Stunningly rude in my book. Imagine going to a different country and having the audacity to tell people there that they are "disgusting" because of what they believe. I have absolutely no time for Trumpsters but that is just embarrassing. No wonder her husband wanted her out of there.
I think it's great! She must have thought she's landed in Hartlepool.
Sometimes it's not a bad thing to hold a mirror up to people. 12.5 million views!
If it causes a few in the US pause for thought she'll have done the world a favour.
Roger: wrong about everything. All the time.
She does seem a bit rude, but pales in comparison to those MAGA asshats.
Possibly, but when will lefties learn that high handedly telling people how ghastly they are is counter productive?
Stunningly rude in my book. Imagine going to a different country and having the audacity to tell people there that they are "disgusting" because of what they believe. I have absolutely no time for Trumpsters but that is just embarrassing. No wonder her husband wanted her out of there.
I think it's great! She must have thought she's landed in Hartlepool.
Sometimes it's not a bad thing to hold a mirror up to people. 12.5 million views!
If it causes a few in the US pause for thought she'll have done the world a favour.
Roger: wrong about everything. All the time.
She does seem a bit rude, but pales in comparison to those MAGA asshats.
Possibly, but when will lefties learn that high handedly telling people how ghastly they are is counter productive?
I dunno. People said the same about BLM in mid-2020, and Biden did okay.
Vaguely related to the topic: After the LibDem leader (Paddy Ashdown, if I recall correctly) met George W. Bush, he said that Bush didn't seem much like the picture he had gotten from your media.
That strikes me as a powerful criticism of the Guardian, the BBC, and their ideological allies.
And, the feeling that American leaders, especially Republicans, are rarely treated fairly by foreign media is one of the many, many reasons for the rise of Trump.
Stunningly rude in my book. Imagine going to a different country and having the audacity to tell people there that they are "disgusting" because of what they believe. I have absolutely no time for Trumpsters but that is just embarrassing. No wonder her husband wanted her out of there.
I think it's great! She must have thought she's landed in Hartlepool.
Sometimes it's not a bad thing to hold a mirror up to people. 12.5 million views!
If it causes a few in the US pause for thought she'll have done the world a favour.
Roger: wrong about everything. All the time.
She does seem a bit rude, but pales in comparison to those MAGA asshats.
Possibly, but when will lefties learn that high handedly telling people how ghastly they are is counter productive?
I don't think lefties, of whom I am proud to be one, have a monopoly on being high-handed with people with whom they disagree. Personally, I try not to be, but then I'm a Left-Liberal; my opponent is as honourable as I am and may, just possibly, be right.
Stunningly rude in my book. Imagine going to a different country and having the audacity to tell people there that they are "disgusting" because of what they believe. I have absolutely no time for Trumpsters but that is just embarrassing. No wonder her husband wanted her out of there.
I think it's great! She must have thought she's landed in Hartlepool.
Sometimes it's not a bad thing to hold a mirror up to people. 12.5 million views!
If it causes a few in the US pause for thought she'll have done the world a favour.
Roger: wrong about everything. All the time.
She does seem a bit rude, but pales in comparison to those MAGA asshats.
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I don’t understand why they are not full on “reverse Ukip”, and campaigning draped in the EU flag. Plenty of young votes in that, and as we can see from some media commentary, some people will happily choose to believe that almost anything was caused by Brexit.
On thread, one additional point regarding the likely LD seat total.
Currently on GB wide polling, the LDs are at around 9%. There are 632 parliamentary seats up for grabs excluding NI. Winning 9% of those would give the LDs 57 seats - that is, the purest result possible in PR terms.
In "The case for the attack" Pip speculates that in their optimistic scenario, the LDs would pick up an extra 50 seats. That would take them to 58 - i.e. FPTP would deliver them a higher share of seats than they would get under PR.
It is surely highly improbable that the LD vote might become so efficiently geographically distributed that the disadvantages of FPTP to small parties now completely disappear in their case. To achieve that on 9% of the vote, they would have to lose their deposit in nearly all of the seats that they don't win. It just doesn't ring true.
I am a notable LD seat sceptic, but Scotland demonstrates that it is entirely possible in an FPTP to have a vote share that efficient.
In 2017, the LDs won just 6.5% of the Scottish vote. And they won 4 seats, which - if my maths are right - is about 7%.
So it is entirely possible for a party's vote to become extremely efficiently distributed.
I also suspect that the LDs will do slightly better than 9% in the polls, for two reasons: (1) turnout is not going to be as high as people expect, and (2) they LDs will get some tactical votes on the day. Lower turnout is a benefit to the LDs, and is simply a function of education levels: LD voters tend to be better educated; and turnout for better educated groups is much more likely to match certainty to vote than for other demographics.
I also suspect that - as has happened in I think every election bar one since 1979 - that the LDs will gain some share during the campaign. I don't think it'll be a massive increase, but they are getting headlines and they are getting leaflets out, and they are reminding people they exist. This is like a reverse of 2019: then the LDs were flying high on Brexit confusion, and then people were reminded that it was a Corbyn/Johnson choice. This time, everyone has forgotten the LDs exist, and Starmer simply doesn't look that threatening to centrists.
