The polling tide turning for the Tories? – politicalbetting.com

BlancheLivermore said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Quiz for today, name as many of them as possible. Thought that was Nigel Kennedy on the left but it is of course the one and only Johnnie Fingers, Aled Jones on the right, Midge Ure looks like he's got something very naughty under his Royal Stewart and I assume George Michael is the ruddy faced scaffolder behind Geldof.

The Bowie cool is quite strong there.

Bowie was cool even before he was cool.

This is a 1967 letter from a 20 year old Bowie, replying to his first fan letter from America



https://lettersofnote.com/2009/12/02/my-real-name-is-david-jones/

Stereodog said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pro_Rata said:

The whole thing with SKS's ratings is that he started very well with a lot of goodwill.

I'm sure the Tories microtarget with whatever SKS said about Brexit, but to say that is the reason for his ratings doesn't hold water.

Basically he had struggled to attack the government effectively during COVID, and it is that lack of presence that has mainly ended his honeymoon. BAU politics provides an opportunity, but he and Labour will need to sharpen up to take it. It's remains to be seen if that is possible.

Its not even being able to attack the government....he basically stands up every time and says terrible, useless, reckless, confusion...so what would you do different....erhhhhh...hmmmmm.....well.....the same, but different, but essentially the same, but definitely differently better. Yes thanks for that SKS.

In fairness when anything COVID related comes before Parliament it's usually because the government is finally doing what everyone has been pressing them to do earlier. You can't vote against something you agree with because you wish the government had done it sooner.

Leon said:

another_richard said:

Pulpstar said:

It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.

There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure

kinabalu said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

I think this is bang on and explains Starmer's remarkably poor ratings vis a vis Boris

eg Starmer wins out over Boris as being more truthful, but by just one percent

That's like winning out over Boris as "being most faithful to his partner" by 0.5 percent, or getting the same rating on "knowing the exact number of children he has"

Why? It has to be Brexit. Starmer is apparently a decent well meaning man, a bit dull, quite intelligent, worthy, earnest, but he fucked all of that up by being a duplicitous Remoaner bastard and trying to get a 2nd referendum. He will never be forgiven by a lot of people

Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

SKS was always the wrong choice as Labour leader. I have no doubt that he is decent and competent, but he is politically inept. How he could not see the open goal the tories gave him in 2019 is beyond me. Not only did he miss the open goal but he ran down the other end and scored the biggest political own goal this century.

You mean allowing the election?

Yes, I was pondering that the other day. Why did he do it?

No, he should have voted for Mays deal. It would have torn the tories in two and Labour would have won the election easily, and perhaps many more to come. By doing what he did it allowed Boris to become PM, get rid of the remainers in the tory ranks, present a case to the British Public regarding honouring the Brexit vote and gaining the biggest election win for the tories in decades. It ws SKS who won the election for the tories. How he could not see the easy victory for LAbour that was right in front of his face is amazing. And his actions have ruined any chance he had of winning any future elections.

The party would not have allowed it.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

That's a really great silver as well. Gold was always going to be out of reach.

I wonder if Laura Muir is slightly kicking herself not even competing in 800m, when faster than the other British women.

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

another_richard said:

Pulpstar said:

It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.

There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure

Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?

CarlottaVance said:

kle4 said:

Ha, I watched this movie in the cinema on Sunday and I just knew there was going to be a story about this nonsense as people worked up a fake outrage.

Disney's newest film Jungle Cruise is facing criticism because of a lack of "genuine representation" when it comes to LGBTQ+ characters...

Three year's ago Whitehall, who is a straight actor, was controversially cast as Disney's first out and officially gay character, named MacGregor in the film. Now, following the movie's release, the studio has been criticised again for a scene where MacGregor reveals his sexuality.

In the scene, he tells Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's character Frank that he broke off relationships - described as "engagements" in the film - with three women because his "interests happily lay elsewhere".

The character then thanks his sister for supporting him after he wasn't accepted by the rest of their family.

