Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It’s hard to see how Johnson recovers from this – politicalbetting.com

1246710

Comments

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,776
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    It's nonsense in this case through. It's the students own party and they can invite whoever they want. They didn't invite Liddle and wouldn't have done if they had known. They would be entirely in their rights to throw him out the door for boorish behaviour. That they didn't, shows remarkable restraint on their part.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,431

    HYUFD said:

    I also thank Nick for his comments. I don't agree with him on barely anything but have always found him civil and engaging, certainly more so than many to the right of him including some so called PBTories who are in reality largely just Orange Book LDs

    As someone broadly of the social liberal persuasion, yes, I would agree with you that most Orange Book LDs are basically just Tories.
    Only economically. Orange Book LDs are liberals - though I admit would - at a push - be more comfortable with a CP than a LP in government in normal times. Not now though - not a Johnson-led CP. I think that Johnson has crossed the line to now be a electoral liability.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,431

    ATTENTION PHILLIP THOMPSON

    Source the comment you attributed to me about Livingston or else you will get banned.

    Ah, now now, chill.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735

    HYUFD said:

    I also thank Nick for his comments. I don't agree with him on barely anything but have always found him civil and engaging, certainly more so than many to the right of him including some so called PBTories who are in reality largely just Orange Book LDs

    As someone broadly of the social liberal persuasion, yes, I would agree with you that most Orange Book LDs are basically just Tories.
    Cameroon Tories though, not Boris Tories.

    Boris appealed more to 2015 UKIP voters
  • ATTENTION PHILLIP THOMPSON

    Source the comment you attributed to me about Livingston or else you will get banned.

    I gave you the link already twice: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/
  • Cicero said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    I agree with the last line - we can't be seen to be bullying people. And I don't think HYUFD feels bullied. He makes the same ctrl+v statements about Scotland or Polls or the Red Wall. Fact free, logic free, actually damaging to his own party and political perspective but he keeps going. Have to admire that.
    Well quite. Around 95% of the time I don´t agree with HYFUD. Much of what he says is, in my opinion, provable nonsense. However I will defend to the death his right to spout such nonsense.

    I actively loathe those who, for whatever reason, seek to cancel or silence views that they disagree with. When I was a kid we used to say that "say what you like, its a free country", and I stand by that ideal. Those on right or left who set standards for a certain kind of ThoughtCrime are dangerous and should be strongly opposed. In my opinion the acid test is not opinions but actions, and the law should prevent certain actions, but as far as freedom of thought and freedom of expression is concerned, the balance should be permissive, if not completely libertarian. I fear that much legislation on "Hate speech" strays too far into restricting freedom of thought and the state should have no business legislating on opinions unless they are a clear and active threat to the Queen´s Peace.
    I think the "pile in" the other day on HYUFD because he suggested that he had questions regarding abortion (a subject which is very much one of conscience) was bullying and unedifying for this site. I think teasing him about his undying devotion to the very flawed leader of the Conservative Party is proportionate though!
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666
    edited December 2021
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    Again you are missing the context which is both Mr Luckhurst's fault and will be his downfall.

    Mr Liddle was invited to a formal as the speaker without revealing to anyone who the guest was (because if he had few people would have attended). Now the formal was in South College so the College Principal (Mr Luckhurst) basically invited his mate to insult all the students he has a pastoral care responsibility for in his role as College Principal.

    It's also worth adding that there is no right of response or even right to exit the room (even to go to the toilet) and doing so could be subject to disciplinary measures up to expulsion from Durham.

    So that's the first problem Durham University has to deal with. The second one is that it's now also been made into a Free Speech political football to try and project Mr Luckhurst who seems to breached numerous parts of his employment contract.

    And from what I gather it's not doing recruitment any good - UCAS forms are in and this is the exact time students finalise their choices.
  • ATTENTION PHILLIP THOMPSON

    Source the comment you attributed to me about Livingston or else you will get banned.

    I gave you the link already twice: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/
    That was a question not a statement.
  • algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    The most common kind of illegal opinion that I had in mind is incitement to commit violent acts that are currently criminal (if a Tory urged that we should all go and smash up Labour HQ, for instance, or vice versa) or whip up racial hatred.
    Being very pedantic, "incitement" isn't an offence any more in England & Wales (except for offences before 2008). It's been replaced by "encouraging or assisting". Not sure about Scotland & NI. It's not massively different, though.

    There's long been a debate as to whether a mere "opinion" is incitement (or encouragement). Certainly, you'd struggle to get a conviction on a relatively abstract opinion that it would be morally justified to commit a particular type of offence. But the line is rather blurred. If you handed me a shovel and said "In my opinion, you should go over there and stove that bloke's head in with this" you'd be bang to rights - but arguably you'd not really be expressing an "opinion" there in the ordinary sense of the word.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,385
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    Again you are missing the context which is both Mr Luckhurst's fault and will be his downfall.

    Mr Liddle was invited to a formal as the speaker without revealing to anyone who the guest was (because if he had few people would have attended). Now the formal was in South College so he basically invited his mate to insult all the students he has a pastoral care responsibility for in his role as College Principal.

    It's also worth adding that there is no right of response or even right to exit the room (even to go to the toilet) and doing so could be subject to disciplinary measures up to expulsion from Durham.

    So that's the first problem Durham University has to deal with. The second one is that it's now also been made into a Free Speech political football to try and project Mr Luckhurst who seems to breached numerous parts of his employment contract.

    And from what I gather it's not doing recruitment any good - UCAS forms are in and this is the exact time students finalise their choices.
    Don't worry, there'll always be enough Oxbridge rejects to keep them fully utilised.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liberal Remainers have wanted Boris out since day 1 since he is by far the most charismatic figure to hold the Leave coalition together which won the biggest Tory landslide since Thatcher in 2019. Remove Boris and it could be much harder for the Tories to stay in power after 10 years and keep the Redwall.

    Getting concerned about a mere 4% Labour poll lead in midterm would be absurd when even Kinnock for most of 1990 and Ed Miliband in 2012 both had 10%+ leads midterm and Blair had 20%+ leads by the end of 1994.

    If the Tories held North Shropshire it would ironically now be a triumph for Boris. The first Tory by election hold over the LDs since Witney in 2016, the Tories having lost Richmond Park, Brecon and Radnor and Chesham and Amersham to the LDs in by elections since

    You say "over the LDs" but LP is second party in this seat by a margin, 2019: 63/22/10%.

    If CP does squeak it and tactical voting means that LP loses its deposit then Johnson has a couple of reasons to be very happy I agree.

    Your posts are unremittingly in support of Johnson for the sole reason that he wins elections. I'm curious though - aren't you concerned at all about the directions that this administration is going in, for example the authoritarian direction including the bill to create second class citizens in this country?
    Hahaha. You are talking to the man who thought we should use tanks on Scotland if they dare to vote to leave the Union and was cheerleading the Spanish police beating up Grannies for daring to vote. You could have the army shooting down students in the street and he would still be cheerleading this bunch of lunatics.
    And the most frightening aspect is that he is not some lone nutter on an obscure blog, but an elected Conservative councillor who has a realistic chance of being a parliamentary candidate. In any healthy democracy such unpleasant extremists would be expelled from a mainstream political party.
    Says a supporter of the Scottish National Party, a party filled with extremist lunatics
    How the Union was lost.

    https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/
    The Union will only be lost by giving in to you lot
    The thing is though a lot of the Tory support that Johnson cajoles to don't give a rat's arse if Scotland leave the Union. I hear this from the strongest reactionary Brexiteers that I know. I despair of it but it is a common view.
    2019 Conservative voters though oppose allowing an indyref2 by 47% to 28% so by refusing it Boris does not need to worry about selling the Union again to Scots as union matters are reserved to Westminster.

