Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the first time UKIP move into the favourite slot in a W

SystemSystem Posts: 12,685
edited July 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the first time UKIP move into the favourite slot in a Westminster seat

I love Westminster seats battles where at least three parties are in with a shout. The betting on them can be very interesting and chances are that you’ll get longer than evens on the winner.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    edited July 2014
    FIRST

    This seat is No bet for me at those odds.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    If the main aim is to keep UKIP out, it's not clear who to vote for. And, it's also not clear how tactical voting would work.

    Some Labour voters would vote Conservative to keep out UKIP, but others would UKIP to keep out the Conservatives. Some Conservative voters would vote Labour to keep out UKIP, but others would vote UKIP to keep out Labour.

    Thus, UKIP stand a good chance of coming through the middle.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    I fancy Nigel to take this seat, not least for the reason's outlined in Sean's excellent analysis below.

    But he's too short to bet on.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    OT, the AP just freaked everyone out on twitter with the tweet:
    BREAKING: Dutch military plane carrying bodies from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash lands in Eindhoven.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,932
    Why aren't the LibDems in the running in this seat?
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Ex-MEP Nikki Sinclaire charged with money laundering and misconduct

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-28443384

    Kipper turned independent.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Why aren't the LibDems in the running in this seat?

    I've give you a billion to one on them :D
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    'I rendezvous with Janet,
    quite near the Isle of Thanet'

    Mr I Dury....
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    I wonder if it will look like a three-way tussle on the ground. That sounds like too hard a message for the media, who will, I suspect, want to portray it as UKIP vs the Tories.

    Thus, though on paper and because of the demographics Labour might do well and come through the middle to win, I have a hunch they will be squeezed out of the narrative.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    I wonder if it will look like a three-way tussle on the ground. That sounds like too hard a message for the media, who will, I suspect, want to portray it as UKIP vs the Tories.

    Thus, though on paper and because of the demographics Labour might do well and come through the middle to win, I have a hunch they will be squeezed out of the narrative.

    This - if any tactical voting goes on I think it will be Labour -> Conservative actually.

    Basilon & South East Thurrock @ 8-1 is better value on UKIP right now.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Pulpstar is probably right, but if there's any value there it's with Con:
    1) Their majority is pretty big.
    2) UKIP will hit Lab as well as Con.
    3) Con will have an easier time with the tactical voting conundrum Sean Fear describes because they won last time. It's going to be hard to convince people that only UKIP can beat Lab or only Lab can beat UKIP while Con hold the seat.
    4) Con will have been expecting a fight for a while and should be pretty well resourced.
    5) Farage may not run there, and if he does his record in Westminster seats isn't particularly impressive.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Incidentally how hard are Labour really trying here? Choosing a 24-year old candidate is brave, and the local party's website, given that this is supposed to be a target seat, is quite remarkably feeble.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Incidentally how hard are Labour really trying here? Choosing a 24-year old candidate is brave, and the local party's website, given that this is supposed to be a target seat, is quite remarkably feeble.

    Agreed Richard. I would not back Labour here, the youth of the candidate gives the game away.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    I forsee some barcharts

    "Only party X can prevent Thanet from the stain of having the first Ukip MP"

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    I foresee a UKIP barchart saying 'only UKIP can save Thanet from the stain of LibLabCon and business as usual'. Might work too.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    O/T, after Edward Macmillan-Scott described the Board of Deputies as a "bag of disputatious Jews" I think the Conservative Party dodged a bullet when he resigned.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    Sean_F said:

    If the main aim is to keep UKIP out, it's not clear who to vote for. And, it's also not clear how tactical voting would work.

    Some Labour voters would vote Conservative to keep out UKIP, but others would UKIP to keep out the Conservatives. Some Conservative voters would vote Labour to keep out UKIP, but others would vote UKIP to keep out Labour.

    Thus, UKIP stand a good chance of coming through the middle.

    The public is simply not this sophisticated. If there is an anti-Farage tactical vote it will be for the current party there - Conservative.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Patrick said:

    I foresee a UKIP barchart saying 'only UKIP can save Thanet from the stain of LibLabCon and business as usual'. Might work too.

    UKIP should do one saying, "only a vote for UKIP can save Thanet from the stain of having the first UKIP MP". With everybody lying to them at once voters get really confused by tactical voting, it's worth a shot.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Patrick said:

    I foresee a UKIP barchart saying 'only UKIP can save Thanet from the stain of LibLabCon and business as usual'. Might work too.

    Newark would suggest not.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    http://www.souththanetconservatives.org.uk/

    http://www.souththanetlabour.org.uk/index_files/SouthThanetLabourParty.htm

    Labour website is an abomination.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    If the main aim is to keep UKIP out, it's not clear who to vote for. And, it's also not clear how tactical voting would work.