However members of the LGBTQ+ community and others have criticised the film on social media because the character doesn't specifically say that he is 'gay'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/58027620

There is actually a follow up line where he is pretty clear about the issue being about who he loves. It may not mention the word gay but there is no ambiguity there.

Frankly I'm more surprised the confected 'outrage' is not about him being the comic relief of the film and how that reflects poorly on gay people or some rubbish.

It's also ahistorical rubbish - homosexuals in 1916 did not describe themselves as "gay", they were "artistic" or "confirmed bachelors".....Although there are some references in the 1930s (Cary Grant in "Bringing up Baby" when challenged about why he was wearing a lady's dressing gown) it didn't enter more general parlance until the 1960s onwards.

In the late 1950s the US Procter & Gamble wanted to launch a dishwashing liquid in the UK. Their local operation - Thomas Hedley, wanted to use their long established brand "Fairy" - a popular bar soap. The suits in Cincinnati balked at the name - for reasons they declined to specify, but insisted on testing the UK name against their US choice - 'Gay'!

turbotubbs said:

MaxPB said:

That's a really great silver as well. Gold was always going to be out of reach.

That american's legs are unbelievably long. Should be in a separate category!

MrEd said:

BannedinnParis said:

Think 19 golds (beijing) is pushing towards unlikely now. But > 51 medals in total should be achievable. In comparison to 2012 and 2016, down, but most of us here probably remember 1996 (1 gold, 15 total) and even 2000 (11 golds, 28 total).

Feels a bit like we've not converted podiums into golds but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Not sure about that, a lot will depend on the track cycling. As BJO said, we seem pretty much guaranteed a Gold tomorrow in the sailing so then 5 to go. Outside chance still.

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

another_richard said:

Pulpstar said:

It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.

There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure

Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?

Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Why don't India do better? The medal table (BBC) has them on one silver and one bronze.

No great sporting tradition except for cricket, which is not in the Olympics, and hockey. One of the money transfer companies is running an advert showing a radiant Indian boy with a cricket-bat shaped present.

Theuniondivvie said:

Can we guess of whom the blessed Simon speaks?

Simon Schama
@simon_schama
breathtaking stupidity; historical illiteracy and selfishness masquerading as principle all in one dazzlingly repellent package
12:38 pm · 3 Aug 2021·Twitter for iPhone

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

I think this is bang on and explains Starmer's remarkably poor ratings vis a vis Boris

eg Starmer wins out over Boris as being more truthful, but by just one percent

That's like winning out over Boris as "being most faithful to his partner" by 0.5 percent, or getting the same rating on "knowing the exact number of children he has"

Why? It has to be Brexit. Starmer is apparently a decent well meaning man, a bit dull, quite intelligent, worthy, earnest, but he fucked all of that up by being a duplicitous Remoaner bastard and trying to get a 2nd referendum. He will never be forgiven by a lot of people

Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

SKS was always the wrong choice as Labour leader. I have no doubt that he is decent and competent, but he is politically inept. How he could not see the open goal the tories gave him in 2019 is beyond me. Not only did he miss the open goal but he ran down the other end and scored the biggest political own goal this century.

You mean allowing the election?

Yes, I was pondering that the other day. Why did he do it?

No, he should have voted for Mays deal. It would have torn the tories in two and Labour would have won the election easily, and perhaps many more to come. By doing what he did it allowed Boris to become PM, get rid of the remainers in the tory ranks, present a case to the British Public regarding honouring the Brexit vote and gaining the biggest election win for the tories in decades. It ws SKS who won the election for the tories. How he could not see the easy victory for LAbour that was right in front of his face is amazing. And his actions have ruined any chance he had of winning any future elections.

The party would not have allowed it.

So couldn't have supported the Tories in that vote, but has supported them in every single vote for the past 18 months.

A Lab split would have been fine then because he could have rebuilt, he is the leader.

Apart from him having had a charisma bypass it is the voting with the sworn enemy time and time and time again that makes people wonder why they should vote for the monkey instead of the organ grinder and hence his and Lab's current polling position.

