the riots as justification, has got serious questions to answer. Anyone who claims to be resisting the encroachment of the EU but introduces the European arrest warrant when she doesn't have to has got serious questions to answer.

In my opinion, they want an 'inner circle' person to be lined up if and when Cameron loses the election. Hague, Hammond, Osborne or May would do. Which is why it's imperative in my view that they don't.

May stood down the police during the riots? Source please.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024412/London-riots-Police-soft-looters-ordered-stand-observe.html

But this is only one source -you can google it and take your pick. People forget these things -but I don't.

SeanT said:

PS

For evidence of the wild, dangerous, potentially self-harming psychosis, lurking in the dark Scot Nat soul, read this brilliant screed of Natty anger - in the comments below the piece, which discusses the euro results.

Example comment:

"Absolutely raging. Stunned at the stupidity of our so called fellow Scots, including the greens who have been trying to steal votes from the SNP for weeks.

No idea what LFI were playing at, advising labour voters to vote for that filth is just as bad as ukip & i hope they didn’t use Indy raised funds to get that message out.

All yes minded people are welcome I just wish the deluded labour idiots would just wake up & realise that their poisonous, bastard filth of a party is dead, hallelujah.

Strange coincidence ukip vote 140,000. Missing/spoiled ballot papers (2007) 140,000."

[I have elided some swearwords]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-day-of-shame/#more-55791

Now remember: this frothing rant of desperate rage, tinged with hints of paranoid schizophrenia (the last sentence), is merely the reaction to UKIP winning one seat in a fairly meaningless election.

How will this kind of psychoNat react, if and when they lose their precious once-in-a-lifetime referendum on FREEDOM???

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

PS

For evidence of the wild, dangerous, potentially self-harming psychosis, lurking in the dark Scot Nat soul, read this brilliant screed of Natty anger - in the comments below the piece, which discusses the euro results.

Example comment:

"Absolutely raging. Stunned at the stupidity of our so called fellow Scots, including the greens who have been trying to steal votes from the SNP for weeks.

No idea what LFI were playing at, advising labour voters to vote for that filth is just as bad as ukip & i hope they didn’t use Indy raised funds to get that message out.

All yes minded people are welcome I just wish the deluded labour idiots would just wake up & realise that their poisonous, bastard filth of a party is dead, hallelujah.

Strange coincidence ukip vote 140,000. Missing/spoiled ballot papers (2007) 140,000."

[I have elided some swearwords]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-day-of-shame/#more-55791

Now remember: this frothing rant of desperate rage, tinged with hints of paranoid schizophrenia (the last sentence), is merely the reaction to UKIP winning one seat in a fairly meaningless election.

How will this kind of psychoNat react, if and when they lose their precious once-in-a-lifetime referendum on FREEDOM???

If it happens (and I am still too pessimistic to hope it does), I think we'll see a lot more thousand yard stares than explosions of befuddled rage, at first at least.

isam said:

No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job

perdix said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

perdix said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I don't trust May at all. I would like to, but I don't. I think anyone who stands down the police during the London riots, and then attempts legislation to snoop on people's BBM messages using the riots as justification, has got serious questions to answer. Anyone who claims to be resisting the encroachment of the EU but introduces the European arrest warrant when she doesn't have to has got serious questions to answer.

In my opinion, they want an 'inner circle' person to be lined up if and when Cameron loses the election. Hague, Hammond, Osborne or May would do. Which is why it's imperative in my view that they don't.

May stood down the police during the riots? Source please.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024412/London-riots-Police-soft-looters-ordered-stand-observe.html

But this is only one source -you can google it and take your pick. People forget these things -but I don't.

This shows no evidence that May was involved in holding back police. Since her responsibilities cover the nation, your comment might lead us to assume she was responsible for getting Manchester police to be quick off the mark. It was only after Cameron's intervention that the Met got its act together.

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job

So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?

Ninoinoz said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job

So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?

No, it's not the competing with someone of your own kith and kin, it's competing with the whole of Europe.Or the World, even.

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job

So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?