In 2019, I forecast 12-14% and 12 to 14 seats. I was in the range for votes, but slightly high on seats.
This time, I would forecast a similar vote share, but 25-30 seats. Simply: if the Conservative vote halves, and (outside Scotland and Sheffield Hallam) the LDs are only ever in competition with the Conservatives, then it would be staggering if they did not pick up a reasonable number of seats.
Vaguely related to the topic: After the LibDem leader (Paddy Ashdown, if I recall correctly) met George W. Bush, he said that Bush didn't seem much like the picture he had gotten from your media.
That strikes me as a powerful criticism of the Guardian, the BBC, and their ideological allies.
And, the feeling that American leaders, especially Republicans, are rarely treated fairly by foreign media is one of the many, many reasons for the rise of Trump.
Oh yes, W Bush was a thoughtful guy. His words - "Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" - are ones which really should be heeded today by ...well... everyone.
If he hadn't attacked Iraq, it's highly likely he would have gone down as a successful President. But he did invade Iraq. And he (and the Federal Reserve) also allowed the housing market and mortgage markets to get enormously overlevered.
I doubt there are many people on here who would bet that the Tories would get less than 150 seats.
At the start of the campaign I was expecting a swing back to 160-180, but time is going on and if there is any movement it's away from the Tories, there's same modest signs of Ref moving a little towards Con but more movement from Con towards Lab. I've got some money on a seat that the MRP says will stay Tory but I think will go LD (at 11/4) and some money on Con seats < 100 at 3/1. I would take an even bet with you on Con seats < 150 but right now you can go and get 12/5 on Con seats 150-199 and you can even bet on the upside with Con seats 200-249 at 8/1
Vaguely related to the topic: After the LibDem leader (Paddy Ashdown, if I recall correctly) met George W. Bush, he said that Bush didn't seem much like the picture he had gotten from your media.
That strikes me as a powerful criticism of the Guardian, the BBC, and their ideological allies.
And, the feeling that American leaders, especially Republicans, are rarely treated fairly by foreign media is one of the many, many reasons for the rise of Trump.
In fairness, Bush Jnr was (wrongly) portrayed as an idiot by US media too. It was a combination of his intentional folksiness concealing his intelligence and his verbal gaffes.
Vaguely related to the topic: After the LibDem leader (Paddy Ashdown, if I recall correctly) met George W. Bush, he said that Bush didn't seem much like the picture he had gotten from your media.
That strikes me as a powerful criticism of the Guardian, the BBC, and their ideological allies.
And, the feeling that American leaders, especially Republicans, are rarely treated fairly by foreign media is one of the many, many reasons for the rise of Trump.
Oh yes, W Bush was a thoughtful guy. His words - "Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" - are ones which really should be heeded today by ...well... everyone.
If he hadn't attacked Iraq, it's highly likely he would have gone down as a successful President. But he did invade Iraq. And he (and the Federal Reserve) also allowed the housing market and mortgage markets to get enormously overlevered.
George W Bush quote about Vladimir Putin
“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy, I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
I doubt there are many people on here who would bet that the Tories would get less than 150 seats.
At the start of the campaign I was expecting a swing back to 160-180, but time is going on and if there is any movement it's away from the Tories, there's same modest signs of Ref moving a little towards Con but more movement from Con towards Lab. I've got some money on a seat that the MRP says will stay Tory but I think will go LD (at 11/4) and some money on Con seats < 100 at 3/1. I would take an even bet with you on Con seats < 150 but right now you can go and get 12/5 on Con seats 150-199 and you can even bet on the upside with Con seats 200-249 at 8/1
If we don’t see any volatility in the polling after the first debate this week, I think we have to conclude the position is more or less static, absent any black swans.
I think I'm inclined to agree with Mr Biggles. I want to see some opinion polls with fieldwork done post week 1. After Leaders first trips round the country, and Starmer's totally unnecessary contortions over Diane Abbott. I don't think the treatment of the candidate for Chingford does Labour any favours either. To be even-handed, Rishi's doing his best to lose as well. Why does he always have his back to the camera?
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I think it's fairly obvious that focus groups or polling have told the LibDems that Ed Davey is a bit boring. I mean, I like him bu I think he's a bit boring. So the plan for this week at least has been to show he's not boring, and he's been a good sport and gone with it. I hope they'll get a bit more serious now that that view has been established for voters, and I expect to see a little lift in their polling soon.
I am seriously worried about the far right on the other sideof the GE. I am predicting something big going down. Capitol Hill UK style. Try going to the express coverage of tommy robinson's shin dig in London.... the comments section is terrifying.
The Lib Dems' fortunes entirely mirror the Tories. Every 1% of support the Tories lose between now and polling day will lose them close to 20 seats. While the Lib Dems are trying their hardest in about 80 seats to catch what the Tories drop, As the adage goes, challengers don't win, incumbents lose. So the Lib Dems could win 30 seats or they could win 60. The difference between the two is less than the margin of error in the polls.
I am seriously worried about the far right on the other sideof the GE. I am predicting something big going down. Capitol Hill UK style. Try going to the express coverage of tommy robinson's shin dig in London.... the comments section is terrifying.