Which might not be, obvs, a GE position.

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

another_richard said:

Pulpstar said:

It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.

There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure

Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?

Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.

The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.

Leon said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Why don't India do better? The medal table (BBC) has them on one silver and one bronze.

No great sporting tradition except for cricket, which is not in the Olympics, and hockey. One of the money transfer companies is running an advert showing a radiant Indian boy with a cricket-bat shaped present.

Canada is another perennial underperformer in Olympics. A rather powerful and wealthy country, with endless space, yet they are down at 16th, behind New Zealand, Cuba, and Hungary

I guess their climate does not help, but that doesn't stop them being good at indoor sports, indeed it should encourage them. Odd

BannedinnParis said:

Leon said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Why don't India do better? The medal table (BBC) has them on one silver and one bronze.

No great sporting tradition except for cricket, which is not in the Olympics, and hockey. One of the money transfer companies is running an advert showing a radiant Indian boy with a cricket-bat shaped present.

Canada is another perennial underperformer in Olympics. A rather powerful and wealthy country, with endless space, yet they are down at 16th, behind New Zealand, Cuba, and Hungary

I guess their climate does not help, but that doesn't stop them being good at indoor sports, indeed it should encourage them. Odd

They weren't even that big a deal at the Winters until relatively recently.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

I think this is bang on and explains Starmer's remarkably poor ratings vis a vis Boris

eg Starmer wins out over Boris as being more truthful, but by just one percent

That's like winning out over Boris as "being most faithful to his partner" by 0.5 percent, or getting the same rating on "knowing the exact number of children he has"

Why? It has to be Brexit. Starmer is apparently a decent well meaning man, a bit dull, quite intelligent, worthy, earnest, but he fucked all of that up by being a duplicitous Remoaner bastard and trying to get a 2nd referendum. He will never be forgiven by a lot of people

Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

SKS was always the wrong choice as Labour leader. I have no doubt that he is decent and competent, but he is politically inept. How he could not see the open goal the tories gave him in 2019 is beyond me. Not only did he miss the open goal but he ran down the other end and scored the biggest political own goal this century.

You mean allowing the election?

Yes, I was pondering that the other day. Why did he do it?

No, he should have voted for Mays deal. It would have torn the tories in two and Labour would have won the election easily, and perhaps many more to come. By doing what he did it allowed Boris to become PM, get rid of the remainers in the tory ranks, present a case to the British Public regarding honouring the Brexit vote and gaining the biggest election win for the tories in decades. It ws SKS who won the election for the tories. How he could not see the easy victory for LAbour that was right in front of his face is amazing. And his actions have ruined any chance he had of winning any future elections.

The party would not have allowed it.

So couldn't have supported the Tories in that vote, but has supported them in every single vote for the past 18 months.

A Lab split would have been fine then because he could have rebuilt, he is the leader.

Apart from him having had a charisma bypass it is the voting with the sworn enemy time and time and time again that makes people wonder why they should vote for the monkey instead of the organ grinder and hence his and Lab's current polling position.

Which might not be, obvs, a GE position.

I agree he should have been more bolshie. The focus groups were telling him the public didn't want to see 'politics' in such a crisis but I think this should have been ignored. Like the Tories did so successfully with the Financial Crisis. Build a narrative that damages the government. 'Lazy reckless callous Johnson cost thousands of lives' etc.

But on the May Deal, this notion that Corbyn and Labour should have voted it through, it wasn't a practical option. The party (MPs and members) wouldn't have stood for it. Saving a Tory PM plus enabling Brexit - No.

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.

Leon said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Why don't India do better? The medal table (BBC) has them on one silver and one bronze.

No great sporting tradition except for cricket, which is not in the Olympics, and hockey. One of the money transfer companies is running an advert showing a radiant Indian boy with a cricket-bat shaped present.

