politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson says get on Andy Burnham as EdM’s successor
Longstanding PBers will know that Henry G Manson’s has a great record with his tips on anything to do with LAB. He was dead right on EdM in 2010 and his guidance has proved pretty good over the years.
Comments
-
Skybet is the best place for this at generous odds of 14-10
-
Burnham certainly way out in front but how on earth can Angela Eagle be joint 3rd favourite ?0
-
Surprised to see no update on today's Populus with Con & Lab on 35% each.0
-
Angela Eagle is available at 100-1 with Ladbrokes.SimonStClare said:Burnham certainly way out in front but how on earth can Angela Eagle be joint 3rd favourite ?
Probably not the worst 100-1 shot, but Burnham is better value at 14s.0 -
Tony Blair @ 33-1
David Miliband @ 20-1.... 9.86% of cash on him - Arf !
0 -
Detest the man and if it came to a forced choice between Satan and Burnham I would struggle as to who was the worst person to lead the country. However, given the talent on the Labour front bench, 14-1 seems too tempting not to risk a modest sum.0
-
Cruddas 40/1 the man
Betfair Sportsbook have Andy DURNHAM at 16/1...0 -
Ladbrokes worst results currently in the next lab leader market:
Hunt 16/1
Umunna 7/1
Burnham 10/1
I've also noticed that we have taken four bets on Nick Palmer at 500/1.
O/T Here is a short run-down of the most likely seats in Wales to change hands in 2015:
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/the-11-seats-in-wales-that-could-change-hands-in-2015/0 -
Burnham gained a lot of credibility with the grassroots and activists with his Hillsborough campaign, which gives him authenticity as a man who fights for the working man and justice for their issues. I'm not a fan of leadership betting, but the 14/1 on Burnham is excellent value. Should be half that, even given the unpredictability of these things.0
-
As a person, I like Andy Burnham (which as Tory supporting Liverpool fan, I should hate the Labour bluenose) but there we are.
As an aside, I think Burnham is easily provoked and makes some silly threats.
Who can forget his threat to sue Jeremy Hunt?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/07/jeremy-hunt-claims-against-andy-burnham0 -
I don't recall that it was Satan's mismanagement which killed 1200 people in Stafford Hospital. Although considering the area around there he'd have taken a good percentage of the souls.HurstLlama said:Detest the man and if it came to a forced choice between Satan and Burnham I would struggle as to who was the worst person to lead the country. However, given the talent on the Labour front bench, 14-1 seems too tempting not to risk a modest sum.
I'm voting Satan in that election every time.0 -
Ed is Crap..Burnham is crapper..the Eagles are a joke..any one of them please.
When will Scousers realise that the people that pushed and crushed their fellow Liverpudlians to death were from Liverpool..no-one else0 -
felix said:
Surprised to see no update on today's Populus with Con & Lab on 35% each.
Doesn't fit in with last nights YouGuv narrative.
0 -
It's a complete mystery to me why Labour supporters have discovered they are so keen on a chap who seems completely undistinguished and who is totally lacking in charisma, and who quite rightly came a poor fourth out of five last time in a field which wasn't exactly stellar, having performed exceptionally badly in the hustings. He only narrowly beat Diane Abbott!
Still, I'm not the target market, and business is business. I'm on from a while back at 25/1, but at 14/1 it's still a good bet, and HenryG is a good judge of matters Labour.0 -
Plato..nice to see you posting again..0
-
It would be interesting to know the gender/age split in Labour List's survey.Yvette Cooper remains the fav and there would really need to be another question asked in a new survey as "who's doing best in the shadow cabinet?" is very different from "who should be leader"?
Andy Burnham is currently a leading candidate but who is to say those of the younger generation,including any number of impressive Labour women,may eventually hold sway?0 -
Hillsborough has done him massive favours, and he's better connected this time round.Richard_Nabavi said:It's a complete mystery to me why Labour supporters have discovered they are so keen on a chap who seems completely undistinguished and who is totally lacking in charisma, and who quite rightly came a poor fourth out of five last time in a field which wasn't exactly stellar, having performed exceptionally badly in the hustings. He only narrowly beat Diane Abbott!
Still, I'm not the target market, and business is business. I'm on from a while back at 25/1, but at 14/1 it's still a good bet, and HenryG is a good judge of matters Labour.0 -
Burnham "... a man who fights for the working man and justice for their issues ..."
Unless they are are old or ill in which case, f*k'em, they can lie in their own filth until thirst, starvation or illness gets them.0 -
Cannot see it myself.
Will Burnham be voted for, knowing how the Conservatives will use his NHS history against Labour if he was leader?
0 -
The voters in leadership elections are the choir, not those they are trying to convert. Labour voters don't blame him for Mid Staffs, rightly or wrongly.HurstLlama said:Burnham "... a man who fights for the working man and justice for their issues ..."
Unless they are are old or ill in which case, f*k'em, they can lie in their own filth until thirst, starvation or illness gets them.0 -
I can't see that being held against him by Labour supporters. The NHS is a religion, and he's a high priest. The fact that his tenure was a disaster is not something they are going to admit to themselves. And to be fair to him, Blair and Brown moved ministers around so absurdly often that it's impossible to pin the blame on any one of their ministers - the problems which surfaced under Burnham's watch weren't particularly his fault.MarkHopkins said:Cannot see it myself.