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I don’t understand why they are not full on “reverse Ukip”, and campaigning draped in the EU flag. Plenty of young votes in that, and as we can see from some media commentary, some people will happily choose to believe that almost anything was caused by Brexit.
I guess because it's impossible.
Some sort of UK embraces the EU is possible and potentially popular, but only in the UK. Any plausible reintroduction represents a complete impossibility politically here in the UK.
This is (in my view) the current natural state - there's no need to be alarmed. We had a bit of a foreign dalliance and whilst it was fun, it's over.
NE Hertfordshire Tories might just have selected a future star in Nikki Da Costa. She has an encyclopaedic knowledge of Parliamentary procedure and that will put her above most of the rest of the new intake, should she take the seat.
Stunningly rude in my book. Imagine going to a different country and having the audacity to tell people there that they are "disgusting" because of what they believe. I have absolutely no time for Trumpsters but that is just embarrassing. No wonder her husband wanted her out of there.
I think it's great! She must have thought she's landed in Hartlepool.
Sometimes it's not a bad thing to hold a mirror up to people. 12.5 million views!
If it causes a few in the US pause for thought she'll have done the world a favour.
Roger: wrong about everything. All the time.
She does seem a bit rude, but pales in comparison to those MAGA asshats.
She's ghastly and un-British.
Oh, so there is a British Standard somewhere? Perhaps you would care to show it to us, complete with Kitemark?
I am seriously worried about the far right on the other sideof the GE. I am predicting something big going down. Capitol Hill UK style. Try going to the express coverage of tommy robinson's shin dig in London.... the comments section is terrifying.
Is there a well designed site that would be good for a beginner?
This is a good point. Could TSE maybe repost something from the early days of the site (if such a header exists) where OGH detailed some of the basics? There must have been a lot of betting newbies when this site started in the Noughties?
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I don’t understand why they are not full on “reverse Ukip”, and campaigning draped in the EU flag. Plenty of young votes in that, and as we can see from some media commentary, some people will happily choose to believe that almost anything was caused by Brexit.
I guess because it's impossible.
Some sort of UK embraces the EU is possible and potentially popular, but only in the UK. Any plausible reintroduction represents a complete impossibility politically here in the UK.
This is (in my view) the current natural state - there's no need to be alarmed. We had a bit of a foreign dalliance and whilst it was fun, it's over.
Political parties have succeeded in the past campaigning for things which are popular here but impractical to deliver. And this isn't a dig at Brexit particularly, loads of stuff falls into that box.
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I don’t understand why they are not full on “reverse Ukip”, and campaigning draped in the EU flag. Plenty of young votes in that, and as we can see from some media commentary, some people will happily choose to believe that almost anything was caused by Brexit.
I guess because it's impossible.
Some sort of UK embraces the EU is possible and potentially popular, but only in the UK. Any plausible reintroduction represents a complete impossibility politically here in the UK.
This is (in my view) the current natural state - there's no need to be alarmed. We had a bit of a foreign dalliance and whilst it was fun, it's over.
I agree it’s impossible, but they have an advantage. They don’t have to actually deliver it. They could (and from their perspective should) be saying all sorts of nonsense like “if we rejoin the EU we will have XBn extra to spend on the NHS”. It’s a lie but some voters would lap it up.
On thread, one additional point regarding the likely LD seat total.
Currently on GB wide polling, the LDs are at around 9%. There are 632 parliamentary seats up for grabs excluding NI. Winning 9% of those would give the LDs 57 seats - that is, the purest result possible in PR terms.
In "The case for the attack" Pip speculates that in their optimistic scenario, the LDs would pick up an extra 50 seats. That would take them to 58 - i.e. FPTP would deliver them a higher share of seats than they would get under PR.
It is surely highly improbable that the LD vote might become so efficiently geographically distributed that the disadvantages of FPTP to small parties now completely disappear in their case. To achieve that on 9% of the vote, they would have to lose their deposit in nearly all of the seats that they don't win. It just doesn't ring true.
I am a notable LD seat sceptic, but Scotland demonstrates that it is entirely possible in an FPTP to have a vote share that efficient.
In 2017, the LDs won just 6.5% of the Scottish vote. And they won 4 seats, which - if my maths are right - is about 7%.
So it is entirely possible for a party's vote to become extremely efficiently distributed.
I also suspect that the LDs will do slightly better than 9% in the polls, for two reasons: (1) turnout is not going to be as high as people expect, and (2) they LDs will get some tactical votes on the day. Lower turnout is a benefit to the LDs, and is simply a function of education levels: LD voters tend to be better educated; and turnout for better educated groups is much more likely to match certainty to vote than for other demographics.
I also suspect that - as has happened in I think every election bar one since 1979 - that the LDs will gain some share during the campaign. I don't think it'll be a massive increase, but they are getting headlines and they are getting leaflets out, and they are reminding people they exist. This is like a reverse of 2019: then the LDs were flying high on Brexit confusion, and then people were reminded that it was a Corbyn/Johnson choice. This time, everyone has forgotten the LDs exist, and Starmer simply doesn't look that threatening to centrists.