    50% of 2019 Labour voters back allowing an indyref2 though. So it will be for a future Labour government to have to sell the Union to Scots again if it allows an indyref2, it would not be Boris' problem

    https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468184100116873219?s=20
    Dopesn't mean they care a monkey's, only they thay have enough energy to think about 5 seconds to answer the survey.
  • HYUFD said:



    There is nothing I have posted on here which is not supported by most Tory members and most Tory voters now.

    Probably true, and that's the other reason I'm happy to see HYUFD posting. Many floating voters here will, I think, feel that a Government led by Starmer is preferable to one driven by the thought processes that HYUFD eloquently expresses.
    I quite like Starmer, and think he is underestimated, but I think there are just as many loons (if not more) and incompetents in the Labour Party post Corbyn as there are in the Tories.
  • ATTENTION PHILLIP THOMPSON

    Source the comment you attributed to me about Livingston or else you will get banned.

    I gave you the link already twice: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/
    That was a question not a statement.
    I apologise if I misunderstood the "certainty" bit but you saying "Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value" was a statement not a question wasn't it?

    You wouldn't be calling a totally discredited figure good value at 0.58/1 would you?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,959
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    Because most people are in favour of them. I have no strong view but as a politician would do the same.

    The work from home is not an order, but a request, if possible. The covid passport is importantly, a vax or test passport not a vax passport.
    Labour was in favour of Maastricht. Didn't stop them tactically voting against to make as much trouble for the Tories as possible.

    Also it is wrong to harm businesses but not then help them. And believe me these proposals will harm businesses.

    A pro-business party, as Labour now claims to be, would see this.
    I saw your post from last night about your daughter giving up the lease on her pub, it's sad but ultimately the right decision given everything that's happening! Has she considered a career in product management for a tech startup? The amount of crossover between running a business and managing a product is actually pretty big. The work environment is usually great too and most now offer full remote working if she doesn't want to move to London.
    Thank you for the suggestion. I'm not sure what's involved but will suggest she look into it. She wants to learn from others now though I expect she'll go back into business for herself one day.

    The lease on the pub was always only for 3 years and she agonised about whether to extend it. But in the end I think this is the right decision. It has been an incredibly tough time but I am very proud of what she has achieved. She has shown grace under pressure.
    Her experience would have made a great Clarkson's Farm-type docu-series.
    Having had a disaster with a business (not pharmacy) I have every sympathy with Ms C's daughter. However, my advice would be to lick wounds for a day or so, then look round, BUT don't rush into anything which might be permanent just because it is, or at least seems 'safe'!
  • ATTENTION PHILLIP THOMPSON

    Source the comment you attributed to me about Livingston or else you will get banned.

    Oops! A grovelling apology may be needed, or Philip may have to find something else to do with most of his waking hours!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    The most common kind of illegal opinion that I had in mind is incitement to commit violent acts that are currently criminal (if a Tory urged that we should all go and smash up Labour HQ, for instance, or vice versa) or whip up racial hatred.
    Thanks. There is a really important distinction between holding an opinion and incitement. It is absolutely lawful to hold the opinion that the Labour HQ should be smashed up, and lawful to think the law should be changed to reflect that. And lawful to tell someone that is your opinion. But doing it, and inciting someone else to do it is a crime.

    In 1950 it was lawful to hold the opinion that abortion should be available, and to campaign for it. But a (serious) crime to act on that opinion or incite others to do so.

    Which is why no opinions, as opinions, can be unlawful in a free society, however dreadful they may be or appear.


  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 7,780

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
  • HYUFD said:

    I also thank Nick for his comments. I don't agree with him on barely anything but have always found him civil and engaging, certainly more so than many to the right of him including some so called PBTories who are in reality largely just Orange Book LDs

    As someone broadly of the social liberal persuasion, yes, I would agree with you that most Orange Book LDs are basically just Tories.
    Yes, they are Tories who think they are too nice to be Tories.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    Meanwhile, in the Chinese property market, Evergrande has defaulted:

    https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1468869883513344002

    But only to overseas investors, the Chinese investors are doing just fine as they bought a different bond.

    A warning to anyone thinking of investing in China.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,466
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
    He does admit he's wrong, sometimes. Not nearly enough, but he does.
  • Sobering that we are now just a few weeks away from Priti Patel having the legal right to arbitrarily remove British citizenship from millions of British citizens.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,831
    edited December 2021

    ATTENTION PHILLIP THOMPSON

    Source the comment you attributed to me about Livingston or else you will get banned.

    I gave you the link already twice: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/
    That was a question not a statement.
    I apologise if I misunderstood the "certainty" bit but you saying "Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value" was a statement not a question wasn't it?

    You wouldn't be calling a totally discredited figure good value at 0.58/1 would you?
    It is funny how people now say that all BJ beat was an anti-semite pensioner. They forget what an excellent and popular politician KL was.
  • eek said:

    In least surprising news for a long time


    Laura Kuenssberg
    @bbclaurak
    And on today of all days - Electoral Commission has just announced it's fined the Tory Party because it broke the rules over declaring the cash for the Downing Street flat...

    although the fact the Tory party have been fined and not an individual is a bit of a surprise.

    That is the investigation the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner - the one Boris tried to sack - will be doing...
  • HYUFD said:



    There is nothing I have posted on here which is not supported by most Tory members and most Tory voters now.

    Probably true, and that's the other reason I'm happy to see HYUFD posting. Many floating voters here will, I think, feel that a Government led by Starmer is preferable to one driven by the thought processes that HYUFD eloquently expresses.
    I quite like Starmer, and think he is underestimated, but I think there are just as many loons (if not more) and incompetents in the Labour Party post Corbyn as there are in the Tories.
    That may be true in absolute terms but I would argue not proportionately. Labour's activist base is far larger than the Tories'.
  • DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
    This is a betting site and odds on means better than 1/1 doesn't it?

    Since when was 0.54/1 favourite anything other than the odds on favourite?

    If I back Liverpool at 1.54 (0.54/1) then am I backing them as odds on favourite?

    Ken Livingstone at 0.54/1 was the odds on favourite. That's literally what the term means unless you have some other meaning. That you can't admit you're wrong on this belittles you not me.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    MrEd said:

    Give @HYFUD some slack everyone. He is giving everyone a different view on things than the consensus groupthink. Which, from a betting perspective, is a plus.

    It's also teetering on a pile-on but HYFUD can look after himself

    Won't someone think of his mental health!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    edited December 2021
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    Again you are missing the context which is both Mr Luckhurst's fault and will be his downfall.

    Mr Liddle was invited to a formal as the speaker without revealing to anyone who the guest was (because if he had few people would have attended). Now the formal was in South College so the College Principal (Mr Luckhurst) basically invited his mate to insult all the students he has a pastoral care responsibility for in his role as College Principal.

    It's also worth adding that there is no right of response or even right to exit the room (even to go to the toilet) and doing so could be subject to disciplinary measures up to expulsion from Durham.

    So that's the first problem Durham University has to deal with. The second one is that it's now also been made into a Free Speech political football to try and project Mr Luckhurst who seems to breached numerous parts of his employment contract.