Will Burnham be voted for, knowing how the Conservatives will use his NHS history against Labour if he was leader?
Still, he has one proud boast: he put in place the mechanism which led to the superbly successful privatisation of Hinchingbrooke Hospital.
0 -
Statistically he must have been responsible for quite a few of them dying though.Quincel said:
The voters in leadership elections are the choir, not those they are trying to convert. Labour voters don't blame him for Mid Staffs, rightly or wrongly.HurstLlama said:Burnham "... a man who fights for the working man and justice for their issues ..."
Unless they are are old or ill in which case, f*k'em, they can lie in their own filth until thirst, starvation or illness gets them.
And in Tower Hamlets they are a significant swing voting bloc.0 -
What "Henry G Manson" isn't his real name, I'm shocked I tell you, I'm shocked...
Looking at the list of runners and riders, what a depressing set of candidates, same as the Tories. We don't have a real leader, a real stand out individual that ticks all boxes required among the leading ranks of any party.
I always find this revisionist history about David Miliband very strange. If only he was leader, he is better than Cameron, Ed, Clegg, etc. He was s##t in government, Mandelson had to dig him out of holes, he was weak and spineless in terms of dealing with Brown. Burnham is in exactly the same category in my book.
The only leading politician that came out of late Blair / Brown era with his reputation enhanced is Darling, and he isn't leader material, even if he wanted to be.0 -
Sorry to tease a party colleague, but Henry also predicted that Ed would be removed by the party as leader last year, which was never remotely on the cards. I agree Andy is popular with members, though.
This sort of open market (like "next Pope") is IMHO best left to the bookies, especially because if you want to see your money back in less than 6-11 years, you have to factor in the probability of a vacancy arising in 2015, which even Tory optimists would concede is <100%, and by the time it does happen there could be lots of other plausible candidate. In general, leading figures will be too short for that reason - if the vacancy only appears later, they'll be getting on a bit and others will have come to the fore - e.g. Stella Creasey probably wouldn't get it next year, but in 2020 or 2025...?
0 -
Which led to this amusing apologyRichard_Nabavi said:
I can't see that being held against him by Labour supporters. The NHS is a religion, and he's a high priest. The fact that his tenure was a disaster is not something they are going to admit to themselves. And to be fair to him, Blair and Brown moved ministers around so absurdly often that it's impossible to pin the blame on any one of their ministers - the problems which surfaced under Burnham's watch weren't particularly his fault.MarkHopkins said:Cannot see it myself.
Will Burnham be voted for, knowing how the Conservatives will use his NHS history against Labour if he was leader?
Still, he has one proud boast: he put in place the mechanism which led to the superbly successful privatisation of Hinchingbrooke Hospital.
http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2012/11/superbug-outbreak-jumps-200-at-1st.html0 -
Andy Burnham is physically indistinguishable from the Virgil Tracy puppet out of Thunderbirds - that ought to rule him out. But in the world of Labour who knows?
More importantly for the country (as having a competent centre left party matters) is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Labour front bench (leader included) is complete and utter blancmange. Some may not like the Tories alot but Osborne, May, Hammond and others are pretty capable. The lefties are student union right-on empty heads to man. Umuna? Harman? Burnham? Hunt? ..sniggers...please, please choose Burnham or Umuna... :-)
The only slight caveat I myself credit to the 'every single one' comment would be Mr & Mrs Balls. They're both hideous choices in their own ways but are not quite so manifestly lightweight as the rest. Wrong, but impressively so. That doesn't bode well either.
Gordon Brown ruined his country and his party. The vindictive useless gobshite.0 -
Hunt?!?! Golly, I thought you were joking about Jeremy Hunt for a moment as next Labour leader ;^ ) Tristram seems even more unlikely!shadsy said:Ladbrokes worst results currently in the next lab leader market:
Hunt 16/1
Umunna 7/1
Burnham 10/1
I've also noticed that we have taken four bets on Nick Palmer at 500/1.
O/T Here is a short run-down of the most likely seats in Wales to change hands in 2015:
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/the-11-seats-in-wales-that-could-change-hands-in-2015/0 -
Can't abide Burnham in fact I despise the man, as for Hillsborough I certainly don't share some of the conclusions of the so called independent panel he set up.
Stafford should see that he never gets to leader but it is Labour so it might be worth a small flutter. Cooper should be odds on though there isn't really a challenger as I can see.0 -
-
Probably a good recommendation from Henry G Manson. But Burnham is even more of a weak leader than EdM. Let us hope Lab choose him next.0
-
How's life treating you? Glad to see you're still about.richardDodd said:Plato..nice to see you posting again..
0 -
Henry gave some wise advice then. Thankfully Labour took no notice.NickPalmer said:Sorry to tease a party colleague, but Henry also predicted that Ed would be removed by the party as leader last year, which was never remotely on the cards. I agree Andy is popular with members, though.
......
0 -
Curious coming from one of most vocal supporters of Michael Gove, officially the most unpopular politician in the Milky Way.Richard_Nabavi said:It's a complete mystery to me why Labour supporters have discovered they are so keen on a chap ...
0 -
"Surprised to see no update on today's Populus with Con & Lab on 35% each."
"Doesn't fit in with last nights YouGuv narrative."
Two polls this week ICM Con in front Populus Tories Level yet very little mention of them, I've given up worrying about the bias shown towards Labour by Mr Smithson. I hardly post any more.