In 2019, I forecast 12-14% and 12 to 14 seats. I was in the range for votes, but slightly high on seats.
This time, I would forecast a similar vote share, but 25-30 seats. Simply: if the Conservative vote halves, and (outside Scotland and Sheffield Hallam) the LDs are only ever in competition with the Conservatives, then it would be staggering if they did not pick up a reasonable number of seats.
Are there to be debates with more than just Sunak and Starmer in them? Without that, I think third parties will struggle more. (It's turning a little into 2017, when between them Lab+Con was nearly 83% of the vote).
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I don’t understand why they are not full on “reverse Ukip”, and campaigning draped in the EU flag. Plenty of young votes in that, and as we can see from some media commentary, some people will happily choose to believe that almost anything was caused by Brexit.
I guess because it's impossible.
Some sort of UK embraces the EU is possible and potentially popular, but only in the UK. Any plausible reintroduction represents a complete impossibility politically here in the UK.
This is (in my view) the current natural state - there's no need to be alarmed. We had a bit of a foreign dalliance and whilst it was fun, it's over.
I'm still hoping to see us 'Rejoin'. And I'm beginning to seriously wonder about how long it it'll be before, with a hat-tip to Sir Terry Pratchett, the Bony One leads me across the Black Sands.
Vaguely related to the topic: After the LibDem leader (Paddy Ashdown, if I recall correctly) met George W. Bush, he said that Bush didn't seem much like the picture he had gotten from your media.
That strikes me as a powerful criticism of the Guardian, the BBC, and their ideological allies.
And, the feeling that American leaders, especially Republicans, are rarely treated fairly by foreign media is one of the many, many reasons for the rise of Trump.
Oh yes, W Bush was a thoughtful guy. His words - "Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" - are ones which really should be heeded today by ...well... everyone.
If he hadn't attacked Iraq, it's highly likely he would have gone down as a successful President. But he did invade Iraq. And he (and the Federal Reserve) also allowed the housing market and mortgage markets to get enormously overlevered.
George W Bush quote about Vladimir Putin
“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy, I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
We were discussing Sinn Féin yesterday in light of its candidate strategy in NI: a high-quality candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and dropping out of the four seats around south and east Belfast's middle-class belt, where Alliance and SDLP have chances. But there are also European and local elections happening in ROI, where SF has been the only large opposition party since the last general election, which like in the UK was pre-Covid. After years of great polling in mid-term, SF's numbers are dropping back to or below pre-Covid levels across all polling. Enough to give them a presence almost everywhere, but the urgency of preparing for a SF government, and all that implies for foreign/economic/security policy, is abating.
Are there to be debates with more than just Sunak and Starmer in them? Without that, I think third parties will struggle more. (It's turning a little into 2017, when between them Lab+Con was nearly 83% of the vote).
There is a 7 party debate on Thur 13 June. On ITV? 7 parties, not sure if all leaders will be there.
This clip of Gorgeous George discussing his party is glorious. The bit at the end where he basically admits that his party is going to completely fail at the election is a gem.
Vaguely related to the topic: After the LibDem leader (Paddy Ashdown, if I recall correctly) met George W. Bush, he said that Bush didn't seem much like the picture he had gotten from your media.
That strikes me as a powerful criticism of the Guardian, the BBC, and their ideological allies.
And, the feeling that American leaders, especially Republicans, are rarely treated fairly by foreign media is one of the many, many reasons for the rise of Trump.
Oh yes, W Bush was a thoughtful guy. His words - "Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" - are ones which really should be heeded today by ...well... everyone.
If he hadn't attacked Iraq, it's highly likely he would have gone down as a successful President. But he did invade Iraq. And he (and the Federal Reserve) also allowed the housing market and mortgage markets to get enormously overlevered.
George W Bush quote about Vladimir Putin
“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy, I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
........and Putin's reply 'доверчивый старый козел'
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I don’t understand why they are not full on “reverse Ukip”, and campaigning draped in the EU flag. Plenty of young votes in that, and as we can see from some media commentary, some people will happily choose to believe that almost anything was caused by Brexit.
I guess because it's impossible.
Some sort of UK embraces the EU is possible and potentially popular, but only in the UK. Any plausible reintroduction represents a complete impossibility politically here in the UK.
This is (in my view) the current natural state - there's no need to be alarmed. We had a bit of a foreign dalliance and whilst it was fun, it's over.
I'm still hoping to see us 'Rejoin'. And I'm beginning to seriously wonder about how long it it'll be before, with a hat-tip to Sir Terry Pratchett, the Bony One leads me across the Black Sands.
Eventually rejoin, yes I think so. Assuming we don't just lose ourselves to whatever it is we're doing now.
But yes rejoin and engage, and dislocate the ghastly Benelux cabal.
I am seriously worried about the far right on the other sideof the GE. I am predicting something big going down. Capitol Hill UK style. Try going to the express coverage of tommy robinson's shin dig in London.... the comments section is terrifying.
Lol at the Tommeh Tommeh crowd chanting Christ is King at a supposedly pro-Israel rally. "Christ is King" has been a known antisemitic dogwhistle for a while at far right marches in the US. Tells you exactly what sort of people you are really dealing with.