    Some Labour voters would vote Conservative to keep out UKIP, but others would UKIP to keep out the Conservatives. Some Conservative voters would vote Labour to keep out UKIP, but others would vote UKIP to keep out Labour.

    Thus, UKIP stand a good chance of coming through the middle.

    The public is simply not this sophisticated. If there is an anti-Farage tactical vote it will be for the current party there - Conservative.
    Sean_F is right in that not all the voters will know that they currently have a Conservative MP, and others will be conned by mendacious bar-charts. A decent few Labour supporters will try to keep UKIP out by voting LibDem.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    edited July 2014
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Incidentally how hard are Labour really trying here? Choosing a 24-year old candidate is brave, and the local party's website, given that this is supposed to be a target seat, is quite remarkably feeble.

    It was interesting to see how little effort Labour put into Newark where they had no chance of winning. They spent less than a third of that spent by UKIP or the Tories and really did seem to be just going through the motions. Do we have any idea of the state of their finances now and how able they are to fully fund a general election campaign?

    Edit, I should add following on from Richard's comment that it was a shame at Newark as the Labour candidate was a good choice - by no means a no hoper - and deserved better support from the party.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    taffys said:

    'I rendezvous with Janet,
    quite near the Isle of Thanet'

    Mr I Dury....

    Nina seemed like more fun....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    edmundintokyo said:

    A decent few Labour supporters will try to keep UKIP out by voting LibDem.

    :D
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    edmundintokyo said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    If the main aim is to keep UKIP out, it's not clear who to vote for. And, it's also not clear how tactical voting would work.

    Some Labour voters would vote Conservative to keep out UKIP, but others would UKIP to keep out the Conservatives. Some Conservative voters would vote Labour to keep out UKIP, but others would vote UKIP to keep out Labour.

    Thus, UKIP stand a good chance of coming through the middle.

    The public is simply not this sophisticated. If there is an anti-Farage tactical vote it will be for the current party there - Conservative.
    Sean_F is right in that not all the voters will know that they currently have a Conservative MP, and others will be conned by mendacious bar-charts. A decent few Labour supporters will try to keep UKIP out by voting LibDem.
    Like the Glaswegians that constantly vote Labour to "Keep the Tories out"
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    nigel4england said:

    taffys said:

    'I rendezvous with Janet,
    quite near the Isle of Thanet'

    Mr I Dury....

    Nina seemed like more fun....
    Funnily enough, my given name is Dickie and I do indeed come from Billericay. (I was born at Billericay hospital when my parents lived at Laindon.)
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    TGOHF said:

    Patrick said:

    I foresee a UKIP barchart saying 'only UKIP can save Thanet from the stain of LibLabCon and business as usual'. Might work too.

    Newark would suggest not.
    In spite of what the Tories keep trying to claim, Newark suggests nothing at all as it was never going to be anything other than a Tory win.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    The value in this market is clearly to take a bet at 100-1 on the Lib Dems and simply stick the cash in your bank account for the next 10 months with no danger of paying out anything back.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Jack Dromey in trouble ?

    http://order-order.com/2014/07/23/ehrc-all-women-shortlists-are-un-lawful/

    "The Equalities and Human Right’s Commission has ruled that All Women Shortlists are illegal. To very little attention, the EHRC today published guidance on the equalities legislation around which appointments to boards must be made. It says very clearly on page 10:

    “We do not believe that it is lawful to address under-representation by longlisting or shortlisting only female candidates to the detriment of male candidates” "
  • GarethofthevaleGarethofthevale Posts: 503
    I think it is quite possible that UKIP may win seats but not Farage himself. The Cons may throw the kitchen sink at him in Thanet but won't be able to do so far all UKIP target seats leaving the opportunity of a more low key win elsewhere.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Incidentally how hard are Labour really trying here? Choosing a 24-year old candidate is brave, and the local party's website, given that this is supposed to be a target seat, is quite remarkably feeble.

    It was interesting to see how little effort Labour put into Newark where they had no chance of winning. They spent less than a third of that spent by UKIP or the Tories and really did seem to be just going through the motions. Do we have any idea of the state of their finances now and how able they are to fully fund a general election campaign?
    They are not flush, so I would imagine this seat won't get a lot of resource. Without the UKIP factor it would be a seat they'd only expect to win if they were hoping to get a big majority (it's target number 115 in pure swing terms, they need to gain 68 to get a majority).
  • shadsyshadsy Posts: 289
    I imagine there will be multiple pollsters having a go at this constituency, especially if Farage stands. So, unless it's really close, I expect it will become very obvious who the stop-UKIP vote should go to.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    Garethofthevale said:

    I think it is quite possible that UKIP may win seats but not Farage himself. The Cons may throw the kitchen sink at him in Thanet but won't be able to do so far all UKIP target seats leaving the opportunity of a more low key win elsewhere.