Canada is another perennial underperformer in Olympics. A rather powerful and wealthy country, with endless space, yet they are down at 16th, behind New Zealand, Cuba, and Hungary

I guess their climate does not help, but that doesn't stop them being good at indoor sports, indeed it should encourage them. Odd

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

another_richard said:

Pulpstar said:

It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.

There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure

Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?

Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.

The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.

You find it lurid because you are hyper-sensitive to anything involving race

It's a perfectly valid hypothesis - it seems highly likely that the intense pressures of slavery would have selected for certain factors over time. Only the toughest would have made it to the New World in the first place. There, only the fittest would have been allowed to breed.

Revolting to us, but that is exactly what happened.

There are similar theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews have such high IQs compared to others (about 15 points higher on average). It was the persecution of the Jews over many centuries that meant only the really clever Jews escaped, also the Jews encouraged scholars and rabbis to have many babies - a kind of soft eugenicism, to preserve the Jewish faith and people

tlg86 said:

That Swedish pole-vaulter looked a class apart.

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

That Swedish pole-vaulter looked a class apart.

I am always intrigued at the idea of learning the pole-vault from scratch. At some point there must be an "oh fuck" moment when you have to rely on the pole doing its thing.

MrEd said:

There is also the un-predictables. No one thought Hodgkinson could get a Silver (well, I did or at least a medal).

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.

I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

another_richard said:

Pulpstar said:

It's funny how Jamaican women are dominating the sprints yet they might not get a single man to either the 100 or 200 metre final this olympics. Still absurdly strong at sprinting for a ~ 3 million population nation.

What is amazing is how weak the actual West African countries are at sprinting compared to their disapora.

A contrast to how the East African countries dominate the long distance events.

There is a cruel Darwinian explanation for this

The slaves that survived the Middle Passage - and the brutalities of slavery itself - were thus selected over generations for their fitness, speed, strength. The Africans who remained in Africa did not undergo this savage evolutionary pressure

Another example of white supremacy racism shaping the world we live in?

Eh? I thought it was selection for salt retention leading to high blood pressure today?! Not much sprinting on a slave ship.

In any case the HBP = slave ancestors theory has been frowned on of late:

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00070.2018

I think it much more prosaic. West Africans play a lot of football, and are well represented in our Football Leagues, which require a lot of speed and stamina. In the West Indies they do a lot of athletics at school, so are well represented internationally.

It is more nurture than nature as far as I can see.

The slave theory does sound a bit lurid.

You find it lurid because you are hyper-sensitive to anything involving race

It's a perfectly valid hypothesis - it seems highly likely that the intense pressures of slavery would have selected for certain factors over time. Only the toughest would have made it to the New World in the first place. There, only the fittest would have been allowed to breed.

Revolting to us, but that is exactly what happened.

There are similar theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews have such high IQs compared to others (about 15 points higher on average). It was the persecution of the Jews over many centuries that meant only the really clever Jews escaped, also the Jews encouraged scholars and rabbis to have many babies - a kind of soft eugenicism, to preserve the Jewish faith and people

I wonder if there is a misunderstanding?

'Fitness' has a specific meaning in Darwinian terminology: the collective sum total of differential survival and differential reproduction. It certainly does not mean the Olympic/athletic 'fitness' - consider, for instance, the many organisms which save energy and resources and do very well by quite literally being non-athletic.

I know what fitness means in a Darwinian sense. I use it in that sense, you prannock

But fitness in the Darwinian sense will incorporate fitness in the athletic sense

HYUFD said:

NerysHughes said:

HYUFD said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

I think this is bang on and explains Starmer's remarkably poor ratings vis a vis Boris

eg Starmer wins out over Boris as being more truthful, but by just one percent

That's like winning out over Boris as "being most faithful to his partner" by 0.5 percent, or getting the same rating on "knowing the exact number of children he has"

Why? It has to be Brexit. Starmer is apparently a decent well meaning man, a bit dull, quite intelligent, worthy, earnest, but he fucked all of that up by being a duplicitous Remoaner bastard and trying to get a 2nd referendum. He will never be forgiven by a lot of people

Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

SKS was always the wrong choice as Labour leader. I have no doubt that he is decent and competent, but he is politically inept. How he could not see the open goal the tories gave him in 2019 is beyond me. Not only did he miss the open goal but he ran down the other end and scored the biggest political own goal this century.