Luckily I think their numbers are too small to pull off anything even remotely as dangerous as the Jan 6th business.
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I don’t understand why they are not full on “reverse Ukip”, and campaigning draped in the EU flag. Plenty of young votes in that, and as we can see from some media commentary, some people will happily choose to believe that almost anything was caused by Brexit.
I guess because it's impossible.
Some sort of UK embraces the EU is possible and potentially popular, but only in the UK. Any plausible reintroduction represents a complete impossibility politically here in the UK.
This is (in my view) the current natural state - there's no need to be alarmed. We had a bit of a foreign dalliance and whilst it was fun, it's over.
I'm still hoping to see us 'Rejoin'. And I'm beginning to seriously wonder about how long it it'll be before, with a hat-tip to Sir Terry Pratchett, the Bony One leads me across the Black Sands.
Don’t worry Jacob RM is too busy with the election to lead anyone anywhere yet alone across black sands. Keep going OKC.
Are there to be debates with more than just Sunak and Starmer in them? Without that, I think third parties will struggle more. (It's turning a little into 2017, when between them Lab+Con was nearly 83% of the vote).
There is a 7 party debate on Thur 13 June. On ITV? 7 parties, not sure if all leaders will be there.
ITV? That makes a difference. Turn down a slot on a debate hosted by the BBC or ITV and they can make your absence into a story much more easily that the likes of channel 4 can.
Vaguely related to the topic: After the LibDem leader (Paddy Ashdown, if I recall correctly) met George W. Bush, he said that Bush didn't seem much like the picture he had gotten from your media.
That strikes me as a powerful criticism of the Guardian, the BBC, and their ideological allies.
And, the feeling that American leaders, especially Republicans, are rarely treated fairly by foreign media is one of the many, many reasons for the rise of Trump.
Oh yes, W Bush was a thoughtful guy. His words - "Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" - are ones which really should be heeded today by ...well... everyone.
If he hadn't attacked Iraq, it's highly likely he would have gone down as a successful President. But he did invade Iraq. And he (and the Federal Reserve) also allowed the housing market and mortgage markets to get enormously overlevered.
George W Bush quote about Vladimir Putin
“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy, I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
Sorry to have missed the brief discussion on Didcot and Wantage earlier, but I've only just got in from being on the campaign trail in, well, Didcot and Wantage
So far, looking pretty good for LDs (but I don't want to curse it). Plenty of orange diamonds up already, which helps on the visibility front and the tactical vote push.
Chatted to a couple of Green activists out who were leafletting. Neither they nor we have seen Labour since the start of the campaign. Possibly they're focused very specifically elsewhere.
Tories have been out, but were apparently caught on the hop by the election announcement - their canvassers were apologising to some householders for not having any leaflets or similar material because "they'd been caught by surprise."
(You couldn't make it up. We managed two leaflets before the campaign proper started on Thursday, and the Greens have got one out in a few wards, but the Tories - nothing).
Is there a well designed site that would be good for a beginner?
Oddschecker gives odds from all bookies and crucially tells you about free bets for new punters - very valuable if you are prepared to spread your money between them.
They are very keen to take your money so standard and useability of websites is generally high.
Are there to be debates with more than just Sunak and Starmer in them? Without that, I think third parties will struggle more. (It's turning a little into 2017, when between them Lab+Con was nearly 83% of the vote).
There is a 7 party debate on Thur 13 June. On ITV? 7 parties, not sure if all leaders will be there.
ITV? That makes a difference. Turn down a slot on a debate hosted by the BBC or ITV and they can make your absence into a story much more easily that the likes of channel 4 can.
. . . perhaps more significant that Ed Davey's next circus trick, the angst of Richi Sunak the Poor Little Rich Kid, or even the fraud convictions of a congenital fraudster . . .
South Africa 2024 General Election for National Assembly with 96.6% reporting
African National Congress 6,316,004 40.3% Democratic Alliance 3,387,731 21.6% uMkhonto weSizwe 2,304,768 14.7% Economic Freedom Fighters 1,483,851 9.5% Inkatha Freedom Party 610,821 3.9% Patriotic Alliance 318,689 2.0% Freedom Front Plus[c] 212,656 1.4% ActionSA 182,112 1.2% 44 other parties combined 855,000 5.5%
Vaguely related to the topic: After the LibDem leader (Paddy Ashdown, if I recall correctly) met George W. Bush, he said that Bush didn't seem much like the picture he had gotten from your media.
That strikes me as a powerful criticism of the Guardian, the BBC, and their ideological allies.
And, the feeling that American leaders, especially Republicans, are rarely treated fairly by foreign media is one of the many, many reasons for the rise of Trump.
Oh yes, W Bush was a thoughtful guy. His words - "Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions" - are ones which really should be heeded today by ...well... everyone.
If he hadn't attacked Iraq, it's highly likely he would have gone down as a successful President. But he did invade Iraq. And he (and the Federal Reserve) also allowed the housing market and mortgage markets to get enormously overlevered.
George W Bush quote about Vladimir Putin
“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy, I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
I quite like this about QEII:
"When Vladimir Putin was about to meet with Queen Elizabeth II in 2003, the Home Secretary's dog barked loudly
The Queen quipped: 'Dogs have interesting instincts, don’t they?""