0 -
I don’t think it is a wind up - British jihadist have been corrupted by the decadent west and now realise they need to look their best for the promised 72 virgins.isam said:
I blame Cosmopolitan and Hello magazines…
0 -
Well quite. I wouldn't want Mr or Mrs Balls near anything either = but they are dangerous in their own way. I wouldn't want either of them standing behind me.Patrick said:Andy Burnham is physically indistinguishable from the Virgil Tracy puppet out of Thunderbirds - that ought to rule him out. But in the world of Labour who knows?
...
The only slight caveat I myself credit to the 'every single one' comment would be Mr & Mrs Balls. They're both hideous choices in their own ways but are not quite so manifestly lightweight as the rest. Wrong, but impressively so. That doesn't bode well either.
Gordon Brown ruined his country and his party. The vindictive useless gobshite.
And TBH, I've almost totally erased Gordon from my memory banks - I have to really try to remember him. My distant recollections appear to all be embarrassing gaffes such as:
- Walking into a cupboard with Al Gore
- Obama Beach and being booed by veterans
- That R2 interview with Jeremy Vine post Mrs Duffy
- The YouTube video where he appears to have St Vitus Dance
- No More Boom And Bust
- I Saved The World
.... there's so many of them to choose from.0 -
LOL! I hadn't seen that.TheScreamingEagles said:Which led to this amusing apology
http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2012/11/superbug-outbreak-jumps-200-at-1st.html0 -
I wouldn't be a supporter of Michael Gove for leader.Jonathan said:Curious coming from one of most vocal supporters of Michael Gove, officially the most unpopular politician in the Milky Way.
0 -
Great post - couldn't agree more.FrancisUrquhart said:What "Henry G Manson" isn't his real name, I'm shocked I tell you, I'm shocked...
Looking at the list of runners and riders, what a depressing set of candidates, same as the Tories. We don't have a real leader, a real stand out individual that ticks all boxes required among the leading ranks of any party.
I always find this revisionist history about David Miliband very strange. If only he was leader, he is better than Cameron, Ed, Clegg, etc. He was s##t in government, Mandelson had to dig him out of holes, he was weak and spineless in terms of dealing with Brown. Burnham is in exactly the same category in my book.
The only leading politician that came out of late Blair / Brown era with his reputation enhanced is Darling, and he isn't leader material, even if he wanted to be.0 -
I guess you're a fan of that other notable favourite George Osborne.Richard_Nabavi said:
I wouldn't be a supporter of Michael Gove for leader.Jonathan said:Curious coming from one of most vocal supporters of Michael Gove, officially the most unpopular politician in the Milky Way.
0 -
Hey Plato! 'ello darlin' All well? Welcome back.Plato said:
Well quite. I wouldn't want Mr or Mrs Balls near anything either = but they are dangerous in their own way. I wouldn't want either of them standing behind me.Patrick said:Andy Burnham is physically indistinguishable from the Virgil Tracy puppet out of Thunderbirds - that ought to rule him out. But in the world of Labour who knows?
...
The only slight caveat I myself credit to the 'every single one' comment would be Mr & Mrs Balls. They're both hideous choices in their own ways but are not quite so manifestly lightweight as the rest. Wrong, but impressively so. That doesn't bode well either.
Gordon Brown ruined his country and his party. The vindictive useless gobshite.0 -
I'm certainly a fan. Whether he'd be right as the leader is another matter.Jonathan said:
I guess you're a fan of that other notable favourite George Osborne.Richard_Nabavi said:
I wouldn't be a supporter of Michael Gove for leader.Jonathan said:Curious coming from one of most vocal supporters of Michael Gove, officially the most unpopular politician in the Milky Way.
0 -
The article is spot on. If there's a leadership election next year, Andy is the overwhelming favourite. And I think he'd potentially be a big hit with the public too: despite the Tories' delusions, no-one associates him with Mid-Staffs. Those people who do know him in the general public (and I do think he's better known than most shadow cabinet members, not that that's saying much) would probably most know him for Hillsborough, having a northern accent and his eyelashes.
My sense is that most Labour activists have lukewarm respect for Yvette, but there's little affection for her in the way there is for Andy. And I don't think people will really be swayed by the argument that it's time for a female leader just for the sake of having a female leader, either. As for Chuka Umunna, I'm surprised he even scored as well as he did, most activists I know think he's a substance-free prat, despite how loved he is by the London chatterati/thinktank set.0 -
Indeed. Who do you fancy to take over assuming a narrow victory/defeat in 2015?Richard_Nabavi said:
I'm certainly a fan. Whether he'd be right as the leader is another matter.Jonathan said:
I guess you're a fan of that other notable favourite George Osborne.Richard_Nabavi said:
I wouldn't be a supporter of Michael Gove for leader.Jonathan said:Curious coming from one of most vocal supporters of Michael Gove, officially the most unpopular politician in the Milky Way.
(I think we can assume a landslide is unlikely either way leading to a generation change).