    I think that is quite likely and no bad thing either. I still think UKIP will struggle to get more than a couple of seats and am not convinced Farage winning one of them would be good for the party. But then of course that is my personal dissatisfaction with him as party leader.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,628
    Its easier for anti UKIP types to vote for other parties in a by election when their own party has almost no chance of winning. I don't think that applies to seats like S Thanet or Thurrock, where Lab>Con or vice versa could actually cost their party the seat.

    That said I don't believe that there was significant anti UKIP voting in Newark. The various theories contradict each other.

    Cons Lost 9%
    UKIP gained 22%
    Lab + LD lost 22%

    and the Labs/LDs voted Con?

    600 young Con activists invaded Newark to get the Conservative vote out as well didn't they?

    Nah!

    I actually think Farage will absolutely piss up if he stands in South Thanet, just a case of how far he wins by


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    shadsy said:

    I imagine there will be multiple pollsters having a go at this constituency, especially if Farage stands. So, unless it's really close, I expect it will become very obvious who the stop-UKIP vote should go to.

    If Farage stands do UKIP go odds on here ?
  • isamisam Posts: 42,628
    TGOHF said:

    Jack Dromey in trouble ?

    http://order-order.com/2014/07/23/ehrc-all-women-shortlists-are-un-lawful/

    "The Equalities and Human Right’s Commission has ruled that All Women Shortlists are illegal. To very little attention, the EHRC today published guidance on the equalities legislation around which appointments to boards must be made. It says very clearly on page 10:

    “We do not believe that it is lawful to address under-representation by longlisting or shortlisting only female candidates to the detriment of male candidates” "

    It is utter nonsense, should only be allowed if there were all male shortlists as well.

    Without wanting to sound like Mili-tant from Viz, I genuinely believe it is "degrading to wimmin"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    TGOHF said:

    Jack Dromey in trouble ?

    http://order-order.com/2014/07/23/ehrc-all-women-shortlists-are-un-lawful/

    "The Equalities and Human Right’s Commission has ruled that All Women Shortlists are illegal. To very little attention, the EHRC today published guidance on the equalities legislation around which appointments to boards must be made. It says very clearly on page 10:

    “We do not believe that it is lawful to address under-representation by longlisting or shortlisting only female candidates to the detriment of male candidates” "

    Labour passed primary legislation specifically to make all-women shortlists lawful. Otherwise, they would fall foul of equality legislation.

  • isamisam Posts: 42,628
    edited July 2014
    I said so on the last thread, and its not a bet I am advising as such, but if you were of the persuasion that UKIP will perform at less than 9-10% of the vote next year, and that would make it quite hard for them to win any seats, surely 8/11 Labour in Thurrock is a great bet?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    Jack Dromey in trouble ?

    http://order-order.com/2014/07/23/ehrc-all-women-shortlists-are-un-lawful/

    "The Equalities and Human Right’s Commission has ruled that All Women Shortlists are illegal. To very little attention, the EHRC today published guidance on the equalities legislation around which appointments to boards must be made. It says very clearly on page 10:

    “We do not believe that it is lawful to address under-representation by longlisting or shortlisting only female candidates to the detriment of male candidates” "

    Labour passed primary legislation specifically to make all-women shortlists lawful. Otherwise, they would fall foul of equality legislation.

    EHRC trumps that though doesn't it?
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Re: Newark. RichardT is quite right. Again.

    What is the point of wasting money on a seat you have no chance of winning? That the Tories advised Labour to go hell for leather for it tells its own story.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,086
    O/T yesterday's thread on marginals.

    I hope most of us will be pleased to see the Stockton South result come in as a Labour gain. We can really do without the slimy Wharton types in the HoC.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,628
    edited July 2014
    BobaFett said:

    Re: Newark. RichardT is quite right. Again.

    What is the point of wasting money on a seat you have no chance of winning? That the Tories advised Labour to go hell for leather for it tells its own story.

    Are Labour and Tories really going to step aside for each other in the tightest GE for 40 years to stop UKIP winning a seat?

    I really dont think so

    If anything surely they will be stepping aside for UKIP to stop the other side making a gain?
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    BobaFett said:

    Re: Newark. RichardT is quite right. Again.

    What is the point of wasting money on a seat you have no chance of winning? That the Tories advised Labour to go hell for leather for it tells its own story.

    So much for that one nation labour principle....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    Slackbladder said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    Jack Dromey in trouble ?

    http://order-order.com/2014/07/23/ehrc-all-women-shortlists-are-un-lawful/

    "The Equalities and Human Right’s Commission has ruled that All Women Shortlists are illegal. To very little attention, the EHRC today published guidance on the equalities legislation around which appointments to boards must be made. It says very clearly on page 10:

    “We do not believe that it is lawful to address under-representation by longlisting or shortlisting only female candidates to the detriment of male candidates” "

    Labour passed primary legislation specifically to make all-women shortlists lawful. Otherwise, they would fall foul of equality legislation.