Is there a well designed site that would be good for a beginner?
This is a good point. Could TSE maybe repost something from the early days of the site (if such a header exists) where OGH detailed some of the basics? There must have been a lot of betting newbies when this site started in the Noughties?
Peter the Punter had at least one good article about the basics of betting strategy - establishing a betting bank, and spreading your bets around.
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I don’t understand why they are not full on “reverse Ukip”, and campaigning draped in the EU flag. Plenty of young votes in that, and as we can see from some media commentary, some people will happily choose to believe that almost anything was caused by Brexit.
I guess because it's impossible.
Some sort of UK embraces the EU is possible and potentially popular, but only in the UK. Any plausible reintroduction represents a complete impossibility politically here in the UK.
This is (in my view) the current natural state - there's no need to be alarmed. We had a bit of a foreign dalliance and whilst it was fun, it's over.
I agree it’s impossible, but they have an advantage. They don’t have to actually deliver it. They could (and from their perspective should) be saying all sorts of nonsense like “if we rejoin the EU we will have XBn extra to spend on the NHS”. It’s a lie but some voters would lap it up.
I think the problem is that strategy might get them a lot of votes spread out, but it would put off enough voters that it would make it harder for them to win more seats.
Is there a well designed site that would be good for a beginner?
Bet365 is good, but Betfair exchange gives more flexibility than the average bookie as able to choose which side of a bet you want to be on. Much easier to back out of bets too. It is where the action is after 2200 on election night, and by a reverse ferret from information on this site I have turned losses into profits on a number of elections. The analysis here is way ahead of the talking heads on the box for those critical hours as the results come in.
I doubt there are many people on here who would bet that the Tories would get less than 150 seats.
I have. Indeed I think the 100-150 seats reasonable value. My current assessment is Con on about 120 seats.
This is a less severe wipeout than the MRP are predicting by quite some margin. I reckon the Lab 350-400 seat band is a reasonable punt too.
That band would be my guess too. The justification of quite why seems preposterous though. Perhaps 66 seats is possible. Perhaps we're all just not reading the runes. Perhaps a Canada type thing is possible.
(If so, politically it'd be awful. Starmer's left would immediately undermine him, and us!)
Is there a well designed site that would be good for a beginner?
Bet365 is good, but Betfair exchange gives more flexibility than the average bookie as able to choose which side of a bet you want to be on. Much easier to back out of bets too. It is where the action is after 2200 on election night, and by a reverse ferret from information on this site I have turned losses into profits on a number of elections. The analysis here is way ahead of the talking heads on the box for those critical hours as the results come in.
That works both ways. If I had been awake for potus 2020 I would have spent the night backing out of my substantial for me Trump lay
I doubt there are many people on here who would bet that the Tories would get less than 150 seats.
I have. Indeed I think the 100-150 seats reasonable value. My current assessment is Con on about 120 seats.
This is a less severe wipeout than the MRP are predicting by quite some margin. I reckon the Lab 350-400 seat band is a reasonable punt too.
That band would be my guess too. The justification of quite why seems preposterous though. Perhaps 66 seats is possible. Perhaps we're all just not reading the runes. Perhaps a Canada type thing is possible.
(If so, politically it'd be awful. Starmer's left would immediately undermine him, and us!)
Surely the bigger Starmer's majority, the less influence the left would have. Blair was quite happy to let them get on with their early day motions, and constant voting against the whip, because it made no difference to what he could do.
I currently live in the South Cambridgeshire constituency, which used to be fairly firmly Conservative. Unlike many constituencies however, in 2019 the Conservative majority reduced considerably, with the new Conservative MP, Anthony Browne, having just a 4.3% margin from the Lib Dems.
South Cambridgeshire council (borders not coincident with the constituency) is very strongly Lib Dem (25 majority).
The constituency has been considerably redrawn for this general election, and am I now in the new St Neots and mid Cambridgeshire constituency.
Interestingly, Anthony Browne is standing in this general election, but not in his old seat of South Cambridgeshire, but in the new seat of St Neots and mid Cambridgeshire.
I still expect him to lose, and the Lib Dems to gain St Neots and mid Cambridgeshire. Because of the way the constituencies have been split, I have no idea who will win South Cambridgeshire...
Yes I expect a much lower swing in the end to the LDs than to Labour. Sunak appeals more to bluewall seats than Boris did but much less to redwall and Leave seats.
In the end they will probably get about 30-40 seats and of course in 2019 most Labour voters in LD target seats already tactically voted LD while LD voters didn't tactically vote Labour in Labour target seats because of Corbyn but likely will vote Labour now Starmer has replaced him.
If I was Rishi I would have a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million to minimise losses to the LDs in the wealthy South and Home Counties in the Eastern region
I doubt there are many people on here who would bet that the Tories would get less than 150 seats.
I have. Indeed I think the 100-150 seats reasonable value. My current assessment is Con on about 120 seats.
This is a less severe wipeout than the MRP are predicting by quite some margin. I reckon the Lab 350-400 seat band is a reasonable punt too.