You mean allowing the election?

Yes, I was pondering that the other day. Why did he do it?

No, he should have voted for Mays deal. It would have torn the tories in two and Labour would have won the election easily, and perhaps many more to come. By doing what he did it allowed Boris to become PM, get rid of the remainers in the tory ranks, present a case to the British Public regarding honouring the Brexit vote and gaining the biggest election win for the tories in decades. It ws SKS who won the election for the tories. How he could not see the easy victory for LAbour that was right in front of his face is amazing. And his actions have ruined any chance he had of winning any future elections.

Except you are forgetting had Labour backed Brexit with May's deal they would have lost as many Remainers to the LDs as the Tories lost Leavers to the Brexit Party with May's deal

It would have torn the tories in two, then who knows what would have happened

Something like the 2019 European elections, the Brexit Party and LDs would have surged and the May Tories and Corbyn Labour collapsed

FrancisUrquhart said:

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.

I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....

All atheletes in that infamous final eventually were popped, other than Carl Lewis, for legal reasons we will say that he never officially failed a drugs test.

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

That is wrong IMO.

However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

(Hint, he wasn't.)

If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.

I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.

Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.

That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.

At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.

I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.

Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?

I don't need one.

I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.

Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.

And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.

Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.

Fishing said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

spudgfsh said:

Leon said:

spudgfsh said:

felix said:

Apologies if already posted.

Britain Elects
@BritainElects
·
1h
Scottish independence voting intention:

Yes: 48.1% (-6.1)
No: 51.9% (+6.1)

via @BritainElects
poll tracker, 24 Jun
Chgs. w/ 13 Jan

not going to make a difference to how either Sturgeon or Johnson deal with the issue. Sturgeon will continue to push for a referendum (even though it's not clear that They'd win it) and Johnson will continue to refuse to authorise a referendum under the same rules as 2014.

Sturgeon will eventually either have to call one anyway (which the unionists may boycott) or will have to come up with a way of pushing it into the long grass the way that GB did so effectively with joining the Euro. The difference being that joining the Euro wasn't the main goal of the Labour party though and I'm not sure that the SNP can let it be pushed into the long grass. Not dealt with the Scots will (eventually) tire of the push for independence (especially if everything else starts to slip).

Disagree. This will make a difference quite quickly

That's a momentous shift from YES to NO, and the last few polls have all been NO

Sturgeon needs a sense of public fervour behind her to have even a tiny chance of persuading HMG to allow a vote. She has the opposite, she has declining support, no demand for a vote, and most Scots actually don't want indy

So her brave new bid for Sindyref2 - coming next month - is going to look ridiculous, as everyone will know she doesn't mean it, she doesn't want a vote, because she absolutely cannot risk losing

This is important for two reasons, no politician benefits from looking absurd, and - as you imply - this will deepen splits in the Nat movement as the fundamentalists tire of SNP havering

the SNP is in too deep with the call for a Referendum to back out without something to kick it into the long grass. I can't see what would give them the excuse to put it off for longer than a few months. They also need independence on the agenda to keep people voting for them. when SLab finally get their act together and provide a decent Left opposition the SNP will be in trouble.

The UK government will refuse indyref2 as long as the Tories remain in power.

Sturgeon has ruled out a wildcat referendum and ruled out UDI, so nothing will change and defections from the SNP to Alba will gather pace

You’ve this post set up as a macro haven’t you?

He may be repetitive, but he isn't obviously wrong.

BannedinnParis said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.

I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....

All atheletes in that infamous final eventually were popped, other than Carl Lewis, for legal reasons we will say that he never officially failed a drugs test.

Not 100 % sure that's true.