    EHRC trumps that though doesn't it?
    The European Convention on Human Rights is binding on States, not political parties. National legislation may permit a voluntary association to discriminate on the ground of sex.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    I think the proportion of seats that would choose women candidates without AWS would be below 50%, but I don't think it would be derisory.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    Lol... so sexist, but not sexist?

    Doublethink is well and truly active today.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TGOHF said:

    Jack Dromey in trouble ?

    A week in UKIPHome for you.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    I'll need to tell Natascha.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    South Thanet is described by Wiki as a 'bellwether', I'd be surprised if labour really aren't aiming to capture it.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Sean_F said:

    Slackbladder said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    Jack Dromey in trouble ?

    http://order-order.com/2014/07/23/ehrc-all-women-shortlists-are-un-lawful/

    "The Equalities and Human Right’s Commission has ruled that All Women Shortlists are illegal. To very little attention, the EHRC today published guidance on the equalities legislation around which appointments to boards must be made. It says very clearly on page 10:

    “We do not believe that it is lawful to address under-representation by longlisting or shortlisting only female candidates to the detriment of male candidates” "

    Labour passed primary legislation specifically to make all-women shortlists lawful. Otherwise, they would fall foul of equality legislation.

    EHRC trumps that though doesn't it?
    The European Convention on Human Rights is binding on States, not political parties. National legislation may permit a voluntary association to discriminate on the ground of sex.

    So, it is binding on States. But those States can then pass a law to ignore it...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    taffys said:

    South Thanet is described by Wiki as a 'bellwether', I'd be surprised if labour really aren't aiming to capture it.

    Maybe - but does this website look like one of a party trying to take the seat ?

    http://www.souththanetlabour.org.uk/index_files/SouthThanetLabourParty.htm
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    MarkHopkins said:

    Sean_F said:

    Slackbladder said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    Jack Dromey in trouble ?

    http://order-order.com/2014/07/23/ehrc-all-women-shortlists-are-un-lawful/

    "The Equalities and Human Right’s Commission has ruled that All Women Shortlists are illegal. To very little attention, the EHRC today published guidance on the equalities legislation around which appointments to boards must be made. It says very clearly on page 10:

    “We do not believe that it is lawful to address under-representation by longlisting or shortlisting only female candidates to the detriment of male candidates” "

    Labour passed primary legislation specifically to make all-women shortlists lawful. Otherwise, they would fall foul of equality legislation.

    EHRC trumps that though doesn't it?
    The European Convention on Human Rights is binding on States, not political parties. National legislation may permit a voluntary association to discriminate on the ground of sex.

    So, it is binding on States. But those States can then pass a law to ignore it...
    States may not discriminate on grounds of sex. Private clubs (which is essentially what the Labour Party is) may be permitted to do so.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    isam said:

    Its easier for anti UKIP types to vote for other parties in a by election when their own party has almost no chance of winning. I don't think that applies to seats like S Thanet or Thurrock, where Lab>Con or vice versa could actually cost their party the seat.

    That said I don't believe that there was significant anti UKIP voting in Newark. The various theories contradict each other.

    Cons Lost 9%
    UKIP gained 22%
    Lab + LD lost 22%

    and the Labs/LDs voted Con?

    600 young Con activists invaded Newark to get the Conservative vote out as well didn't they?

    Nah!

    I actually think Farage will absolutely piss up if he stands in South Thanet, just a case of how far he wins by


    Of course it makes as much good sense for pro kippers to vote for other parties where UKIP stands no real chance. About 650 seats that applies to...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    foxinsoxuk said:

    isam said:

    Its easier for anti UKIP types to vote for other parties in a by election when their own party has almost no chance of winning. I don't think that applies to seats like S Thanet or Thurrock, where Lab>Con or vice versa could actually cost their party the seat.

    That said I don't believe that there was significant anti UKIP voting in Newark. The various theories contradict each other.

    Cons Lost 9%
    UKIP gained 22%
    Lab + LD lost 22%

    and the Labs/LDs voted Con?

    600 young Con activists invaded Newark to get the Conservative vote out as well didn't they?

    Nah!

    I actually think Farage will absolutely piss up if he stands in South Thanet, just a case of how far he wins by


    Of course it makes as much good sense for pro kippers to vote for other parties where UKIP stands no real chance. About 650 seats that applies to...
    Plenty of seats where noone other than the incumbent stands no real chance tbh.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @Slackbladder

    I look forward to the Tory largesse on Newcastle North.

    @Pulpstar

    Who's she when she's at home?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    foxinsoxuk said:

    isam said:

    Its easier for anti UKIP types to vote for other parties in a by election when their own party has almost no chance of winning. I don't think that applies to seats like S Thanet or Thurrock, where Lab>Con or vice versa could actually cost their party the seat.

    That said I don't believe that there was significant anti UKIP voting in Newark. The various theories contradict each other.

    Cons Lost 9%
    UKIP gained 22%
    Lab + LD lost 22%

    and the Labs/LDs voted Con?

