politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now the focus is on post-Rochester. Will there be more defe

Socrates said:

The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.

Theuniondivvie said:

FalseFlag said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Itajai said:

A cathedral gets desecrated in Moscow and the perpetrators are heroines.
Bacon is attached to doors outside a mosque in Scotland and you get sent down.

Except Pussy Riot did do time in a penal colony, while I'm sure plenty of types of a certain political persuasion think bacon boy is a hero. Where's the double standard?

We have a penal colony?

I thought they were lauded by the lefty media-political establishment.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.
Mine was that there is no double standard, except in the minds of whiny reactionaries.

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

Ishmael_X said:

DavidL said:

On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

How much does it trouble you that the fruitcake MPs take the fruitcake vote with them when they leave? There may be a childish satisfaction in saying "good riddance", but it ain't no way to win an election.

Its a tricky one and I don't dispute it. UK politics encourages a broad church and excommunication is a risk. But I think (and it may be wishful thinking) that a tory party without such a fringe can gain more than equivalent support from the lib dems and the centre ground. This theory may self destruct in under 6 months.

Matches my 'UKIP detoxifying Tories' theory well.

In the same way that Labour detoxified the Liberals after 1916,

I'm genuinely mystified by the mentality that thinks that losing support is good in the long run.

DavidL said:

On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

Forty years ago Scottish Tories like yourself were saying much the same thing about the SNP taking their 'fruitcake wing'.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

philiph said:

nigel4england said:

SimonStClare said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.

A fiddle in Lidl...?

SimonStClare said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.

A fiddle in Lidl...?

SimonStClare said:

Sean_F said:

Socrates said:

The "desecration" of the church by Pussy Riot was.. ummm... singing a song with curse words in it there. No physical damage was caused. And for that illegal concert, they spent time in Siberians work camps. It was an insane and barbaric reaction.

They were keen on stunts like masturbating in supermarkets.

A fiddle in Lidl...?

Wait Rose?

Pity they have gone, but Safe Way

"This isn't just any orgy. This is an S & M orgy."

notme said:

another_richard said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

Ishmael_X said:

DavidL said:

On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

How much does it trouble you that the fruitcake MPs take the fruitcake vote with them when they leave? There may be a childish satisfaction in saying "good riddance", but it ain't no way to win an election.

Its a tricky one and I don't dispute it. UK politics encourages a broad church and excommunication is a risk. But I think (and it may be wishful thinking) that a tory party without such a fringe can gain more than equivalent support from the lib dems and the centre ground. This theory may self destruct in under 6 months.

Matches my 'UKIP detoxifying Tories' theory well.

In the same way that Labour detoxified the Liberals after 1916,

I'm genuinely mystified by the mentality that thinks that losing support is good in the long run.

As Matthew Parris showed, many Establishment Tories hate the people who vote Conservative.

The repeated and desperate attempts by Establishment Tories to get middle class leftists to vote for them, even though middle class leftists make no secret about how much they hate Establishment Tories, is another aspect of this.

It was cringeworthy to watch Dave actively looking to be endorsed and validated by the Toynbees and BBC types. Even tomorrow, hasnt he wrote an artilce for the Guardian?

They despise him and everthing he stands for. Yet he seeks their approval.

philiph said:

notme said:

another_richard said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

Ishmael_X said:

DavidL said:

On topic I think it is true that UKIP's work in eliminating the fruitcake wing of the Tory party is not yet done. Whether this will result in sundry MPs jumping ship is harder to judge. These fruitcakes have a strong sense of self preservation.

How much does it trouble you that the fruitcake MPs take the fruitcake vote with them when they leave? There may be a childish satisfaction in saying "good riddance", but it ain't no way to win an election.

Its a tricky one and I don't dispute it. UK politics encourages a broad church and excommunication is a risk. But I think (and it may be wishful thinking) that a tory party without such a fringe can gain more than equivalent support from the lib dems and the centre ground. This theory may self destruct in under 6 months.

Matches my 'UKIP detoxifying Tories' theory well.

In the same way that Labour detoxified the Liberals after 1916,

I'm genuinely mystified by the mentality that thinks that losing support is good in the long run.

As Matthew Parris showed, many Establishment Tories hate the people who vote Conservative.

The repeated and desperate attempts by Establishment Tories to get middle class leftists to vote for them, even though middle class leftists make no secret about how much they hate Establishment Tories, is another aspect of this.

It was cringeworthy to watch Dave actively looking to be endorsed and validated by the Toynbees and BBC types. Even tomorrow, hasnt he wrote an artilce for the Guardian?