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

On Topic, despite a few ups and downs the polls are basically static at 43-34-10 and if an election was called tomorrow Im sure that would be the result. Tories dip down a little bit when Boris gets bad press but soon recover. The key for me is that Labour are not making any headway at all. At this point in the electoral cycle they should be ahead in the polls but there is absolutely no sign of that. SKS will never win a GE for Labour, its not to do with him being dull and boring, its the way he behaved in 2019 trying all sorts of parliamentary wheezes to prevent a democratic vote, and being all pleased with himself on TV for doing so. People who voted for Brexit will not forgive him for that.

I think this is bang on and explains Starmer's remarkably poor ratings vis a vis Boris

eg Starmer wins out over Boris as being more truthful, but by just one percent

That's like winning out over Boris as "being most faithful to his partner" by 0.5 percent, or getting the same rating on "knowing the exact number of children he has"

Why? It has to be Brexit. Starmer is apparently a decent well meaning man, a bit dull, quite intelligent, worthy, earnest, but he fucked all of that up by being a duplicitous Remoaner bastard and trying to get a 2nd referendum. He will never be forgiven by a lot of people

Labour REALLY need a Leaver as leader, or at least someone like Burnham who was not (I don't think?) a 2nd referendum supporter

People will forgive Remainers, they won't forgive Remoaners

SKS was always the wrong choice as Labour leader. I have no doubt that he is decent and competent, but he is politically inept. How he could not see the open goal the tories gave him in 2019 is beyond me. Not only did he miss the open goal but he ran down the other end and scored the biggest political own goal this century.

You mean allowing the election?

Yes, I was pondering that the other day. Why did he do it?

No, he should have voted for Mays deal. It would have torn the tories in two and Labour would have won the election easily, and perhaps many more to come. By doing what he did it allowed Boris to become PM, get rid of the remainers in the tory ranks, present a case to the British Public regarding honouring the Brexit vote and gaining the biggest election win for the tories in decades. It ws SKS who won the election for the tories. How he could not see the easy victory for LAbour that was right in front of his face is amazing. And his actions have ruined any chance he had of winning any future elections.

The party would not have allowed it.

So couldn't have supported the Tories in that vote, but has supported them in every single vote for the past 18 months.

A Lab split would have been fine then because he could have rebuilt, he is the leader.

Apart from him having had a charisma bypass it is the voting with the sworn enemy time and time and time again that makes people wonder why they should vote for the monkey instead of the organ grinder and hence his and Lab's current polling position.

Which might not be, obvs, a GE position.

I agree he should have been more bolshie. The focus groups were telling him the public didn't want to see 'politics' in such a crisis but I think this should have been ignored. Like the Tories did so successfully with the Financial Crisis. Build a narrative that damages the government. 'Lazy reckless callous Johnson cost thousands of lives' etc.

But on the May Deal, this notion that Corbyn and Labour should have voted it through, it wasn't a practical option. The party (MPs and members) wouldn't have stood for it. Saving a Tory PM plus enabling Brexit - No.

It continues to be my view that the people who scuppered May's deal were the Cons rebels which gave Lab the cover to say "well if their own party doesn't support it why should we".

Problem was, for the national interest (according to their stated views on Brexit), it would have been the right thing although I appreciate that not possible for the reasons you suggest.

Thing is, with 20/20 hindsight, first, they have now sacrificed their polling position for the national interest, and secondly, how much worse could it be than now, mid-term and 5-10 pts behind the govt?

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.

I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....

There is a very good podcast "Cheat" - written and presented by Alzo Slade (whom I could listen to read the phone book) and their latest episode covered Marion Jones and the cheating legacy.

I had forgotten that Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson and our very own Linford all tested positive in that one race in 1988.

BlancheLivermore said:

kinabalu said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Gardenwalker said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

MattW said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

What an extraordinary coincidence that the best person to be on the anti-sleaze watchdog just happened to be an old chum of Johnsons from his Bullingdon Club days.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-sleaze-committee-standards-public-life-b1895212.html

That is wrong IMO.