    And from what I gather it's not doing recruitment any good - UCAS forms are in and this is the exact time students finalise their choices.
    "No right to exit the room".
    Is this house arrest?
    No wonder they are having trouble recruiting with such fuckwitted rules.
    How about you attend somewhere which treats you as an adult?
    "Formal" my arse.
  • So the Government's brilliant handling strategy this morning is:

    - I was as angry as anyone by seeing this appalling video

    - It was a resignation matter even if Allegra was merely answering a hypothetical question from a colleague, which I remain sure she was

    - I was so furious I asked unspecified people for solemn assurances

    - My annoyance was so burning that I forgot to ask these unnamed people what actually happened and the respect in which it complied with the rules

    They are compounding the offence of breaking the rules with taking the public for complete idiots.

    There are two issues:

    1. They believe the public truly are complete idiots. "We've had enough of Experts", "Brexit Means Brexit" and "Fuck Business" have been very successful for them in the recent past. They think that as people don't know the detail of how things work (which is handy as neither do they) that they are thick as opposed to merely ill-informed and uninterested
    2. They think that because 1 they can say some truly stupid things and the thicko voters will not only accept them they'll support them for saying so.

    In reality voters aren't stupid - they're just ill-informed and disinterested in how complicated stuff works. But they know things that they do and they see and lockdown rules banning gatherings was simple enough and impacted them directly. So they aren't buying the bullshit on offer because they know its bullshit...
    I tend to agree and don't actually think "We've had enough of Experts", "Brexit Means Brexit" and "Fuck Business" are stupid views as such - I don't agree with them but they reflect anger and frustration rather than a fundamental idiocy.

    It's true that economists' predictions (for instance) are often wrong, that the process of leaving the EU was protracted, and that business owners sometimes only feign interest in employees. Are any of those things enough to justify the very strong phrases? Probably not - they are hyperbolic, but not utterly groundless.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340

    Sobering that we are now just a few weeks away from Priti Patel having the legal right to arbitrarily remove British citizenship from millions of British citizens.

    Her own too, it's a hugely stupid law.
  • Sobering that we are now just a few weeks away from Priti Patel having the legal right to arbitrarily remove British citizenship from millions of British citizens.

    She already has that right. Tony Blair crossed that bridge. Just ask Begum.
  • HYUFD said:



    There is nothing I have posted on here which is not supported by most Tory members and most Tory voters now.

    Probably true, and that's the other reason I'm happy to see HYUFD posting. Many floating voters here will, I think, feel that a Government led by Starmer is preferable to one driven by the thought processes that HYUFD eloquently expresses.
    I quite like Starmer, and think he is underestimated, but I think there are just as many loons (if not more) and incompetents in the Labour Party post Corbyn as there are in the Tories.
    Yes, but in Labour's case, they are no longer running the party.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083

    HYUFD said:

    I also thank Nick for his comments. I don't agree with him on barely anything but have always found him civil and engaging, certainly more so than many to the right of him including some so called PBTories who are in reality largely just Orange Book LDs

    As someone broadly of the social liberal persuasion, yes, I would agree with you that most Orange Book LDs are basically just Tories.
    Yes, they are Tories who think they are too nice to be Tories.
    Cameroonian tories, perhaps (hence the coalition) but not johnsonite tories.

    (said as someone who is not really of the orange book persuasion, although the Liberal aspect of LD is more important to me than the SDP aspect - as the recent events have shown, we need a liberal voice)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    The most common kind of illegal opinion that I had in mind is incitement to commit violent acts that are currently criminal (if a Tory urged that we should all go and smash up Labour HQ, for instance, or vice versa) or whip up racial hatred.
    It's not illegal to hold any opinion, of course (until the brain scanners come in...).
    Expressing or acting on them is a different matter.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Of course.

    ...and Corbyn was the LotO when the Govt went from Outright Majority to Supply and Confidence with the DUP, and leading the polls until Boris became PM
  • ATTENTION PHILLIP THOMPSON

    Source the comment you attributed to me about Livingston or else you will get banned.

    I gave you the link already twice: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/
    That was a question not a statement.
    I apologise if I misunderstood the "certainty" bit but you saying "Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value" was a statement not a question wasn't it?

    You wouldn't be calling a totally discredited figure good value at 0.58/1 would you?
    In the early days of PB many posts were QTWTAIN - designed to generate discussion.
  • Sobering that we are now just a few weeks away from Priti Patel having the legal right to arbitrarily remove British citizenship from millions of British citizens.

    She already has that right. Tony Blair crossed that bridge. Just ask Begum.

    Nope - there was no right to do it arbitrarily, there had to be a specific reason and the subject had to be given advanced notice.

  • Sandpit said:

    Meanwhile, in the Chinese property market, Evergrande has defaulted:

    https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1468869883513344002

    But only to overseas investors, the Chinese investors are doing just fine as they bought a different bond.

    A warning to anyone thinking of investing in China.
    It's often the case that foreign investors are de facto junior to domestic ones, not just in China.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Scott_xP said:

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson and wife Carrie have announced "the birth of a healthy baby girl at a London hospital earlier today".

    Haha
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941

    ATTENTION PHILLIP THOMPSON

    Source the comment you attributed to me about Livingston or else you will get banned.

    I gave you the link already twice: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/
    That was a question not a statement.
    I apologise if I misunderstood the "certainty" bit but you saying "Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value" was a statement not a question wasn't it?

    You wouldn't be calling a totally discredited figure good value at 0.58/1 would you?
    It is funny how people now say that all BJ beat was an anti-semite pensioner. They forget what an excellent and popular politician KL was.
    I genuinely think that if it had be anyone else as the Conservative candidate, Ken would have won.

    The incredulity that anyone could even get close to him, from the Labour party, was interesting to watch.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543

    Seems like a good time to "spend more time with his family".....

    Does he know it happened yet?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445

    Scott_xP said:

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson and wife Carrie have announced "the birth of a healthy baby girl at a London hospital earlier today".

    Seems like a good time to "spend more time with his family".....
    Families.
    FTFY.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson and wife Carrie have announced "the birth of a healthy baby girl at a London hospital earlier today".

    Would also explain why Boris is not on top of his game at the moment.
  • ATTENTION PHILLIP THOMPSON

    Source the comment you attributed to me about Livingston or else you will get banned.

    I gave you the link already twice: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/
    That was a question not a statement.
    I apologise if I misunderstood the "certainty" bit but you saying "Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value" was a statement not a question wasn't it?

    You wouldn't be calling a totally discredited figure good value at 0.58/1 would you?
    In the early days of PB many posts were QTWTAIN - designed to generate discussion.
    Indeed but tipping him as value at 0.58/1 favourite wasn't a QTWAIN and was actually a betting tip wasn't it?
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
    He is right and you are wrong on this. That is all there is to it. It's not semantics, it is fact
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543

    Would also explain why Boris is not on top of his game at the moment.

    His game is telling lies. He is working at his peak right now.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    Again you are missing the context which is both Mr Luckhurst's fault and will be his downfall.

    Mr Liddle was invited to a formal as the speaker without revealing to anyone who the guest was (because if he had few people would have attended). Now the formal was in South College so the College Principal (Mr Luckhurst) basically invited his mate to insult all the students he has a pastoral care responsibility for in his role as College Principal.

    It's also worth adding that there is no right of response or even right to exit the room (even to go to the toilet) and doing so could be subject to disciplinary measures up to expulsion from Durham.

    So that's the first problem Durham University has to deal with. The second one is that it's now also been made into a Free Speech political football to try and project Mr Luckhurst who seems to breached numerous parts of his employment contract.

    And from what I gather it's not doing recruitment any good - UCAS forms are in and this is the exact time students finalise their choices.
    The problem there, is rules that say one can be disciplined for leaving the room at an event.