    600 young Con activists invaded Newark to get the Conservative vote out as well didn't they?

    Nah!

    I actually think Farage will absolutely piss up if he stands in South Thanet, just a case of how far he wins by


    Of course it makes as much good sense for pro kippers to vote for other parties where UKIP stands no real chance. About 650 seats that applies to...
    Not according to the polling.

  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @Isam

    That's what I am getting at. The LAB strategy will be to let the Kippers have a clear run at the Tories I suspect.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    taffys said:

    South Thanet is described by Wiki as a 'bellwether', I'd be surprised if labour really aren't aiming to capture it.

    I'm pretty certain Labour won't be devoting any serious resources to winning the seat, and that means they almost certainly won't win it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,320
    edited July 2014
    Slackbladder said:

    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    Lol... so sexist, but not sexist?

    Doublethink is well and truly active today.
    The way to get more women in parliament is to do just what Dave did (and of course what Lab has done) - to promote women to high profile positions will encourage constituencies to select women knowing that they can go on to become senior ministers in government.

    As ever with Cons vs Lab it is more a nudge than legislation.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    That's what I am getting at. The LAB strategy will be to let the Kippers have a clear run at the Tories I suspect.

    If they are doing so intentionally, it will be an extraordinary retreat. This was a Labour seat before Laura Sandys won it in 2010, so it's not comparable to Newark.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,628
    edited July 2014
    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    That's what I am getting at. The LAB strategy will be to let the Kippers have a clear run at the Tories I suspect.

    It has only just occurred to me that in seats like Thurrock and South Thanet, it would make more sense for the 3rd fav in the betting (Lab in ST, Con in Thu) not to try at all.

    You could say the same for lots of other seats where UKIP are 2nd fav in the betting

    Time for the old Sammy Knowles list of Kipper possibilities...

    Barking
    Boston & Skegness
    Bromsgrove
    Cambourne & Redruth
    Cannock Chase
    Dag & Rain
    Dover
    Dudley North
    Folkestone & Hythe
    Halesown & Rowley Regis
    Morley & Outwood Lads
    Newcastle Under Lyme
    Plymouth Moor View
    S Bas & E Thurrock
    Staffordshire Moorlands
    Stoke on Trent South
    Telford
    Thanet North
    Thanet South
    Thurrock
    Walsall North
    Walsall South
    West Bromwich West
    Wolverhampton NE
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    This was a Labour seat before Laura Sandys won it in 2010, so it's not comparable to Newark.

    They seem to have quietly forgotten it. Can't find Thanet South anywhere on their target list. Thurrock is very high up on that list, however.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    TOPPING said:

    Slackbladder said:

    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    Lol... so sexist, but not sexist?

    Doublethink is well and truly active today.
    The way to get more women in parliament is to do just what Dave did (and of course what Lab has done) - to promote women to high profile positions will encourage constituencies to select women knowing that they can go on to become senior ministers in government.

    As ever with Cons vs Lab it is more a nudge than legislation.
    If the goal is increasing the proportion of women MPs to something approaching the proportion of women in the electorate (say 40%) then the Lab approach is working and the Con approach isnt. Which is presumably why a Tory cabinet minister said they might consider AWS if more progress isnt made next year. Given selections in safe seats to date those might be words that come back to haunt her.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,974
    edited July 2014
    Dave is packing them in up in Glasgow......................


    twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/491939390051332096/photo/1
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @Isam

    Very true. It's called FPP, not a great system but that is the system and only an idiot wastes his money in places he cannot win.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    Neil said:

    TOPPING said:

    Slackbladder said:

    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    Lol... so sexist, but not sexist?

    Doublethink is well and truly active today.
    The way to get more women in parliament is to do just what Dave did (and of course what Lab has done) - to promote women to high profile positions will encourage constituencies to select women knowing that they can go on to become senior ministers in government.

    As ever with Cons vs Lab it is more a nudge than legislation.
    If the goal is increasing the proportion of women MPs to something approaching the proportion of women in the electorate (say 40%) then the Lab approach is working and the Con approach isnt. Which is presumably why a Tory cabinet minister said they might consider AWS if more progress isnt made next year. Given selections in safe seats to date those might be words that come back to haunt her.

    The difference between the two parties is that Labour believe equality of outcome is essential. Most Conservatives don't.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Neil said:

    the Lab approach is working and the Con approach isnt.

    Whatever approach leads to MPs of the calibre of Margaret Moran can hardly be said to be working.

    Labour's approach also lead to Jack Dromey...
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    TOPPING said:

    Slackbladder said:

    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    Lol... so sexist, but not sexist?

    Doublethink is well and truly active today.
    The way to get more women in parliament is to do just what Dave did (and of course what Lab has done) - to promote women to high profile positions will encourage constituencies to select women knowing that they can go on to become senior ministers in government.