0 -
BTW I said yesterday I thought it very likely that there will have been colleagues from my company on MH17. Our CEO has put out a message today confirming there were indeed 'several' staff and their families. :-( Sucks
On the upside one of our IT team (who I know) has dodged the bullet in the most amazing way - having had him and his wife/kid moved to a later flight as they were overbooked! I can't imagine how he feels.0 -
Very sorry. Underlines the role luck plays in all our lives and reminds us to enjoy the moment.Patrick said:BTW I said yesterday I thought it very likely that there will have been colleagues from my company on MH17. Our CEO has put out a message today confirming there were indeed 'several' staff and their families. :-( Sucks
On the upside one of our IT team (who I know) has dodged the bullet in the most amazing way - having had him and his wife/kid moved to a later flight as they were overbooked! I can't imagine how he feels.0 -
Two things have changed since the last leadership election. Firstly, Andy himself. He's marked himself out as more clearly left-wing since then: he did say some left-wing things last time, but there was a suspicion he was only posturing because he still had a "Blairite" reputation, and he was the only leadership candidate who passionately defended the Iraq war (even DavidM waffled about how he wouldn't have voted for it "if I knew then what I know now" or some platitude like that).Richard_Nabavi said:It's a complete mystery to me why Labour supporters have discovered they are so keen on a chap who seems completely undistinguished and who is totally lacking in charisma, and who quite rightly came a poor fourth out of five last time in a field which wasn't exactly stellar, having performed exceptionally badly in the hustings. He only narrowly beat Diane Abbott!
Secondly, I honestly think Labour members have started changing their mind about what they actually want from the leader. Last time there was a bit of snobbishness towards Burnham, from what I remember even some people who said they liked him and what he was saying feared he'd look too "amateurish" or "not credible" because he didn't sound intellectual enough and didn't use clever-sounding enough words. But since then, people have realised the New Labour-type professionalised robots are exactly the type of thing Labour needs to get away from, and go towards people who are more human.0 -
If by 'fancy' you mean in a betting sense, that's a hard question to answer, because the way the rules are constructed means there would be a lot of tactical voting/plotting/manoevering amongst the MPs in the rounds before they put two names to members. So it's not sufficient to try to rank the possibles in order of potential appeal, you also have to consider who will be trying to stop particular candidates.Jonathan said:Indeed. Who do you fancy to take over assuming a narrow victory/defeat in 2015?
(I think we can assume a landslide is unlikely either way leading to a generation change).
0 -
He's a professional apologist.Richard_Nabavi said:
LOL! I hadn't seen that.TheScreamingEagles said:Which led to this amusing apology
http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2012/11/superbug-outbreak-jumps-200-at-1st.html
He keeps on smearing people and then having to apologise.
Including Lord Ashcroft
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100194054/another-glorious-apology-from-dr-eoin-clarke/0 -
Yup. I maintain that the outcome of elections depends on whose leader is the more credible, and for the last 40 years or so it's been a pretty reliable indicator. On that basis Milibamd can't beat Cameron, and neither can any of the other creeps, finks, or wittols on the Labour benches beat any likely successor off the Tory benches.Patrick said:Andy Burnham is physically indistinguishable from the Virgil Tracy puppet out of Thunderbirds - that ought to rule him out. But in the world of Labour who knows?
More importantly for the country (as having a competent centre left party matters) is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Labour front bench (leader included) is complete and utter blancmange. Some may not like the Tories alot but Osborne, May, Hammond and others are pretty capable. The lefties are student union right-on empty heads to man. Umuna? Harman? Burnham? Hunt? ..sniggers...please, please choose Burnham or Umuna... :-)
The only slight caveat I myself credit to the 'every single one' comment would be Mr & Mrs Balls. They're both hideous choices in their own ways but are not quite so manifestly lightweight as the rest. Wrong, but impressively so. That doesn't bode well either.
Gordon Brown ruined his country and his party. The vindictive useless gobshite.
0 -
The key question is surely not whether he's a Blairite, it's whether he's a Leavisite. Where does he stand on D H Lawrence?Danny565 said:
Two things have changed since the last leadership election. Firstly, Andy himself. He's marked himself out as more clearly left-wing since then: he did say some left-wing things last time, but there was a suspicion he was only posturing because he still had a "Blairite" reputation, and he was the only leadership candidate who passionately defended the Iraq war (even DavidM waffled about how he wouldn't have voted for it "if I knew then what I know now" or some platitude like that).Richard_Nabavi said:It's a complete mystery to me why Labour supporters have discovered they are so keen on a chap who seems completely undistinguished and who is totally lacking in charisma, and who quite rightly came a poor fourth out of five last time in a field which wasn't exactly stellar, having performed exceptionally badly in the hustings. He only narrowly beat Diane Abbott!
Secondly, I honestly think Labour members have started changing their mind about what they actually want from the leader. Last time there was a bit of snobbishness towards Burnham, from what I remember even some people who said they liked him and what he was saying feared he'd look too "amateurish" or "not credible" because he didn't sound intellectual enough and didn't use clever-sounding enough words. But since then, people have realised the New Labour-type professionalised robots are exactly the type of thing Labour needs to get away from, and go towards people who are more human.
0 -
What does "credible" actually mean though?Bond_James_Bond said:
Yup. I maintain that the outcome of elections depends on whose leader is the more credible, and for the last 40 years or so it's been a pretty reliable indicator. On that basis Milibamd can't beat Cameron, and neither can any of the other creeps, finks, or wittols on the Labour benches beat any likely successor off the Tory benches.Patrick said:Andy Burnham is physically indistinguishable from the Virgil Tracy puppet out of Thunderbirds - that ought to rule him out. But in the world of Labour who knows?