    Students need to spend a lot more time listing to opinions with which they disagree, because that’s what will happen when they enter the real world.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited December 2021
    Taz said:
    Is that the statement they put out every single day.....but ultimately when push comes to shove it is well we would do the same but different.
  • Heh.


    Fantastic to see the Marx Bros, and the brilliant Margaret Dumont, still featuring at the cutting edge of comedy.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,633
    Scott_xP said:

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson and wife Carrie have announced "the birth of a healthy baby girl at a London hospital earlier today".

    Is that the opposite of a dead cat?
  • Scott_xP said:

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson and wife Carrie have announced "the birth of a healthy baby girl at a London hospital earlier today".

    Congratulations. I think an indefinite period of paternity leave is in order.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,831
    Taz said:
    Labour should remain quiet on policy at the moment and let the tories fight amongst themselves.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 7,780

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
    This is a betting site and odds on means better than 1/1 doesn't it?

    Since when was 0.54/1 favourite anything other than the odds on favourite?

    If I back Liverpool at 1.54 (0.54/1) then am I backing them as odds on favourite?

    Ken Livingstone at 0.54/1 was the odds on favourite. That's literally what the term means unless you have some other meaning. That you can't admit you're wrong on this belittles you not me.
    The Online Cambridge Dictionary gives the term the definitions “very probable” and “ thought most likely to happen, succeed, or do a particular thing”. You go with the latter, me the former, either way I cannot believe I am engaging with a man, who incidentally’s. been threatened with the ban hammer this morning, about his own moving goalposts and straw men relating to a response to a third party poster.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775

    Taz said:
    Labour should remain quiet on policy at the moment and let the tories fight amongst themselves.
    Yes they should. But they can’t do it. They seem rudderless at the moment.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,633
    isam said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
    He is right and you are wrong on this. That is all there is to it. It's not semantics, it is fact
    I would add that it's not going to become easier to persuade him he's wrong the next time, when people can't admit he's right when he's cited rock solid proof for basically every aspect of his claim this time.
  • “I think you’re dealing with a variant that has no problem infecting vaccinated individuals”: Florian Krammer, a virologist at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/12/omicron-spread-infection-severity/620948/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,323
    Tories fined for failing to report a donation and keeping a proper accounting in respect of the Downing Street flat fiasco.

    Boris can only hope that the new baby keeps Carrie out of mischief for a while. For someone who has a reputation of being entirely selfish and self interested he has been remarkably loyal to her so far taking a lot of unpleasant flack as a result.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    Taz said:
    Because they always say that. They’ve always said restrictions need to be tighter and then supported them.

    If they want to kick the PM when he’s down, they’ll vote against on the basis of insufficent mitigation support.
  • Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    Again you are missing the context which is both Mr Luckhurst's fault and will be his downfall.

    Mr Liddle was invited to a formal as the speaker without revealing to anyone who the guest was (because if he had few people would have attended). Now the formal was in South College so the College Principal (Mr Luckhurst) basically invited his mate to insult all the students he has a pastoral care responsibility for in his role as College Principal.

    It's also worth adding that there is no right of response or even right to exit the room (even to go to the toilet) and doing so could be subject to disciplinary measures up to expulsion from Durham.

    So that's the first problem Durham University has to deal with. The second one is that it's now also been made into a Free Speech political football to try and project Mr Luckhurst who seems to breached numerous parts of his employment contract.

    And from what I gather it's not doing recruitment any good - UCAS forms are in and this is the exact time students finalise their choices.
    The problem there, is rules that say one can be disciplined for leaving the room at an event.

    Students need to spend a lot more time listing to opinions with which they disagree, because that’s what will happen when they enter the real world.
    There's being exposed to other opinions, and there's being downright rude to your audience.

    This feels closer to getting Greta Thunberg to do the after dinner turn at BP's Christmas Dinner and not announcing it in advance.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,775

    Taz said:
    Is that the statement they put out every single day.....but ultimately when push comes to shove it is well we would do the same but different.
    Pretty much. They are like attention seeking five year olds saying ‘give me some attention’. As nerds says they should just sit back and let the Tories implode.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,077
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    Again you are missing the context which is both Mr Luckhurst's fault and will be his downfall.

    Mr Liddle was invited to a formal as the speaker without revealing to anyone who the guest was (because if he had few people would have attended). Now the formal was in South College so the College Principal (Mr Luckhurst) basically invited his mate to insult all the students he has a pastoral care responsibility for in his role as College Principal.

    It's also worth adding that there is no right of response or even right to exit the room (even to go to the toilet) and doing so could be subject to disciplinary measures up to expulsion from Durham.

    So that's the first problem Durham University has to deal with. The second one is that it's now also been made into a Free Speech political football to try and project Mr Luckhurst who seems to breached numerous parts of his employment contract.

    And from what I gather it's not doing recruitment any good - UCAS forms are in and this is the exact time students finalise their choices.
    The problem there, is rules that say one can be disciplined for leaving the room at an event.

    Students need to spend a lot more time listing to opinions with which they disagree, because that’s what will happen when they enter the real world.
    Maybe, but I'm not sure I'd pay £9,000 a year to listen to Rod f—ing Liddle. I'd be asking for a refund for that alone.
  • DavidL said:

    Tories fined for failing to report a donation and keeping a proper accounting in respect of the Downing Street flat fiasco.

    Boris can only hope that the new baby keeps Carrie out of mischief for a while. For someone who has a reputation of being entirely selfish and self interested he has been remarkably loyal to her so far taking a lot of unpleasant flack as a result.

    It will be interesting to see how long the marriage lasts after Johnson leaves office.

  • DavidL said:

    Tories fined for failing to report a donation and keeping a proper accounting in respect of the Downing Street flat fiasco.

    Boris can only hope that the new baby keeps Carrie out of mischief for a while. For someone who has a reputation of being entirely selfish and self interested he has been remarkably loyal to her so far taking a lot of unpleasant flack as a result.

    Somebody pointed out to me, Covid-19 and being Prime Minister has restricted his ability to carry out extra curricular activities.

    He's pretty much been stuck in Downing Street since March 2020 and he has a phalanx of bodyguards who look after him, the same bodyguards who look after his wife.

    It must be driving him mad.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    DavidL said:

    Tories fined for failing to report a donation and keeping a proper accounting in respect of the Downing Street flat fiasco.

    Boris can only hope that the new baby keeps Carrie out of mischief for a while. For someone who has a reputation of being entirely selfish and self interested he has been remarkably loyal to her so far taking a lot of unpleasant flack as a result.

    He really does need to get Carrie housed at Chequers, and visit her at the weekend.

    She won’t go along with that, because she likes running the show without a formal position, and she doesn’t trust him to be out of her sight for more than about 15 minutes.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    Boris Johnson WhatsApped Lord Brownlow in Nov 2020 to ask for more cash to refurbish his flat.

    He’d already covered £52k of invoices paid by Cabinet Office, and PM wanted hiim to pay another £59,747.40 direct to the supplier. Total of £112,549.

    https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1468888681033445379
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Endillion said:

    isam said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
    He is right and you are wrong on this. That is all there is to it. It's not semantics, it is fact
    I would add that it's not going to become easier to persuade him he's wrong the next time, when people can't admit he's right when he's cited rock solid proof for basically every aspect of his claim this time.
    If this was legitimately a betting site, trying to argue that Ken wasn't odds on in the 2008 Mayoral Election should be a banning offence, or the person inventing the story that he wasn't should be mocked to the point where they are too embarrassed to post
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,032

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    Because most people are in favour of them. I have no strong view but as a politician would do the same.