    As ever with Cons vs Lab it is more a nudge than legislation.
    Do constituencies want MPs to be in government, or as local MPs which are more in tune and have more time for their seat though?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Sean_F said:

    Neil said:

    TOPPING said:

    Slackbladder said:

    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    Lol... so sexist, but not sexist?

    Doublethink is well and truly active today.
    The way to get more women in parliament is to do just what Dave did (and of course what Lab has done) - to promote women to high profile positions will encourage constituencies to select women knowing that they can go on to become senior ministers in government.

    As ever with Cons vs Lab it is more a nudge than legislation.
    If the goal is increasing the proportion of women MPs to something approaching the proportion of women in the electorate (say 40%) then the Lab approach is working and the Con approach isnt. Which is presumably why a Tory cabinet minister said they might consider AWS if more progress isnt made next year. Given selections in safe seats to date those might be words that come back to haunt her.

    The difference between the two parties is that Labour believe equality of outcome is essential. Most Conservatives don't.

    Labour is very far from achieving equality of outcome on this. There are increasing senior Tory voices saying AWS will have to be considered if progress stalls next year.

    Can the next person to try to imply that Jack Dromey and AWS are linked please be exiled to Con Home for a week!

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Scott_P said:

    Neil said:

    the Lab approach is working and the Con approach isnt.

    Whatever approach leads to MPs of the calibre of Margaret Moran can hardly be said to be working.
    You cant think of any shi*t or corrupt male MPs?!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    FPT

    I am surprised to see people attacking the NHS on the basis that it is 'in deficit'. Surely any universal health care system by its very nature must be in deficit as it should be providing care for those who cannot afford it as well as those who can. It is the job of government in a civilised country to make up the difference. Moreover since a balance when dealing with such a body is almost impossible, then surely a health service which is slightly in deficit is better than one that is in profit - 'making money' out of treating people.

    I do think there are huge flaws in the UK NHS model but the idea it should make a profit seems strange to say the least.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    Neil said:

    Scott_P said:

    Neil said:

    the Lab approach is working and the Con approach isnt.

    Whatever approach leads to MPs of the calibre of Margaret Moran can hardly be said to be working.
    You cant think of any shi*t or corrupt male MPs?!
    Several. It's just that any form of affirmative action, which makes increasing the numbers of an underrepresented group the principal consideration, is bound to produce such candidates.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Neil said:

    TOPPING said:

    Slackbladder said:

    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    Lol... so sexist, but not sexist?

    Doublethink is well and truly active today.
    The way to get more women in parliament is to do just what Dave did (and of course what Lab has done) - to promote women to high profile positions will encourage constituencies to select women knowing that they can go on to become senior ministers in government.

    As ever with Cons vs Lab it is more a nudge than legislation.
    If the goal is increasing the proportion of women MPs to something approaching the proportion of women in the electorate (say 40%) then the Lab approach is working and the Con approach isnt. Which is presumably why a Tory cabinet minister said they might consider AWS if more progress isnt made next year. Given selections in safe seats to date those might be words that come back to haunt her.

    The difference between the two parties is that Labour believe equality of outcome is essential. Most Conservatives don't.

    Labour is very far from achieving equality of outcome on this. There are increasing senior Tory voices saying AWS will have to be considered if progress stalls next year.

    And those Tories who make such a suggestion are fools.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Sean_F said:

    It's just that any form of affirmative action, which makes increasing the numbers of an underrepresented group the principal consideration, is bound to produce such candidates.

    Only if you think that the group is under-represented in the first place because they are more likely to be sh*t or corrupt. I dont think that's why women are under-represented in Parliament.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,857
    The problem with AWS is that you are denying (in a very important election) the right of half of that seat's population the right to stand for that seat. Is that something not so important to be sacrificed to allow more women in parliament ? Not to me and hopefully not to the tory party for a long time to come.
    Everyone has the right to stand for parliament in a seat and to stand for a party that represents their policies
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's just that any form of affirmative action, which makes increasing the numbers of an underrepresented group the principal consideration, is bound to produce such candidates.

    Only if you think that the group is under-represented in the first place because they are more likely to be sh*t or corrupt. I dont think that's why women are under-represented in Parliament.
    Nor do I. But, if one is excluding good quality candidates from winnable seats because they're male, then inevitably you're left with a smaller talent pool than would otherwise be the case.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Scott_P said:

    Neil said:

    the Lab approach is working and the Con approach isnt.

    Whatever approach leads to MPs of the calibre of Margaret Moran can hardly be said to be working.

    Labour's approach also lead to Jack Dromey...
    Despite the fact that your argument is demonstrable garbage, and that there umpteen shit male MPs you could have cited, this post was, at least, your own opinion.