More importantly for the country (as having a competent centre left party matters) is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Labour front bench (leader included) is complete and utter blancmange. Some may not like the Tories alot but Osborne, May, Hammond and others are pretty capable. The lefties are student union right-on empty heads to man. Umuna? Harman? Burnham? Hunt? ..sniggers...please, please choose Burnham or Umuna... :-)
The only slight caveat I myself credit to the 'every single one' comment would be Mr & Mrs Balls. They're both hideous choices in their own ways but are not quite so manifestly lightweight as the rest. Wrong, but impressively so. That doesn't bode well either.
Gordon Brown ruined his country and his party. The vindictive useless gobshite.0 -
I also said yesterday I thought this was most likely separatists armed by Russia who fuc<ed up, thinking it was another Ukrainian transport Antonov. Avery told me I was wrong but it looks more and more that I was right.0
-
All very interesting but he is a career politician of the most obvious kind and extremely limited in ability. Hunt mauls him and mocks him in the Commons, he is barely able to lay a glove on him due to his past.Danny565 said:
Two things have changed since the last leadership election. Firstly, Andy himself. He's marked himself out as more clearly left-wing since then: he did say some left-wing things last time, but there was a suspicion he was only posturing because he still had a "Blairite" reputation, and he was the only leadership candidate who passionately defended the Iraq war (even DavidM waffled about how he wouldn't have voted for it "if I knew then what I know now" or some platitude like that).Richard_Nabavi said:It's a complete mystery to me why Labour supporters have discovered they are so keen on a chap who seems completely undistinguished and who is totally lacking in charisma, and who quite rightly came a poor fourth out of five last time in a field which wasn't exactly stellar, having performed exceptionally badly in the hustings. He only narrowly beat Diane Abbott!
Secondly, I honestly think Labour members have started changing their mind about what they actually want from the leader. Last time there was a bit of snobbishness towards Burnham, from what I remember even some people who said they liked him and what he was saying feared he'd look too "amateurish" or "not credible" because he didn't sound intellectual enough and didn't use clever-sounding enough words. But since then, people have realised the New Labour-type professionalised robots are exactly the type of thing Labour needs to get away from, and go towards people who are more human.
If they decide to go down the route next of a leader more in touch with the working man or woman they need to find better than Burnham. Even on the current front bench, which has a vacuum of talent at present Labour have better than Burnham.
0 -
@nickpalmer
Lizzy Vaid (@LizzyVaid)
18/07/2014 14:16
Very pleased to announce that tickets for @UKIP National Conference 2014 are now on sale at ukip.org/doncaster. #ukip20140 -
Relatively more plausible / easier to imagine in the job. Not outright competent, just patently more so than the alternative.Danny565 said:
What does "credible" actually mean though?Bond_James_Bond said:
Yup. I maintain that the outcome of elections depends on whose leader is the more credible, and for the last 40 years or so it's been a pretty reliable indicator. On that basis Milibamd can't beat Cameron, and neither can any of the other creeps, finks, or wittols on the Labour benches beat any likely successor off the Tory benches.Patrick said:Andy Burnham is physically indistinguishable from the Virgil Tracy puppet out of Thunderbirds - that ought to rule him out. But in the world of Labour who knows?
More importantly for the country (as having a competent centre left party matters) is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Labour front bench (leader included) is complete and utter blancmange. Some may not like the Tories alot but Osborne, May, Hammond and others are pretty capable. The lefties are student union right-on empty heads to man. Umuna? Harman? Burnham? Hunt? ..sniggers...please, please choose Burnham or Umuna... :-)
The only slight caveat I myself credit to the 'every single one' comment would be Mr & Mrs Balls. They're both hideous choices in their own ways but are not quite so manifestly lightweight as the rest. Wrong, but impressively so. That doesn't bode well either.
Gordon Brown ruined his country and his party. The vindictive useless gobshite.
This can mean that one is a bumbling fool and the other merely not.
Thus - Wilson beat Heath because Heath was patently useless.
Thatcher beat Callaghan because Callaghan's government had failed.
Thatcher beat Foot because he was a stupid old fool.
Thatcher beat Kinnock because he was a total lightweight.
Major beat Kinnock because he was a relative lightweight.
Blair beat Major because his government appeared inept.
Blair beat Hague because Hague reminded of Major.
Blair beat Howard because Howard reminded of Major..
Cameron beat Brown because the latter was vicious and bonkers.
I think the Tory would have made the better PM in every case above except Heath / Wislon, where Heath would simply have been differently appalling. But I speak of general perceptions, wisdom of crowds, etc. Kinnock as PM was such an utterly ludicrous notion that he was sure to lose unless the Tories had somehow found a way to elect Menzies Campbell to lead them.0 -
I believe Osborne is the best bet the Tories have, he has the right vision, whether he could take enough of the party with him though is open to question.Richard_Nabavi said:
I'm certainly a fan. Whether he'd be right as the leader is another matter.Jonathan said:
I guess you're a fan of that other notable favourite George Osborne.Richard_Nabavi said:
I wouldn't be a supporter of Michael Gove for leader.Jonathan said:Curious coming from one of most vocal supporters of Michael Gove, officially the most unpopular politician in the Milky Way.