    The work from home is not an order, but a request, if possible. The covid passport is importantly, a vax or test passport not a vax passport.
    Labour was in favour of Maastricht. Didn't stop them tactically voting against to make as much trouble for the Tories as possible.

    Also it is wrong to harm businesses but not then help them. And believe me these proposals will harm businesses.

    A pro-business party, as Labour now claims to be, would see this.
    I saw your post from last night about your daughter giving up the lease on her pub, it's sad but ultimately the right decision given everything that's happening! Has she considered a career in product management for a tech startup? The amount of crossover between running a business and managing a product is actually pretty big. The work environment is usually great too and most now offer full remote working if she doesn't want to move to London.
    Thank you for the suggestion. I'm not sure what's involved but will suggest she look into it. She wants to learn from others now though I expect she'll go back into business for herself one day.

    The lease on the pub was always only for 3 years and she agonised about whether to extend it. But in the end I think this is the right decision. It has been an incredibly tough time but I am very proud of what she has achieved. She has shown grace under pressure.
    Her experience would have made a great Clarkson's Farm-type docu-series.
    Having had a disaster with a business (not pharmacy) I have every sympathy with Ms C's daughter. However, my advice would be to lick wounds for a day or so, then look round, BUT don't rush into anything which might be permanent just because it is, or at least seems 'safe'!
    It hasn't been a disaster. It has been incredibly tough. But the business has made profits in the last two years. Turnover has increased. She has made money. She has kept the business going and built a loyal following despite everything.

    She will look around. She is looking forward to being able to enjoy the summer. But she is not one to sit around doing nothing. Her godfather runs a very successful food business so she is going to talk to him to get advice about what to do, how best to market herself etc.

    What will happen to the business when she leaves is up for grabs. It is a good investment opportunity. The pub is in a larger building which really needs to be done up so that it can provide a flat, a B&B and a much larger restaurant area - so that it can be pub, posher restaurant, B&B and can host weddings etc and have a bigger outside area. The area will soon be in the Lake District National Park and tourism is increasing. Plus if the £25 million allocated from the New Towns fund comes to pass it will really help with regeneration.

    Daughter had all these ideas at one point and was thinking of talking to the landlord about putting some of them into practice. But anyway life intervened ..... For someone else I think now.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    Again you are missing the context which is both Mr Luckhurst's fault and will be his downfall.

    Mr Liddle was invited to a formal as the speaker without revealing to anyone who the guest was (because if he had few people would have attended). Now the formal was in South College so the College Principal (Mr Luckhurst) basically invited his mate to insult all the students he has a pastoral care responsibility for in his role as College Principal.

    It's also worth adding that there is no right of response or even right to exit the room (even to go to the toilet) and doing so could be subject to disciplinary measures up to expulsion from Durham.

    So that's the first problem Durham University has to deal with. The second one is that it's now also been made into a Free Speech political football to try and project Mr Luckhurst who seems to breached numerous parts of his employment contract.

    And from what I gather it's not doing recruitment any good - UCAS forms are in and this is the exact time students finalise their choices.
    The problem there, is rules that say one can be disciplined for leaving the room at an event.

    Students need to spend a lot more time listing to opinions with which they disagree, because that’s what will happen when they enter the real world.
    Which is what the Free Speech people are trying to argue when Mr Luckhurst's problem is that he's basically broken whole sections of his employment contract while bringing his employer into disrupt.

    The one thing Free Speech activists seem to forget is that while you have Free Speech on a personal level, chances are you've willingly signed other contracts that may impact what you can say or do - see @Casino_Royale keeping quiet about his old employer.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,987

    “I think you’re dealing with a variant that has no problem infecting vaccinated individuals”: Florian Krammer, a virologist at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/12/omicron-spread-infection-severity/620948/

    I would say 50% of the people I know (that's too many, call it 20%) have Covid atm. I had it the other day, plenty on here are getting it.

    At no point has anyone said that a vaccination would prevent infection. It is the severity of that infection that is the issue.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,987
    edited December 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    Because most people are in favour of them. I have no strong view but as a politician would do the same.

    The work from home is not an order, but a request, if possible. The covid passport is importantly, a vax or test passport not a vax passport.
    Labour was in favour of Maastricht. Didn't stop them tactically voting against to make as much trouble for the Tories as possible.

    Also it is wrong to harm businesses but not then help them. And believe me these proposals will harm businesses.

    A pro-business party, as Labour now claims to be, would see this.
    I saw your post from last night about your daughter giving up the lease on her pub, it's sad but ultimately the right decision given everything that's happening! Has she considered a career in product management for a tech startup? The amount of crossover between running a business and managing a product is actually pretty big. The work environment is usually great too and most now offer full remote working if she doesn't want to move to London.
    Thank you for the suggestion. I'm not sure what's involved but will suggest she look into it. She wants to learn from others now though I expect she'll go back into business for herself one day.

    The lease on the pub was always only for 3 years and she agonised about whether to extend it. But in the end I think this is the right decision. It has been an incredibly tough time but I am very proud of what she has achieved. She has shown grace under pressure.
    Her experience would have made a great Clarkson's Farm-type docu-series.
    Having had a disaster with a business (not pharmacy) I have every sympathy with Ms C's daughter. However, my advice would be to lick wounds for a day or so, then look round, BUT don't rush into anything which might be permanent just because it is, or at least seems 'safe'!
    It hasn't been a disaster. It has been incredibly tough. But the business has made profits in the last two years. Turnover has increased. She has made money. She has kept the business going and built a loyal following despite everything.

    She will look around. She is looking forward to being able to enjoy the summer. But she is not one to sit around doing nothing. Her godfather runs a very successful food business so she is going to talk to him to get advice about what to do, how best to market herself etc.

    What will happen to the business when she leaves is up for grabs. It is a good investment opportunity. The pub is in a larger building which really needs to be done up so that it can provide a flat, a B&B and a much larger restaurant area - so that it can be pub, posher restaurant, B&B and can host weddings etc and have a bigger outside area. The area will soon be in the Lake District National Park and tourism is increasing. Plus if the £25 million allocated from the New Towns fund comes to pass it will really help with regeneration.

    Daughter had all these ideas at one point and was thinking of talking to the landlord about putting some of them into practice. But anyway life intervened ..... For someone else I think now.
    I first read that as "...can be pub, kosher restaurant, B&B..."

    Which I suppose it also can.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    edited December 2021
    And the government will be upon His Her shoulder.
    And Her name will be called
    Wonderful..
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    edited December 2021

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    Again you are missing the context which is both Mr Luckhurst's fault and will be his downfall.

    Mr Liddle was invited to a formal as the speaker without revealing to anyone who the guest was (because if he had few people would have attended). Now the formal was in South College so the College Principal (Mr Luckhurst) basically invited his mate to insult all the students he has a pastoral care responsibility for in his role as College Principal.

    It's also worth adding that there is no right of response or even right to exit the room (even to go to the toilet) and doing so could be subject to disciplinary measures up to expulsion from Durham.

    So that's the first problem Durham University has to deal with. The second one is that it's now also been made into a Free Speech political football to try and project Mr Luckhurst who seems to breached numerous parts of his employment contract.

    And from what I gather it's not doing recruitment any good - UCAS forms are in and this is the exact time students finalise their choices.
    The problem there, is rules that say one can be disciplined for leaving the room at an event.