No need for all the "say's"

Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world

Well, it's a point of view and I guess there are economists out there who can make the case for protectionism... after all it's the natural bed fellow of nationalism.

SeanT said:

The splendid irony is that the Natters outkip the Kippers. The madder Nats make the dippiest Kips look positively sane.

Rexel56 said:

Well, it's a point of view and I guess there are economists out there who can make the case for protectionism... after all it's the natural bed fellow of nationalism.

Ninoinoz said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job

So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?

No need for all the "say's"

Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world

So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?

The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.

The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.

The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job

So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?

No need for all the "say's"

Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world

So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?

If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine

Not sure how that works. If goods are cheaper then the less well off have more opportunity to buy them.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Rexel56 said:

Well, it's a point of view and I guess there are economists out there who can make the case for protectionism... after all it's the natural bed fellow of nationalism.

Protectionism is often sneered at with little justification. It is responsible (for example) for Germany's industrial might. German industry was heavily protected in its infancy (from British exports especially, as Britain was an industrial powerhouse.

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job

So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?

No need for all the "say's"

Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world

So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?

If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine

Not sure how that works. If goods are cheaper then the less well off have more opportunity to buy them.

It works by depressing the wages of the lowest paid and increasing those of the highest paid.

Ninoinoz said:

SouthamObserver said:

Ninoinoz said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job

So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?

No need for all the "say's"

Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world

So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?

The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.

The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.

The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.

Are you telling me that councils no longer maintain council houses or that landlords are exempt from doing it? The idea that tradesmen are only the preserve of the metropolitan elite is laughable. At the last count well over 90% of parents sent their kids to state schools; while everyone uses the NHS for A&E, and a huge majority use it for all other kinds of treatments too. I'll give you nannies though.

Councils are corporations and landlords are businessman. Hardly your WWC.

Remind me. What sort of schools did Cameron, Blair, Osborne and Gove attend? Or a lot of journalists and Beeboids?

As for A&Es:
1. They're being closed down
2. What about the rest of health treatment in this country, especially maternity.

Ninoinoz said:

SouthamObserver said:

Ninoinoz said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job

So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?

No need for all the "say's"

Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world

So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?

The corporations aren't part of the electorate, their shareholders may be. The 1% are part of the electorate, but only a small part.

The beneficiaries are those who employ tradesmen and nannies, have private health cover and send their children to private schools and thus don't have to use the NHS and State schools.

The losers are the poor, unskilled, non-graduates in this country, especially non-White ethnic minorities.

Are you telling me that councils no longer maintain council houses or that landlords are exempt from doing it? The idea that tradesmen are only the preserve of the metropolitan elite is laughable. At the last count well over 90% of parents sent their kids to state schools; while everyone uses the NHS for A&E, and a huge majority use it for all other kinds of treatments too. I'll give you nannies though.

Councils are corporations and landlords are businessman. Hardly your WWC.

Remind me. What sort of schools did Cameron, Blair, Osborne and Gove attend? Or a lot of journalists and Beeboids?

As for A&Es:
1. They're being closed down
2. What about the rest of health treatment in this country, especially maternity.

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

No one has put the English working class first for generations, and its they who are adversely affected by the central tenet of EU membership, free movement of workers. Any party that puts that before its own people can call UKIP all the names they want, but they arent doing their job

So it's OK for an English working class person from, say, Yorkshire to have to compete for a job with someone from, say, Essex but not with someone from, say, Normandy. What's the difference?

No need for all the "say's"

Because a government is elected to look after the interests of the electorate, not the whole world

So what if the person from Normandy can do a better job for a cheaper price. Isn't that in the interests of the electorate?

If you think making the rich richer and the poor poorer is ok I guess thats fine

Not sure how that works. If goods are cheaper then the less well off have more opportunity to buy them.

It works by depressing the wages of the lowest paid and increasing those of the highest paid.

Are wages higher in areas of low immigration?

Probably as immigrants generaly earn low wages

I wrote an article, you read it, that quoted research showing for every 1% of the workforce that was made up of immigrants, the native took a 0.6% pay cut