0 -
But again what happens in the Commons has no bearing in the real world. No-one cares about Burnham's "past", because no-one falls for the claims that one individual hospital going crazy is the fault of one person in government.macisback said:
All very interesting but he is a career politician of the most obvious kind and extremely limited in ability. Hunt mauls him and mocks him in the Commons, he is barely able to lay a glove on him due to his past.Danny565 said:
Two things have changed since the last leadership election. Firstly, Andy himself. He's marked himself out as more clearly left-wing since then: he did say some left-wing things last time, but there was a suspicion he was only posturing because he still had a "Blairite" reputation, and he was the only leadership candidate who passionately defended the Iraq war (even DavidM waffled about how he wouldn't have voted for it "if I knew then what I know now" or some platitude like that).Richard_Nabavi said:It's a complete mystery to me why Labour supporters have discovered they are so keen on a chap who seems completely undistinguished and who is totally lacking in charisma, and who quite rightly came a poor fourth out of five last time in a field which wasn't exactly stellar, having performed exceptionally badly in the hustings. He only narrowly beat Diane Abbott!
Secondly, I honestly think Labour members have started changing their mind about what they actually want from the leader. Last time there was a bit of snobbishness towards Burnham, from what I remember even some people who said they liked him and what he was saying feared he'd look too "amateurish" or "not credible" because he didn't sound intellectual enough and didn't use clever-sounding enough words. But since then, people have realised the New Labour-type professionalised robots are exactly the type of thing Labour needs to get away from, and go towards people who are more human.If they decide to go down the route next of a leader more in touch with the working man or woman they need to find better than Burnham. Even on the current front bench, which has a vacuum of talent at present Labour have better than Burnham.
I really struggle to see anyone on the Labour frontbench who's even remotely "in touch with the working man and woman" apart from Burnham (unless you count Alan Johnson). And I say that as a Labour supporter.0 -
Then again Heath did beat Wilson.Bond_James_Bond said:
Relatively more plausible / easier to imagine in the job. Not outright competent, just patently more so than the alternative.Danny565 said:
What does "credible" actually mean though?Bond_James_Bond said:
Yup. I maintain that the outcome of elections depends on whose leader is the more credible, and for the last 40 years or so it's been a pretty reliable indicator. On that basis Milibamd can't beat Cameron, and neither can any of the other creeps, finks, or wittols on the Labour benches beat any likely successor off the Tory benches.Patrick said:Andy Burnham is physically indistinguishable from the Virgil Tracy puppet out of Thunderbirds - that ought to rule him out. But in the world of Labour who knows?
More importantly for the country (as having a competent centre left party matters) is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Labour front bench (leader included) is complete and utter blancmange. Some may not like the Tories alot but Osborne, May, Hammond and others are pretty capable. The lefties are student union right-on empty heads to man. Umuna? Harman? Burnham? Hunt? ..sniggers...please, please choose Burnham or Umuna... :-)
The only slight caveat I myself credit to the 'every single one' comment would be Mr & Mrs Balls. They're both hideous choices in their own ways but are not quite so manifestly lightweight as the rest. Wrong, but impressively so. That doesn't bode well either.
Gordon Brown ruined his country and his party. The vindictive useless gobshite.
This can mean that one is a bumbling fool and the other merely not.
Thus - Wilson beat Heath because Heath was patently useless.
Thatcher beat Callaghan because Callaghan's government had failed.
Thatcher beat Foot because he was a stupid old fool.
Thatcher beat Kinnock because he was a total lightweight.
Major beat Kinnock because he was a relative lightweight.
Blair beat Major because his government appeared inept.
Blair beat Hague because Hague reminded of Major.
Blair beat Howard because Howard reminded of Major..
Cameron beat Brown because the latter was vicious and bonkers.
I think the Tory would have made the better PM in every case above except Heath / Wislon, where Heath would simply have been differently appalling. But I speak of general perceptions, wisdom of crowds, etc. Kinnock as PM was such an utterly ludicrous notion that he was sure to lose unless the Tories had somehow found a way to elect Menzies Campbell to lead them.
0 -
Looks like Putin is not such a great strategist as he thought he was when he annexed the Crimea.
By aligning Russia with rebels in Donetsk and supplying them with powerful anti aircraft missiles, he has incurred the wrath of all the countries with their nationalities on board the crashed plane plus air travellers around the World, including Russia.
Governments in Germany and other countries who previously were reluctant to apply sanctions against Russia, will now be under pressure from their electors to impose the sanctions.
0 -
Plto..life is good..got two more novels out this year and start a film shoot on Monday..bit busy to post but keep skimming the regulars..0
-
England really scoring at a snail's pace today0
-
<
I really struggle to see anyone on the Labour frontbench who's even remotely "in touch with the working man and woman" apart from Burnham (unless you count Alan Johnson). And I say that as a Labour supporter.
You really think Burnham is in touch, in my view he is as careerist politician with as limited an outlook as the rest of them, some of the others though are much sharper.
People do care about Burnham's past and should he rise to leadership it would come to prominence, what his performance in the Commons shows is his limitations and weakness under fire, Miliband get's enough stick and rightly, even from his own side but Burnham is worse.0 -
So Russia has:
1. Supplied advanced weapons to the rebels
2. Confiscated the black boxes
3. Moved the 'guilty' missile launchers back onto Russian territory
4. Said the guilty party is the government of the country where it happened
Hmmm.....would not have been my approach to winning an international hearts and minds campaign!0 -
117-4, Betfair prices still in complete denial I reckon...0
-
I agree with Peter
"This week, David Cameron should have decided for himself who was best person to be Education Secretary, not whom the public liked or disliked. Instead he surrendered that judgement because a general election is just nine months away. His decision might backfire, if it ends up being seen as a craven abdication of leadership."