    Students need to spend a lot more time listing to opinions with which they disagree, because that’s what will happen when they enter the real world.
    Maybe, but I'm not sure I'd pay £9,000 a year to listen to Rod f—ing Liddle. I'd be asking for a refund for that alone.
    To be forced to listen to - with the implicit threat of being disciplined if you don't.
    That might be seen as training for future employment with a toxic boss, but it can hardly be described as free speech.
    Some detail here:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-59552264

    ...The principal of South College, Prof Tim Luckhurst, described Mr Liddle, a former BBC Radio 4 Today programme editor who now writes for The Spectator and The Times, as a "humourist"...
    That, right there, is an opinion which isn't illegal, but could accurately be described as criminal.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Dr Eric Fingl-Doom on France


    “Devastating surge of #COVID19 emerging in France 🇫🇷, where cases are near/at record highs. Cases also surging much faster & steeper than previous waves—especially in young children age 6-10. Similar spikes in other countries. May our children forgive us. HT @nicolasberrod”

    https://twitter.com/drericding/status/1468854522399399942?s=21
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,959
    edited December 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    Because most people are in favour of them. I have no strong view but as a politician would do the same.

    The work from home is not an order, but a request, if possible. The covid passport is importantly, a vax or test passport not a vax passport.
    Labour was in favour of Maastricht. Didn't stop them tactically voting against to make as much trouble for the Tories as possible.

    Also it is wrong to harm businesses but not then help them. And believe me these proposals will harm businesses.

    A pro-business party, as Labour now claims to be, would see this.
    I saw your post from last night about your daughter giving up the lease on her pub, it's sad but ultimately the right decision given everything that's happening! Has she considered a career in product management for a tech startup? The amount of crossover between running a business and managing a product is actually pretty big. The work environment is usually great too and most now offer full remote working if she doesn't want to move to London.
    Thank you for the suggestion. I'm not sure what's involved but will suggest she look into it. She wants to learn from others now though I expect she'll go back into business for herself one day.

    The lease on the pub was always only for 3 years and she agonised about whether to extend it. But in the end I think this is the right decision. It has been an incredibly tough time but I am very proud of what she has achieved. She has shown grace under pressure.
    Her experience would have made a great Clarkson's Farm-type docu-series.
    Having had a disaster with a business (not pharmacy) I have every sympathy with Ms C's daughter. However, my advice would be to lick wounds for a day or so, then look round, BUT don't rush into anything which might be permanent just because it is, or at least seems 'safe'!
    It hasn't been a disaster. It has been incredibly tough. But the business has made profits in the last two years. Turnover has increased. She has made money. She has kept the business going and built a loyal following despite everything.

    She will look around. She is looking forward to being able to enjoy the summer. But she is not one to sit around doing nothing. Her godfather runs a very successful food business so she is going to talk to him to get advice about what to do, how best to market herself etc.

    What will happen to the business when she leaves is up for grabs. It is a good investment opportunity. The pub is in a larger building which really needs to be done up so that it can provide a flat, a B&B and a much larger restaurant area - so that it can be pub, posher restaurant, B&B and can host weddings etc and have a bigger outside area. The area will soon be in the Lake District National Park and tourism is increasing. Plus if the £25 million allocated from the New Towns fund comes to pass it will really help with regeneration.

    Daughter had all these ideas at one point and was thinking of talking to the landlord about putting some of them into practice. But anyway life intervened ..... For someone else I think now.
    Glad to hear that, and that she can walk away. And, as I indicated, I wish her, and you well. There are considerable advantages in short leases, although it may not always seem so.
    Is she/are you moving a reasonable distance away? Sometimes a good thing to do in these circumstances.
  • DavidL said:

    Tories fined for failing to report a donation and keeping a proper accounting in respect of the Downing Street flat fiasco.

    Boris can only hope that the new baby keeps Carrie out of mischief for a while. For someone who has a reputation of being entirely selfish and self interested he has been remarkably loyal to her so far taking a lot of unpleasant flack as a result.

    Being loyal to your wife and mother of your children is a bare minimum of acceptable behaviour. And he didn't even manage that, with the infamous "buyer's remorse" comments. This effort to paint Carrie as a kind of budget Lady Macbeth is desperate stuff.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,633
    isam said:

    Endillion said:

    isam said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
    He is right and you are wrong on this. That is all there is to it. It's not semantics, it is fact
    I would add that it's not going to become easier to persuade him he's wrong the next time, when people can't admit he's right when he's cited rock solid proof for basically every aspect of his claim this time.
    If this was legitimately a betting site, trying to argue that Ken wasn't odds on in the 2008 Mayoral Election should be a banning offence, or the person inventing the story that he wasn't should be mocked to the point where they are too embarrassed to post
    Indeed. I am wondering if everyone is so retrospectively embarrassed at how popular Livingstone was, or at least how popular they thought he was, that they are pretending it didn't happen, or if something about a particular poster causes people to magically become overly argumentative and disagree with everything he says on principle.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    Leon said:

    Dr Eric Fingl-Doom on France


    “Devastating surge of #COVID19 emerging in France 🇫🇷, where cases are near/at record highs. Cases also surging much faster & steeper than previous waves—especially in young children age 6-10. Similar spikes in other countries. May our children forgive us. HT @nicolasberrod”

    https://twitter.com/drericding/status/1468854522399399942?s=21

    Eric is top value if you want dooooom on yr twitter.
  • DavidL said:

    Tories fined for failing to report a donation and keeping a proper accounting in respect of the Downing Street flat fiasco.

    Boris can only hope that the new baby keeps Carrie out of mischief for a while. For someone who has a reputation of being entirely selfish and self interested he has been remarkably loyal to her so far taking a lot of unpleasant flack as a result.

    One of the odder things about Boris is his remarkable loyalty to people who do nothing but cause him trouble - Carrie, Jo, Stanley, Dom.

    His support for Hancock and Paterson might also apply here.

    Given his lack of loyalty to others generally its strange.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,987
    edited December 2021
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
    This is a betting site and odds on means better than 1/1 doesn't it?

    Since when was 0.54/1 favourite anything other than the odds on favourite?

    If I back Liverpool at 1.54 (0.54/1) then am I backing them as odds on favourite?

    Ken Livingstone at 0.54/1 was the odds on favourite. That's literally what the term means unless you have some other meaning. That you can't admit you're wrong on this belittles you not me.
    The Online Cambridge Dictionary gives the term the definitions “very probable” and “ thought most likely to happen, succeed, or do a particular thing”. You go with the latter, me the former, either way I cannot believe I am engaging with a man, who incidentally’s. been threatened with the ban hammer this morning, about his own moving goalposts and straw men relating to a response to a third party poster.
    No we are a betting site. Odds on means worse than 1/1. Philip's right on this.

    He's wrong about 97.3% of everything else he comments on but he is right on this.
  • DavidL said:

    Tories fined for failing to report a donation and keeping a proper accounting in respect of the Downing Street flat fiasco.

    Boris can only hope that the new baby keeps Carrie out of mischief for a while. For someone who has a reputation of being entirely selfish and self interested he has been remarkably loyal to her so far taking a lot of unpleasant flack as a result.

    Loyal? He still shagged that musician...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    Again you are missing the context which is both Mr Luckhurst's fault and will be his downfall.

    Mr Liddle was invited to a formal as the speaker without revealing to anyone who the guest was (because if he had few people would have attended). Now the formal was in South College so the College Principal (Mr Luckhurst) basically invited his mate to insult all the students he has a pastoral care responsibility for in his role as College Principal.

    It's also worth adding that there is no right of response or even right to exit the room (even to go to the toilet) and doing so could be subject to disciplinary measures up to expulsion from Durham.