    And for that we should all rejoice, as if we had found a ruby in the desert.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,857
    state_go_away said:

    The problem with AWS is that you are denying (in a very important election) the right of half of that seat's population the right to stand for that seat. Is that something not so important to be sacrificed to allow more women in parliament ? Not to me and hopefully not to the tory party for a long time to come.
    Everyone has the right to stand for parliament in a seat and to stand for a party that represents their policies

    You are also denying somebody on grounds of their sex the same opportunity (gven the same politics of that person) as that of another sex.
    Presumably that's why the ECHR agrees its sexist
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,895
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    All Woman Shortlists are despicable. Women aren't some sort of disadvantaged minority, they're the equal of men and quite capable of making progress without having preferential treatment on the basis of possessing ovaries. Such an approach is patronising to women and discriminatory against men.

    And why aspire for Parliament to be the precise demographic representation of the UK anyway? Do we also want half of MPs to have below average intelligence?

    We should try and get the best people into the place, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or acknowledgement that Hannibal is better than Caesar (although the last could perhaps be used as a judge of mental competence).
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    state_go_away said:

    The problem with AWS is that you are denying (in a very important election) the right of half of that seat's population the right to stand for that seat. Is that something not so important to be sacrificed to allow more women in parliament ? Not to me and hopefully not to the tory party for a long time to come.
    Everyone has the right to stand for parliament in a seat and to stand for a party that represents their policies

    And the problem with not having AWS is that half the population is grossly under-represented in Parliament. Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these problems they think is worse.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Sean_F said:

    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Neil said:

    TOPPING said:

    Slackbladder said:

    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    Lol... so sexist, but not sexist?

    Doublethink is well and truly active today.
    The way to get more women in parliament is to do just what Dave did (and of course what Lab has done) - to promote women to high profile positions will encourage constituencies to select women knowing that they can go on to become senior ministers in government.

    As ever with Cons vs Lab it is more a nudge than legislation.
    If the goal is increasing the proportion of women MPs to something approaching the proportion of women in the electorate (say 40%) then the Lab approach is working and the Con approach isnt. Which is presumably why a Tory cabinet minister said they might consider AWS if more progress isnt made next year. Given selections in safe seats to date those might be words that come back to haunt her.

    The difference between the two parties is that Labour believe equality of outcome is essential. Most Conservatives don't.

    Labour is very far from achieving equality of outcome on this. There are increasing senior Tory voices saying AWS will have to be considered if progress stalls next year.

    And those Tories who make such a suggestion are fools.

    One of them was subsequently promoted to the Cabinet! ;)

  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,857
    Neil said:

    state_go_away said:

    The problem with AWS is that you are denying (in a very important election) the right of half of that seat's population the right to stand for that seat. Is that something not so important to be sacrificed to allow more women in parliament ? Not to me and hopefully not to the tory party for a long time to come.
    Everyone has the right to stand for parliament in a seat and to stand for a party that represents their policies

    And the problem with not having AWS is that half the population is grossly under-represented in Parliament. Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these problems they think is worse.

    True but under representation of women (for whatever reasons that is) does not deny an individual of either sex standing for parliament -AWS do
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:

    Neil said:

    TOPPING said:

    Slackbladder said:

    BobaFett said:

    @Isam

    I take your point but the reality is there would be a derisory number of women in parliament without AWS. They would stand barely a whiff of a chance in many northern safe coalfield seats for example, not through out and out sexism perhaps but because of the masculine culture up there.

    Lol... so sexist, but not sexist?

    Doublethink is well and truly active today.
    The way to get more women in parliament is to do just what Dave did (and of course what Lab has done) - to promote women to high profile positions will encourage constituencies to select women knowing that they can go on to become senior ministers in government.

    As ever with Cons vs Lab it is more a nudge than legislation.
    If the goal is increasing the proportion of women MPs to something approaching the proportion of women in the electorate (say 40%) then the Lab approach is working and the Con approach isnt. Which is presumably why a Tory cabinet minister said they might consider AWS if more progress isnt made next year. Given selections in safe seats to date those might be words that come back to haunt her.

    The difference between the two parties is that Labour believe equality of outcome is essential. Most Conservatives don't.

    Labour is very far from achieving equality of outcome on this. There are increasing senior Tory voices saying AWS will have to be considered if progress stalls next year.

    And those Tories who make such a suggestion are fools.

    One of them was subsequently promoted to the Cabinet! ;)

    One is not incompatible with the other.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Morris_Dancer said:


    We should try and get the best people into the place, regardless of .. gender ..

    I think you'll find that's the idea behind AWS. (Unless you think women are in general so less suitable to be MPs that they'll only ever comprise 16% of a parliamentary party?)
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    All Woman Shortlists are despicable. Women aren't some sort of disadvantaged minority, they're the equal of men and quite capable of making progress without having preferential treatment on the basis of possessing ovaries. Such an approach is patronising to women and discriminatory against men.

    And why aspire for Parliament to be the precise demographic representation of the UK anyway? Do we also want half of MPs to have below average intelligence?