I know this site isn't indicative of the wider world, but reading the runes it's hard to see where Conservative support is coming from, beyond the client pensioner vote - which may well save them from total wipeout.
I said in last night's thread that if you take people like Bart (the libertarian right) and Leon (the anti immigration voter), the Conservatives have lost both of them, they're both hopping mad about this lot. And they lost the moderate Cameroon types like TSE long ago. So who is left? Single issue voters like Casino.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the polls are right and this will be an epoch defining wipeout for the Conservatives. Even natural conservatives are saying "kick 'em out so they can have a good long think about what they want to be while in opposition". I have bet accordingly...
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I don’t understand why they are not full on “reverse Ukip”, and campaigning draped in the EU flag. Plenty of young votes in that, and as we can see from some media commentary, some people will happily choose to believe that almost anything was caused by Brexit.
Someone posted they have no idea what we stand for? Our Fair Deal sets out 5 policy streams: A vibrant economy Fair access to public services and a strong social safety net An environment protected Restore our place in the international order Rebuild trust in politics, fair voting system, empower communities to make local decisions
For those who think the Tories will make a bit of a recovery, Bet 365 are offering 9/2 that their final vote share will be between 28% and 31.99%. That seems quite generous odds; I'm almost tempted.
Sorry to have missed the brief discussion on Didcot and Wantage earlier, but I've only just got in from being on the campaign trail in, well, Didcot and Wantage
So far, looking pretty good for LDs (but I don't want to curse it). Plenty of orange diamonds up already, which helps on the visibility front and the tactical vote push.
Chatted to a couple of Green activists out who were leafletting. Neither they nor we have seen Labour since the start of the campaign. Possibly they're focused very specifically elsewhere.
Tories have been out, but were apparently caught on the hop by the election announcement - their canvassers were apologising to some householders for not having any leaflets or similar material because "they'd been caught by surprise."
(You couldn't make it up. We managed two leaflets before the campaign proper started on Thursday, and the Greens have got one out in a few wards, but the Tories - nothing).
As mentioned yesterday I am involved in a pressure group that is heavily biased to Didcot and Wantage because of the previous employer. All of them think it is a LD/Tory fight and think David Johnston might well lose. Labour never gets mentioned.
. . . perhaps more significant that Ed Davey's next circus trick, the angst of Richi Sunak the Poor Little Rich Kid, or even the fraud convictions of a congenital fraudster . . .
South Africa 2024 General Election for National Assembly with 96.6% reporting
African National Congress 6,316,004 40.3% Democratic Alliance 3,387,731 21.6% uMkhonto weSizwe 2,304,768 14.7% Economic Freedom Fighters 1,483,851 9.5% Inkatha Freedom Party 610,821 3.9% Patriotic Alliance 318,689 2.0% Freedom Front Plus[c] 212,656 1.4% ActionSA 182,112 1.2% 44 other parties combined 855,000 5.5%
So in theory ANC could pick a coalition partner out of DA, MK and EFF but are they united enough to pick one? Possibility of the ANC actually splitting in practice?
Is there a well designed site that would be good for a beginner?
This is a good point. Could TSE maybe repost something from the early days of the site (if such a header exists) where OGH detailed some of the basics? There must have been a lot of betting newbies when this site started in the Noughties?
Peter the Punter had at least one good article about the basics of betting strategy - establishing a betting bank, and spreading your bets around.
The other recommendation I would make a diary of what, where and why you have bet.
It helps when looking at losing bets to avoid repeating mistakes. It is too easy to concentrate on the winners and skip over the losses. Indeed bookies are very keen for you to do so.
. . . perhaps more significant that Ed Davey's next circus trick, the angst of Richi Sunak the Poor Little Rich Kid, or even the fraud convictions of a congenital fraudster . . .
South Africa 2024 General Election for National Assembly with 96.6% reporting
African National Congress 6,316,004 40.3% Democratic Alliance 3,387,731 21.6% uMkhonto weSizwe 2,304,768 14.7% Economic Freedom Fighters 1,483,851 9.5% Inkatha Freedom Party 610,821 3.9% Patriotic Alliance 318,689 2.0% Freedom Front Plus[c] 212,656 1.4% ActionSA 182,112 1.2% 44 other parties combined 855,000 5.5%
Yes I expect a much lower swing in the end to the LDs than to Labour. Sunak appeals more to bluewall seats than Boris did but much less to redwall and Leave seats.
In the end they will probably get about 30-40 seats and of course in 2019 most Labour voters in LD target seats already tactically voted LD while LD voters didn't tactically vote Labour in Labour target seats because of Corbyn but likely will vote Labour now Starmer has replaced him.
If I was Rishi I would have a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million to minimise losses to the LDs in the wealthy South and Home Counties in the Eastern region
We may now be at (or long past) the point where your policy announcements make any difference.
You’re not going to win. So try the invested bribe route to shore up blue wall conservatives and they’re going to ignore you. Ravings of a madman and all that.
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
I don’t understand why they are not full on “reverse Ukip”, and campaigning draped in the EU flag. Plenty of young votes in that, and as we can see from some media commentary, some people will happily choose to believe that almost anything was caused by Brexit.