They despise him and everthing he stands for. Yet he seeks their approval.

Better to address those who disagree rather than ignore them.

KentRising said:

Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

That's it.

He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

perdix said:

KentRising said:

Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

That's it.

He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

TGOHF said:

14 per cent want one immediately and 21 per cent want it before 2019.

But 13 per cent say it should be held between 2019 and 2024, 12 per cent after 2024 and 28 per cent, never. Eleven per cent say they’re not sure.

TGOHF said:

KentRising said:

perdix said:

KentRising said:

Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

That's it.

He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10

Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.

Flightpath said:

In the real world, not one where we worry about dumb tory backbenchers defecting to a blatantly race obsessed party, then the prospects for election year according to BoE and IMF forcasts make interesting reading.

Growth next year at 2.9%
Unemployment, now 6% , falling to 5.4% then 5%.
Inflation 1%
Wage growth 3.2%
Food and petrol prices falling; household energy inflation slowed.
Productivity on a slow increase - 1.5% in 2016

The IMF say the cyclically-adjusted deficit has come down from 10.3% of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.1% this year. Osborne has in fact toughened his own target, aiming for an overall budget surplus in the next parliament rather than just eliminating the current deficit. And he did not kill the recovery with more cuts when the world economy slowed and the Euro crisis hit. He accepted the cyclical regulators were not part of reducing the structural deficit.
Lower inflation (a good thing) will of course depress tax receipts like VAT (a bad thing in the circumstances).

All this from a party that promises a referendum in 2017. What might Mrs Thatcher say? ''U turn if you want to Mr Reckless...''

TGOHF said:

KentRising said:

TGOHF said:

KentRising said:

perdix said:

KentRising said:

Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

That's it.

He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10

Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.

To them, modern Britain is already ruined.

Why don't you piss off to Marbella or Gibraltar then ?

TGOHF said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TGOHF said:

KentRising said:

perdix said:

KentRising said:

Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

That's it.

He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10

Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.

Is it UKIP's fault that you are losing support?

Suspect Cons will match or exceed 2010 vote share Sunil. And the kippers will have two turncoats, not be part of the coalition and as relevant as Mark Reckless to the running of the country.

Heh.

TGOHF said:

KentRising said:

TGOHF said:

KentRising said:

perdix said:

KentRising said:

Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

That's it.

He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10

Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.

To them, modern Britain is already ruined.

Why don't you piss off to Marbella or Gibraltar then ?

surbiton said:

TGOHF said:

KentRising said:

perdix said:

KentRising said:

Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

That's it.

He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10

Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.

This quarrel between supporters of two far right parties is very enjoyable to watch.

chestnut said:

isam said:

Imagine a year ago a Tory was clinging to that to score a point!

Yeah i said an easy Ukip win right from the start, 8-9% would be great

I expect UKIP to win, though I actually think it could be much tighter than the polls indicate.

surbiton said:

TGOHF said:

KentRising said:

perdix said:

KentRising said:

Dave's a nice bloke who wanted to be PM because, in his words, he thought he'd be good at it, and as a posh lad who went to Eton and did PPC at Oxford it was a reasonable career ambition.

That's it.

He's a throwback to 1950s patrician Conservatism. There's no actual drive or overall direction, which is what this country badly needs.

So, in short, Dave's a good statesman and all that, but he is of no practical benefit.

And ukip will help put Miliband in No 10.

I really don't think most UKIP voters care who ends up in No.10

Indeed - they are that nihilistic. They hate modern Britain so much that they would let Labour ruin it again.

This quarrel between supporters of two far right parties is very enjoyable to watch.

another_richard said:

I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.

I can't imagine who you're thinking of, but your remark applies much more to UKIP supporters - who somehow manage to remain loyal even when their party bins its entire platform of policies - and whose hatred of others, especially David Cameron, seems to dominate their entire world-view.

isam said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

I'd add that the combination of lickspittle loyalty and hatred of others shown by many PB Tories is not a good advertisement for the Conservative party either.

I can't imagine who you're thinking of, but your remark applies much more to UKIP supporters - who somehow manage to remain loyal even when their party bins its entire platform of policies - and whose hatred of others, especially David Cameron, seems to dominate their entire world-view.

Touched a nerve!

Speedy said:

I leave you tonight with the bizarre news that Romania has elected a German as it's president thanks to votes from 4 million Romanian immigrants mostly in Germany.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30076716

Goodnight.

john_zims said:

@foxinsox

'The problem many kippers have with him is precisely that he does not want a return to the 1950's..'

At least there is a choice next year.