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/cabinet-reshuffle-should-the-polls-decide-politics-michael-gove-education-secretary
0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
Huzzah.
Silvio's convictions and the bar on him holding elected office have been overturned.
---------------------------------
We need a thread on this as it's all change, or will be in Italy.
No sooner do I say it and voila, a new thread appears!!!
Who cares about Burnham? Henry G. Manson is highlighting a bummer. If Burnham a known evasive slippery eel, if there ever was one, is elected Labour head, I will publicly eat my bacon butty.0 -
Kumar already bowled 17 overs today - 35 left.Pulpstar said:
When he comes back on watch the England price drift.
0 -
Plenty to lay Eng 200 at 1.4 !
Filled up
0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Toying with the idea of an early qualifying bet.0 -
One thing that I think should be bothering government's around the world right now is the idea that there might be various terror groups sat there wondering why they didn't think of anti-aircraft missiles against civilian targets before now. It strikes me that in places like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan it must be pretty easy for groups to get hold of some fairly sophisticated systems and it is surely easier as a terror weapon than trying to sneak something onto a plane.0
-
Betting Post
Backed Rosberg at just over 3 with Betfair for pole, hedged at 1.5.
He and Hamilton are practically identical on time and the commentators said the German made a mistake in P2, but for which he would've been faster overall.
Edited extra bit: for this sort of bet, which is clearly a tip but not part of the articles I write, I'll not include it when calculating profit/loss, unless I happen to repeat it in the pre-qualifying piece.0 -
These systems (that reach high targets) are mounted on trucks and the missiles weigh half a ton (I believe).Richard_Tyndall said:One thing that I think should be bothering government's around the world right now is the idea that there might be various terror groups sat there wondering why they didn't think of anti-aircraft missiles against civilian targets before now. It strikes me that in places like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan it must be pretty easy for groups to get hold of some fairly sophisticated systems and it is surely easier as a terror weapon than trying to sneak something onto a plane.
Not that easy to hide.
0 -
Plus you don't have to die yourself as part of the plan!Richard_Tyndall said:One thing that I think should be bothering government's around the world right now is the idea that there might be various terror groups sat there wondering why they didn't think of anti-aircraft missiles against civilian targets before now. It strikes me that in places like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan it must be pretty easy for groups to get hold of some fairly sophisticated systems and it is surely easier as a terror weapon than trying to sneak something onto a plane.
0 -
If labour elect Burnham you will find me doing cartwheels.MikeK said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Huzzah.
Silvio's convictions and the bar on him holding elected office have been overturned.
---------------------------------
We need a thread on this as it's all change, or will be in Italy.
No sooner do I say it and voila, a new thread appears!!!
Who cares about Burnham? Henry G. Manson is highlighting a bummer. If Burnham a known evasive slippery eel, if there ever was one, is elected Labour head, I will publicly eat my bacon butty.
0 -
Richard_Tyndall said:
One thing that I think should be bothering government's around the world right now is the idea that there might be various terror groups sat there wondering why they didn't think of anti-aircraft missiles against civilian targets before now. It strikes me that in places like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan it must be pretty easy for groups to get hold of some fairly sophisticated systems and it is surely easier as a terror weapon than trying to sneak something onto a plane.
The risk of a man-portable Stinger type missile attack against a plane landing or taking off has been a risk that Govt. have been aware of for some time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mombasa_attacks
I douby Afghanistan has any high altitude anti-aircraft missiles and while Syria does no planes are flying over it at the moment.
0 -
The Guardian is reporting that the Peter Clerke inquiry into the Trojan horse schools in Birmingham will be very hard hitting.
Quotes like
"co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action to introduce an intolerant and agressive Ialamist ethos into some schools in the City"
"Left unchecked it would confine school children within an intolerant inward-looking monoculture that would several limit their participation in the life of modern Britain"
"In theory academies are accountable to the Sec of State, but in practice the accountability can almost amount to benign neglect ..."
A very hot potato and strong test for Nick Morgan in her new lob at the Dept of Education.0 -
Going to make Birmingham City Council's commissioned report laughable. It is also claimed that Clarke has internal emails / corresponds which also show that the council were aware of this over 2 years ago, now their "independent" review says "no nothing to see here, move along".David_Evershed said:The Guardian is reporting that the Peter Clerke inquiry into the Trojan horse schools in Birmingham will be very hard hitting.
Quotes like
"co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action to introduce an intolerant and agressive Ialamist ethos into some schools in the City"
"Left unchecked it would confine school children within an intolerant inward-looking monoculture that would several limit their participation in the life of modern Britain"
"In theory academies are accountable to the Sec of State, but in practice the accountability can almost amount to benign neglect ..."
A very hot potato and strong test for Nick Morgan in her new lob at the Dept of Education.
Serious questions of the council to be asked here.
0 -
Problem with this is that assuming Ed is PM after the next election it's difficult to predict when a vacancy will arise. Most likely not until 2020 at the earliest.