    So that's the first problem Durham University has to deal with. The second one is that it's now also been made into a Free Speech political football to try and project Mr Luckhurst who seems to breached numerous parts of his employment contract.

    And from what I gather it's not doing recruitment any good - UCAS forms are in and this is the exact time students finalise their choices.
    The problem there, is rules that say one can be disciplined for leaving the room at an event.

    Students need to spend a lot more time listing to opinions with which they disagree, because that’s what will happen when they enter the real world.
    Which is what the Free Speech people are trying to argue when Mr Luckhurst's problem is that he's basically broken whole sections of his employment contract while bringing his employer into disrupt.

    The one thing Free Speech activists seem to forget is that while you have Free Speech on a personal level, chances are you've willingly signed other contracts that may impact what you can say or do - see @Casino_Royale keeping quiet about his old employer.
    What does his employment contract say, no speakers to the right of Jeremy Corbyn? There’s clearly something missing from the story.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 7,780
    isam said:

    Endillion said:

    isam said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
    He is right and you are wrong on this. That is all there is to it. It's not semantics, it is fact
    I would add that it's not going to become easier to persuade him he's wrong the next time, when people can't admit he's right when he's cited rock solid proof for basically every aspect of his claim this time.
    If this was legitimately a betting site, trying to argue that Ken wasn't odds on in the 2008 Mayoral Election should be a banning offence, or the person inventing the story that he wasn't should be mocked to the point where they are too embarrassed to post
    “Bookies pay out early on a Boris Johnson victory”

    https://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2012-05-02/bookies-pay-out-early-on-a-boris-johnson-victory/

    “ A bookmakers is paying out early on a victory for Boris Johnson in tomorrow's mayoral election.

    Paddy Power says that it's "waved the chequered flag" after Boris Johnson became a "1/12 winner".


  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    ATTENTION PHILLIP THOMPSON

    Source the comment you attributed to me about Livingston or else you will get banned.

    I gave you the link already twice: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/
    That was a question not a statement.
    I apologise if I misunderstood the "certainty" bit but you saying "Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value" was a statement not a question wasn't it?

    You wouldn't be calling a totally discredited figure good value at 0.58/1 would you?
    In the early days of PB many posts were QTWTAIN - designed to generate discussion.
    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value."

    That isn't a question, it is betting advice. To retrospectively claim Boris only beat a discredited opponent, when you said the opponent looks like good value at 4/7, doesn't follow
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,959
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Starmer voting for these stupid restrictions? He should say that Labour will only vote for them provided there is financial support for all businesses affected by the order to work from home and vax passports.

    Because most people are in favour of them. I have no strong view but as a politician would do the same.

    The work from home is not an order, but a request, if possible. The covid passport is importantly, a vax or test passport not a vax passport.
    Labour was in favour of Maastricht. Didn't stop them tactically voting against to make as much trouble for the Tories as possible.

    Also it is wrong to harm businesses but not then help them. And believe me these proposals will harm businesses.

    A pro-business party, as Labour now claims to be, would see this.
    I saw your post from last night about your daughter giving up the lease on her pub, it's sad but ultimately the right decision given everything that's happening! Has she considered a career in product management for a tech startup? The amount of crossover between running a business and managing a product is actually pretty big. The work environment is usually great too and most now offer full remote working if she doesn't want to move to London.
    Thank you for the suggestion. I'm not sure what's involved but will suggest she look into it. She wants to learn from others now though I expect she'll go back into business for herself one day.

    The lease on the pub was always only for 3 years and she agonised about whether to extend it. But in the end I think this is the right decision. It has been an incredibly tough time but I am very proud of what she has achieved. She has shown grace under pressure.
    Her experience would have made a great Clarkson's Farm-type docu-series.
    Having had a disaster with a business (not pharmacy) I have every sympathy with Ms C's daughter. However, my advice would be to lick wounds for a day or so, then look round, BUT don't rush into anything which might be permanent just because it is, or at least seems 'safe'!
    It hasn't been a disaster. It has been incredibly tough. But the business has made profits in the last two years. Turnover has increased. She has made money. She has kept the business going and built a loyal following despite everything.

    She will look around. She is looking forward to being able to enjoy the summer. But she is not one to sit around doing nothing. Her godfather runs a very successful food business so she is going to talk to him to get advice about what to do, how best to market herself etc.

    What will happen to the business when she leaves is up for grabs. It is a good investment opportunity. The pub is in a larger building which really needs to be done up so that it can provide a flat, a B&B and a much larger restaurant area - so that it can be pub, posher restaurant, B&B and can host weddings etc and have a bigger outside area. The area will soon be in the Lake District National Park and tourism is increasing. Plus if the £25 million allocated from the New Towns fund comes to pass it will really help with regeneration.

    Daughter had all these ideas at one point and was thinking of talking to the landlord about putting some of them into practice. But anyway life intervened ..... For someone else I think now.
    I first read that as "...can be pub, kosher restaurant, B&B..."

    Which I suppose it also can.
    A Jewish acquaintance in the Lake District has some problems finding religious support. Not that she often seems to want, or need, it.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666
    Even Guido is pointing out how pathetic Boris is

    Guido Fawkes
    @GuidoFawkes
    ·
    4m
    Recess From Tuesday https://order-order.com/2021/12/09/recess-from-tuesday
  • TOPPING said:

    “I think you’re dealing with a variant that has no problem infecting vaccinated individuals”: Florian Krammer, a virologist at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/12/omicron-spread-infection-severity/620948/

    I would say 50% of the people I know (that's too many, call it 20%) have Covid atm. I had it the other day, plenty on here are getting it.

    At no point has anyone said that a vaccination would prevent infection. It is the severity of that infection that is the issue.
    His point is the easy with which omibastard infects the vaxxed. With other variants there was at least some protection from infection.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    NEW: Cabinet office minister Michael Ellis confirms Cabinet Secretary investigation will look at No 10 gathering on November 27 - the leaving do at which Boris Johnson gave a speech - as well as Christmas bash and DfE do.
    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1468891841877716994
  • Scott_xP said:

    Boris Johnson WhatsApped Lord Brownlow in Nov 2020 to ask for more cash to refurbish his flat.

    He’d already covered £52k of invoices paid by Cabinet Office, and PM wanted hiim to pay another £59,747.40 direct to the supplier. Total of £112,549.

    https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1468888681033445379

    I must be old fashioned but asking a mate for money by just using a frigging social media app rather than having a proper conversation seems a poor show.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340
    TOPPING said:

    “I think you’re dealing with a variant that has no problem infecting vaccinated individuals”: Florian Krammer, a virologist at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/12/omicron-spread-infection-severity/620948/

    I would say 50% of the people I know (that's too many, call it 20%) have Covid atm. I had it the other day, plenty on here are getting it.

    At no point has anyone said that a vaccination would prevent infection. It is the severity of that infection that is the issue.
    Yes, the severity reduction scale is how best to look at it, on a 0-10 scale with 0 being no symptoms and 10 being death we can estimate what level of severity people are likely to have and what reduction in severity vaccines or natural immunity has for them. The doctor that I know suggested this - one dose brings severity down by 1-3 points, two doses by 4-6 points and three doses by 7-9 points. The question is whether Omicron brings down that reduction significantly, she suggested that it may be a 2-3 point dilution in severity reduction meaning three doses against Omicron will be very much like two against Delta.

    Her main point was that everyone is going to get COVID multiple times and we're not going to be able to prevent that either with lockdowns or vaccines, but we can train the immune system to recognise ACE-2 invasion and fend it off to enough of a degree to avoid people getting very sick. It's possible we may already be at that point.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    DougSeal said:

    isam said:

    Endillion said:

    isam said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    MaxPB said:

    It was hardly a big deal for Johnson to beat Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.