    We should try and get the best people into the place, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or acknowledgement that Hannibal is better than Caesar (although the last could perhaps be used as a judge of mental competence).

    Presumably you must believe that the lack of a penis is a character flaw on one's CV, how else to explain the very low proportion of MPs that are women?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    state_go_away said:

    Neil said:

    state_go_away said:

    The problem with AWS is that you are denying (in a very important election) the right of half of that seat's population the right to stand for that seat. Is that something not so important to be sacrificed to allow more women in parliament ? Not to me and hopefully not to the tory party for a long time to come.
    Everyone has the right to stand for parliament in a seat and to stand for a party that represents their policies

    And the problem with not having AWS is that half the population is grossly under-represented in Parliament. Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these problems they think is worse.

    True but under representation of women (for whatever reasons that is) does not deny an individual of either sex standing for parliament -AWS do
    There are downsides to AWS and downsides to not having AWS. Reasonable people can surely disagree about which downsides are worse.

  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    state_go_away said:

    Neil said:

    state_go_away said:

    The problem with AWS is that you are denying (in a very important election) the right of half of that seat's population the right to stand for that seat. Is that something not so important to be sacrificed to allow more women in parliament ? Not to me and hopefully not to the tory party for a long time to come.
    Everyone has the right to stand for parliament in a seat and to stand for a party that represents their policies

    And the problem with not having AWS is that half the population is grossly under-represented in Parliament. Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these problems they think is worse.

    True but under representation of women (for whatever reasons that is) does not deny an individual of either sex standing for parliament -AWS do
    Only if every seat were AWS, which they are not.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    Neil said:

    Morris_Dancer said:


    We should try and get the best people into the place, regardless of .. gender ..

    I think you'll find that's the idea behind AWS. (Unless you think women are in general so less suitable to be MPs that they'll only ever comprise 16% of a parliamentary party?)
    That may be the idea behind it. Whether it is succeeding in doing so is another matter.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Sean_F said:



    One is not incompatible with the other.

    I'm sure we could make a good try at proving a positive correlation ;)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,895
    Mr. Neil, it's not an anti-discriminatory measure to discriminate against men.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    The amusing thing is that people who are generally in favour of AWS were generally not a fan of the one woman who made it to the very top.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    And the problem with not having AWS is that half the population is grossly under-represented in Parliament

    How are they under represented? All women have a vote. If they voted on the basis the candidate was a woman there would be far more women candidates and far more women MPs

    Women! get out there and vote for women!
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''The amusing thing is that people who are generally in favour of AWS were generally not a fan of the one woman who made it to the very top.''

    Indeed. A delicious, delicious irony.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Sean_F said:

    Neil said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's just that any form of affirmative action, which makes increasing the numbers of an underrepresented group the principal consideration, is bound to produce such candidates.

    Only if you think that the group is under-represented in the first place because they are more likely to be sh*t or corrupt. I dont think that's why women are under-represented in Parliament.
    Nor do I. But, if one is excluding good quality candidates from winnable seats because they're male, then inevitably you're left with a smaller talent pool than would otherwise be the case.
    You could argue that you are in fact increasing the talent pool, because you are giving great candidates a crack who would otherwise stand no chance as a consequence of their speaking in a high voice, standing 5'5" tall and lacking a penis.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,857
    BobaFett said:

    state_go_away said:

    Neil said:

    state_go_away said:

    The problem with AWS is that you are denying (in a very important election) the right of half of that seat's population the right to stand for that seat. Is that something not so important to be sacrificed to allow more women in parliament ? Not to me and hopefully not to the tory party for a long time to come.
    Everyone has the right to stand for parliament in a seat and to stand for a party that represents their policies

    And the problem with not having AWS is that half the population is grossly under-represented in Parliament. Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these problems they think is worse.

    True but under representation of women (for whatever reasons that is) does not deny an individual of either sex standing for parliament -AWS do
    Only if every seat were AWS, which they are not.
    No because ,given we have local politics, you are denying somebody with a strong identity to a seat (they might have lived there all their life ,built up a reputation etc) the chance to stand for that seat ,based on their sex.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    edited July 2014
    Neil said:

    Morris_Dancer said:


    We should try and get the best people into the place, regardless of .. gender ..

    I think you'll find that's the idea behind AWS. (Unless you think women are in general so less suitable to be MPs that they'll only ever comprise 16% of a parliamentary party?)
    Men for whatever reason are more interested in the big "P" Political game generally than women, for whatever reason - this website is a shining example.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    Pulpstar said:

    The amusing thing is that people who are generally in favour of AWS were generally not a fan of the one woman who made it to the very top.

    She was the wrong sort of woman.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,895
    Question on big fancy dinners: when you have umpteen sets of knives and forks, do you normally start at the outside and work your way in?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,114
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Question on big fancy dinners: when you have umpteen sets of knives and forks, do you normally start at the outside and work your way in?

    Yes.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025