However, I remember some Corbyn fans on here defending McDonnell employing Corbyn's son in a taxpayer-funded role. By an astonishing coincidence, the son of his best bud was the best candidate for the job.

(Hint, he wasn't.)

If we want to stop people hiring friends, family and chums to roles, especially to taxpayer-funded roles, then it needs to apply equally to all.

I don't think I have ever defended cronyism in the Labour Party either.

The nepotism and Chumocracy does show how illusory "taking back control" was.

Jobs for the sons and daughters of friends is as old as jobs themselves. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it's not the best way of hiring someone but sometimes it can work. Rather depends on how how up the chain the job is.

That's the Indy. And there seems to be not a shred of actual evidence of malpractice.

Has anyone provided any evidence that Johnson had a corrupt role in the process, or how the process worked such that Johnson could manipulate it? Or that the member appointed is unfit to be on the Committee or is corrupt?

Or is this just Hoof-in-Mouth Rayner howling at the moon because it is Tuesday and she still does not have anything to say?

"You were in a student club with him 35 years ago" is some way beyond farfetched.

The only possible chink I can see is if the PM is supplied with say 50 names, from which he then gets to choose who he wants, and that would still require a lot more evidence that we have.

It's quite a dangerous argument to make because it shrinks the pool of acceptable candidates - 'No, you went to the same school when you were six!" - and undermines the expectation of personal integrity.

At this level it looks bad, though. However, I agree that we've not seen evidence that, for example, Johnson looked at the shortlist and said 'He's the one. Know him. Good chap' or similar. Nor have we seen any suggestion, AFAIK, that a selection committee produced three names in order of preference, and the Good Chap was third.

I think what we may get here at some time is similar to what happened to selection of Bishops, where the process was that the PM got 2 names and a theoretical convention that they could choose either - which has only been used once in 100-200 appointments.

That has now been replaced with the second name being a "reserve" if eg the first one dies.

Quite concerning, though, is the dire quality of opposition a reliance on painting this stuff in poster paints indicates.

Despite your archaeology you haven’t really found a good reason why Boris should be picking an old school friend to head the Boris-monitoring committee, have you?

I don't need one.

I was pointing out that this particular outrage bus is fuelled by BS and hot air.

Yes. What we need is a tape with Johnson saying, "Ah, Fergie! He was in the old Bullers with me. Sound as a pound. Hired."

Short of that, as Charles would stress, nothing to see and unfair to insinuate.

And the Lord that drew up the shortlist was enabled by David Cameron, who was in the same dissolute dining club.

It's almost like a self replicating oligarchy.

Gets my goat it really does. Private schools have to go. It's the only way imo.

Don't you also have to ban home schooling?

FrancisUrquhart said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Why is elevated testosterone ok for 200m but not 400m? In the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s,.00s.....far too many athletes were juiced to the gills with such things.

Michael Johnson said it's because the drugs people could only prove to the court of arbitration for sport that it makes a difference for 400m to 1500m.

I recall a somewhat remarkable 100m with Ben Johnson and sundry others that might have been indicative of a benefit....

There is a very good podcast "Cheat" - written and presented by Alzo Slade (whom I could listen to read the phone book) and their latest episode covered Marion Jones and the cheating legacy.

I had forgotten that Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson and our very own Linford all tested positive in that one race in 1988.

I listened to a great interview with the guy behind Balco Labs, Victor Conte. Basically he went though all the warning signs that an athlete is juice, i don't just mean physically, but things like how many missed tests, where do they hold training camps ask yourself why therr, and many of the ways they play the system.

He basically said in this day and age, missed tests massive red flags, strange uncommon medical conditions that in most people mean declined performance, red flags, any talk of they took some supplement or medication that they didn't know contained trace of x, massive red flag, training camps on remote locations where very hard for a tester to get to / everybody knows if they are incoming, massive red flag.

Basically clean atheletes are anal about they where abouts locator info, they don't put anything in their body that hasn't been signed off by official doctors, etc.