    I'd dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008, he was the odds on favourite.
    Nah - he wasn’t

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_London_mayoral_election#Opinion_polls
    Yes he was. The campaign began in 2007. Your chart literally begins with Ken having a substantial lead over Boris.

    That Boris overturned that lead is to Boris's credit, it doesn't belittle Ken.

    @MikeSmithson was talking about Ken Livingstone's third term being possibly a "certainty": https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/22/will-this-make-kens-3rd-term-a-certainty/

    "Betfair now have a market on the mayoralty. Ken is the 0.58/1 favourite which looks like good value." - Very odd way to speak about a "totally discredited figure"
    Erm…we’re not talking about 2007. Max said “I’d dispute that Ken was discredited in 2008”. Johnson took a lead in early 2008 and maintained it. Read the thread you’re replying to.
    Yes and the 2008 campaign began in 2007. I would include December 2007 as part of the 2008 campaign, wouldn't you?

    But even if you exclude that, Ken was still betting favourite on 1/1/2008.
    FFS. Would you like some help with those goalposts? Moving them seems quite a struggle.
    No movement, I literally said 2007 so its not like I was trying to be obtuse.

    That Boris tore apart the man that @MikeSmithson was calling a certainty and a value favourite is to his own credit.
    At no point in 2008 was Livingstone odds on favourite. Even on 1/1/2008 (my 34th birthday) he wasn’t odds on. That is literally the only point I was making. You’re building straw men.
    Wrong. The start of 2008 is when OGH started to recognise Boris was the one which was value, but the markets still had Livingstone as odds-on favourite.

    2nd January 2008: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/02/yougov-has-ken-just-1-ahead/

    "The poll margin of just one percent is not reflected in the betting where Ken is the the 0.54/1 favourite with Boris on 1.52/1. Johnson would now seem to be the value bet."

    Do you accept 0.54/1 on 2nd January 2008 is an odds-on favourite in 2008? Do you care to admit I was correct?
    No and no. He had a f’n one point lead. At which point we’ll be getting into the semantics of “odds on” as you reach for a dictionary. Leave it Philip. This is the definition of a pointless argument. You’ve never admitted you’re wrong in your life and I’m not going to waste a morning trying to change that.
    He is right and you are wrong on this. That is all there is to it. It's not semantics, it is fact
    I would add that it's not going to become easier to persuade him he's wrong the next time, when people can't admit he's right when he's cited rock solid proof for basically every aspect of his claim this time.
    If this was legitimately a betting site, trying to argue that Ken wasn't odds on in the 2008 Mayoral Election should be a banning offence, or the person inventing the story that he wasn't should be mocked to the point where they are too embarrassed to post
    “Bookies pay out early on a Boris Johnson victory”

    https://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2012-05-02/bookies-pay-out-early-on-a-boris-johnson-victory/

    “ A bookmakers is paying out early on a victory for Boris Johnson in tomorrow's mayoral election.

    Paddy Power says that it's "waved the chequered flag" after Boris Johnson became a "1/12 winner".


    Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself

    We all know Boris won! He became massive favourite as the election got closer, but Livingstone was the odds on favourite to begin - hence Livingstone wasn't a totally discredited opponent

    If a 10/1 shot in a horse race beats a 1/2 fav, the fact that the 10/1 shot went odds on in running near the finishing line doesn't alter the fact, THE FACT, that the 1/2 shot was the odds on favourite
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    edited December 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Dr Eric Fingl-Doom on France


    “Devastating surge of #COVID19 emerging in France 🇫🇷, where cases are near/at record highs. Cases also surging much faster & steeper than previous waves—especially in young children age 6-10. Similar spikes in other countries. May our children forgive us. HT @nicolasberrod”

    https://twitter.com/drericding/status/1468854522399399942?s=21

    Eric is top value if you want dooooom on yr twitter.

    At the moment, unfortunately, he is mostly calling it rIght


    Meanwhile it looks like the first omicron deaths in Gauteng are showing up


    ‘There's been a rise in Covid deaths in Gauteng (South Africa) from week 47 to 48 (49 is incomplete) that may correspond to the rise in hospitalizations 2 wks earlier (wk 45 to 46). Both are a 2.2x increase. It looks suspicious that the first Omicron deaths might be showing up.(?)’

    https://twitter.com/puffandretti/status/1468884075247198210?s=21
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666
    edited December 2021
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    algarkirk said:



    Honestly Nick?!? Being a vocal fan of Franco, advocating armed invasion of Scotland and cheering police brutality against voting grannies is OK with a former Labour MP? I thought better of you and your party.

    I'm in favour of freedom of speech, so long as the opinions expressed are legal. If they're expressed politely, as HYUFD does, so much the better (I don't think I've heard him on the subject of brutality to grannies). As you'd expect, I disagree with almost everything he says (except his judgement on polls which is often quite sharp), but I like that he's willing to say what he thinks. None of us on PB should feel cowed.
    What is an "illegal opinion"? It can't mean an opinion that would be illegal to put into effect - like that face coverings should always be discretionary or that the urban speed limit should be 35 mph. Which are the opinions that it is against the law to hold? This is a genuine question.

    Anything Rod Liddle says at Durham Students’ Union, or Dave Chappelle on stage at a comedy club?
    I don't think everything Rod Liddle said at Durham South College was illegal, however it does seem close to equality Act.

    Durham is actually interesting as it seems to be two different sets of people with different arguments. The Free Speech are going - it's great how dare Mr Luckhurst be attacked while Durham University is going HOW many parts of his employment contract did he break and can we fix it before more students remove Durham as their first choice.
    It very sad, that university authorities now appear to have a problem with inviting speakers who challenge the viewpoint of some of the students.

    Isn’t having your horizons opened, and your views challenged, supposed to be the whole point of university?
    Again you are missing the context which is both Mr Luckhurst's fault and will be his downfall.

    Mr Liddle was invited to a formal as the speaker without revealing to anyone who the guest was (because if he had few people would have attended). Now the formal was in South College so the College Principal (Mr Luckhurst) basically invited his mate to insult all the students he has a pastoral care responsibility for in his role as College Principal.

    It's also worth adding that there is no right of response or even right to exit the room (even to go to the toilet) and doing so could be subject to disciplinary measures up to expulsion from Durham.

    So that's the first problem Durham University has to deal with. The second one is that it's now also been made into a Free Speech political football to try and project Mr Luckhurst who seems to breached numerous parts of his employment contract.

    And from what I gather it's not doing recruitment any good - UCAS forms are in and this is the exact time students finalise their choices.
    The problem there, is rules that say one can be disciplined for leaving the room at an event.

    Students need to spend a lot more time listing to opinions with which they disagree, because that’s what will happen when they enter the real world.
    Which is what the Free Speech people are trying to argue when Mr Luckhurst's problem is that he's basically broken whole sections of his employment contract while bringing his employer into disrupt.

    The one thing Free Speech activists seem to forget is that while you have Free Speech on a personal level, chances are you've willingly signed other contracts that may impact what you can say or do - see @Casino_Royale keeping quiet about his old employer.
    What does his employment contract say, no speakers to the right of Jeremy Corbyn? There’s clearly something missing from the story.
    As College Principal he was Duty of care responsibility to the students who call South College their home for the years they are at Durham.

    And you then just compare the speech to Durham University's Bullying policy and reflect upon that policy and Mr Luckhurst's position within South College.
This discussion has been closed.