Agree with others than Burnham would probably be an effective and popular leader with the public though.
Not only does he come across as a fully paid up member of the human race, he has the ability to articulate a popular / populist left of centre politics in non-scary everyday language. Something that's desperately needed in these post-banker crash / post Tory Austerity days of increasing unfairness and inequality.0 -
Mr. Hugh, Burnham does come across as more human than many politicians, but he's an utter lightweight. Not a problem confined to Labour, by any means, but I can't take him seriously as a leader.0
-
You start with a big assumption .Hugh said:Problem with this is that assuming Ed is PM after the next election it's difficult to predict when a vacancy will arise. Most likely not until 2020 at the earliest.
Agree with others than Burnham would probably be an effective and popular leader with the public though.
Not only does he come across as a fully paid up member of the human race, he has the ability to articulate a popular / populist left of centre politics in non-scary everyday language. Something that's desperately needed in these post-banker crash / post Tory Austerity days of increasing unfairness and inequality.0 -
Sure, but there's roughly an evens chance that Ed won't be PM after the election, according to the betting markets. I seem to recall some chap called Jack who puts it more strongly than that.Hugh said:Problem with this is that assuming Ed is PM after the next election it's difficult to predict when a vacancy will arise. Most likely not until 2020 at the earliest.
0 -
Will England cricket be (nearly) saved again by a Muslim, Moeen Ali, currently 10 not out?0
-
Mr. T, some time ago I kept tea-lights on the windowsill. I stopped after they got melted.0
-
Just out of interest who are the schools used by the top nobs accountable to? Is it to the LEA of the area in which they are situated? No? How odd that without LEA oversight those schools not only churn out very well qualified pupils and parents fight to get their off-spring into the ones that they, the parents, think would be best for said offspring. Schools able to thrive outside LEA control? Parents just choosing where to send their children? Clearly a nonsense and not a sustainable model - well unless you have lots of dosh or are a senior member of the Labour Party.David_Evershed said:The Guardian is reporting that the Peter Clerke inquiry into the Trojan horse schools in Birmingham will be very hard hitting.
Quotes like
"co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action to introduce an intolerant and agressive Ialamist ethos into some schools in the City"
"Left unchecked it would confine school children within an intolerant inward-looking monoculture that would several limit their participation in the life of modern Britain"
"In theory academies are accountable to the Sec of State, but in practice the accountability can almost amount to benign neglect ..."
A very hot potato and strong test for Nick Morgan in her new lob at the Dept of Education.0 -
'Trojan Horse' report an unhelpful epitaph for Michael Gove
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28368564
What an absolute load of boll##ks article this is...It goes from basically dismissing the "Trojan Horse" plot as a few friends trying to influence schools agenda, to its being all Gove fault. And the over-simplistic solution, well we need to put back in place all local oversight of a "normal" school i.e back to the status-quo.
The only problem is as we know not all the schools were academies, and the local oversight would be something to do with Birmingham City Council / LEA, who has tried to at best ignore it at worst whitewash all of this from start to finish.
If Gove hadn't stuck to his guns and got a real hard hitting person to lead the investigation (remember the outcry from some about how he would upset people), all we would have got was this nonsense review from Birmingham City Council.
0 -
It's an advance - last night as all the news was breaking, the board was preoccupied with whether Aston Villa would be relegated.SeanT said:Bit tricky to focus on the future political careers of "Owen Smith" and *Gloria del Piero*, as the world teeters on the brink of World War 3 in the Ukraine, and the Middle East explodes from Gaza to Syria to Baghdad.
Or maybe it's just me.0 -
Why is his religion relevant to his batting ability?David_Evershed said:Will England cricket be (nearly) saved again by a Muslim, Moeen Ali, currently 10 not out?
Seek help or consider posting somewhere else more sympathetic to your unpleasant views.0 -
should've taken wiggo0
-
"Chris CookFrancisUrquhart said:'Trojan Horse' report an unhelpful epitaph for Michael Gove
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28368564
What an absolute load of boll##ks article this is...It goes from basically dismissing the "Trojan Horse" plot as a few friends trying to influence schools agenda, to its being all Gove fault. And the over-simplistic solution, well we need to put back in place all local oversight of a "normal" school i.e back to the status-quo.
The only problem is as we know not all the schools were academies, and the local oversight would be something to do with Birmingham City Council / LEA, who has tried to at best ignore it at worst whitewash all of this from start to finish.
If Gove hadn't stuck to his guns and got a real hard hitting person to lead the investigation (remember the outcry from some about how he would upset people), all we would have got was this nonsense review from Birmingham City Council.
Policy editor, BBC Newsnight"
David Willet's ex advisor.0 -
I thought we were being saved by a Zimbabwean pisshead!GeoffM said:
Why is his religion relevant to his batting ability?David_Evershed said:Will England cricket be (nearly) saved again by a Muslim, Moeen Ali, currently 10 not out?
Seek help or consider posting somewhere else more sympathetic to your unpleasant views.0 -
Now *there* we have some good solid evidence-based analysis of the gameisam said:
I thought we were being saved by a Zimbabwean pisshead!GeoffM said:
Why is his religion relevant to his batting ability?David_Evershed said:Will England cricket be (nearly) saved again by a Muslim, Moeen Ali, currently 10 not out?
Seek help or consider posting somewhere else more sympathetic to your unpleasant views.
0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