-Back to the 50's with UKIP

-Back to the 70's with Labour

-Remain in the modern world with Tories & Lib Dems
.

Norm said:

fitalass said:

The Scotsman - John Swinney set to become Deputy First Minister

"Ms Sturgeon is said to be ready to make the appointment as part of a ministerial reshuffle, in the immediate few days after she is formally voted in as First Minister at Holyrood on Wednesday. Mr Swinney, who has served as finance secretary since 2007, would be expected to stand in for Ms Sturgeon at the parliament’s First Minister’s Questions, when she is away from Scotland.

The appointment would mean Mr Swinney was handed the role instead of the newly elected SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie, who sits as a Nationalist MP at Westminster."

I found SNP delegates wildly cheering in support of Sturgeon's opposition to Trident peculiarly reminiscent of Labour conferences of the early 1980s. The timing was also bad in view of Russia flexing its armed forces muscle all over the place even sending over obsolete Bear bombers 1980s style to test out the RAF response times.

HYUFD said:

ZenPagan Indeed, most Scots do not want to go through it all again for at least a decade if ever

fitalass said:

Its Sturgeon who has made herself a hostage to fortune by stating clearly that she would not do any deals with the Conservatives in the future at Westminster. Lets hope that she doesn't have to approach or rely on the Scottish Conservatives after the next Holyrood elections and Leader of a minority SNP administration. If I was Ruth Davidson, I would certainly make it a condition on the part of the Scots Tories that there is some kind of official Coalition agreement rather than a confidence and supply one whereby the SNP now pretend they managed to govern all on their lonesome last time.

If the Libdems or the Greens don't improve their respective presentation at Holyrood, then I suspect that the Labour party if they improve, are going to do so solely at the expense of the SNP rather than the Tories. I am sure that the SNP will benefit from Labour voters who voted Yes in the Indy Referendum, but I suspect that they are going to lose far more of those 2011 tactical voters who helped them win a majority, and who then voted No in that very divisive referendum. That is why things could get very interesting after the Scottish elections in 2016.

The Scots voters are used to fixed term Parliaments, and they have been become extremely canny at tactically voting for different outcomes at both Westminster and Holyrood. I would treat the current SNP surge in the Scottish polls with extreme caution right now bearing in mind the recent media build up to the change of SNP Leader and FM. Its the polls in the spring of 2015 and 2016 as those Westminster and Holyrood election campaigns get under way that will give us a far better idea of voting mood of the Scots when it matters.



This underlines the need for ev4el. It needs to be a discussion between all parts of the uk on devolution not some contemptible back room deal. Before anyone says don't let labour in I should say that my confidence that Cameron wouldn't sell out to the snp for another 5 years is minimal

ZenPagan said:

fitalass said:

Its Sturgeon who has made herself a hostage to fortune by stating clearly that she would not do any deals with the Conservatives in the future at Westminster. Lets hope that she doesn't have to approach or rely on the Scottish Conservatives after the next Holyrood elections and Leader of a minority SNP administration. If I was Ruth Davidson, I would certainly make it a condition on the part of the Scots Tories that there is some kind of official Coalition agreement rather than a confidence and supply one whereby the SNP now pretend they managed to govern all on their lonesome last time.

If the Libdems or the Greens don't improve their respective presentation at Holyrood, then I suspect that the Labour party if they improve, are going to do so solely at the expense of the SNP rather than the Tories. I am sure that the SNP will benefit from Labour voters who voted Yes in the Indy Referendum, but I suspect that they are going to lose far more of those 2011 tactical voters who helped them win a majority, and who then voted No in that very divisive referendum. That is why things could get very interesting after the Scottish elections in 2016.

The Scots voters are used to fixed term Parliaments, and they have been become extremely canny at tactically voting for different outcomes at both Westminster and Holyrood. I would treat the current SNP surge in the Scottish polls with extreme caution right now bearing in mind the recent media build up to the change of SNP Leader and FM. Its the polls in the spring of 2015 and 2016 as those Westminster and Holyrood election campaigns get under way that will give us a far better idea of voting mood of the Scots when it matters.

While this no doubt all is true, I have no clear idea of scottish politics. My objections are based solely on the fact that a small part of the UK should not be defining how we move into a more federal structure. Devolution affects every man woman and child of the UK. We should all therefore get a say in the form it takes.

I fear the snp propping up anyone would result in something advantageous for Scotland (and I would be the first to agree that the scots politicians should be arguing for that) but not so much for wales, northern ireland and england. I do not want any political party selling the rest of the uk down the river for short term advantage. This is not a party issue but a national issue