Someone posted they have no idea what we stand for? Our Fair Deal sets out 5 policy streams: A vibrant economy Fair access to public services and a strong social safety net An environment protected Restore our place in the international order Rebuild trust in politics, fair voting system, empower communities to make local decisions
I think too that Rejoiners already are aware that LD is the most pro-EU party in England, so no need to emphasise, and it distracts from other messages.
. . . perhaps more significant that Ed Davey's next circus trick, the angst of Richi Sunak the Poor Little Rich Kid, or even the fraud convictions of a congenital fraudster . . .
South Africa 2024 General Election for National Assembly with 96.6% reporting
African National Congress 6,316,004 40.3% Democratic Alliance 3,387,731 21.6% uMkhonto weSizwe 2,304,768 14.7% Economic Freedom Fighters 1,483,851 9.5% Inkatha Freedom Party 610,821 3.9% Patriotic Alliance 318,689 2.0% Freedom Front Plus[c] 212,656 1.4% ActionSA 182,112 1.2% 44 other parties combined 855,000 5.5%
So in theory ANC could pick a coalition partner out of DA, MK and EFF but are they united enough to pick one? Possibility of the ANC actually splitting in practice?
DA are making overtures.
EFF are pretty hard-core, but both them and MK split from ANC for reasons.
I doubt there are many people on here who would bet that the Tories would get less than 150 seats.
I have. Indeed I think the 100-150 seats reasonable value. My current assessment is Con on about 120 seats.
This is a less severe wipeout than the MRP are predicting by quite some margin. I reckon the Lab 350-400 seat band is a reasonable punt too.
That band would be my guess too. The justification of quite why seems preposterous though. Perhaps 66 seats is possible. Perhaps we're all just not reading the runes. Perhaps a Canada type thing is possible.
(If so, politically it'd be awful. Starmer's left would immediately undermine him, and us!)
Surely the bigger Starmer's majority, the less influence the left would have. Blair was quite happy to let them get on with their early day motions, and constant voting against the whip, because it made no difference to what he could do.
I think it's rather the reverse - they have more room to manoeuvrer. Starmer has stretched the Labour party to its limits and he's done that to give people like the (very good) Reeves freedom to actually address the issues. Reeves will be much like Brown - a brilliant chancellor - I think though that Reeves might have what it takes to be quite good. (Cf the hopeless Brown)
Yes I expect a much lower swing in the end to the LDs than to Labour. Sunak appeals more to bluewall seats than Boris did but much less to redwall and Leave seats.
In the end they will probably get about 30-40 seats and of course in 2019 most Labour voters in LD target seats already tactically voted LD while LD voters didn't tactically vote Labour in Labour target seats because of Corbyn but likely will vote Labour now Starmer has replaced him.
If I was Rishi I would have a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million to minimise losses to the LDs in the wealthy South and Home Counties in the Eastern region
We may now be at (or long past) the point where your policy announcements make any difference.
You’re not going to win. So try the invested bribe route to shore up blue wall conservatives and they’re going to ignore you. Ravings of a madman and all that.
If you or your parents live in a 1-£2 million+ house in Surrey, Oxfordshire, Tunbridge Wells or Sevenoaks, Epping Forest, Uttlesford or Brentwood and Ongar, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, West Sussex, Hampshire or West London, Finchley or Bromley you certainly won't ignore a massive windfall that could come your way, even if possibly leaning LD or Starmer Labour it would probably keep you voting Tory. Most families with assets over the £325k IHT threshold would also welcome the fact that rises to £2 million even beyond Osborne's exemption for the family home for married couples up to £1 million.
It would likely be enough to get the Tories closer to 30% than 20-25% at least
Many people here will be aware of the "upon mature recollection" story of the 1990 Irish Presidential election but it's still a good story. There's a new 30 minute documentary about it on YouTube, well worth the watch if you're interested in that sort of thing. https://youtu.be/tNV8_4gUBBY
I doubt there are many people on here who would bet that the Tories would get less than 150 seats.
I have. Indeed I think the 100-150 seats reasonable value. My current assessment is Con on about 120 seats.
This is a less severe wipeout than the MRP are predicting by quite some margin. I reckon the Lab 350-400 seat band is a reasonable punt too.
I know this site isn't indicative of the wider world, but reading the runes it's hard to see where Conservative support is coming from, beyond the client pensioner vote - which may well save them from total wipeout.
I said in last night's thread that if you take people like Bart (the libertarian right) and Leon (the anti immigration voter), the Conservatives have lost both of them, they're both hopping mad about this lot. And they lost the moderate Cameroon types like TSE long ago. So who is left? Single issue voters like Casino.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the polls are right and this will be an epoch defining wipeout for the Conservatives. Even natural conservatives are saying "kick 'em out so they can have a good long think about what they want to be while in opposition". I have bet accordingly...
If you look at the age banded word cloud posted here a day or two ago 65+ is not particularly fussed about money. Triple lock is guaranteed by both parties anyway. They love national service though
I doubt there are many people on here who would bet that the Tories would get less than 150 seats.
I have. Indeed I think the 100-150 seats reasonable value. My current assessment is Con on about 120 seats.
This is a less severe wipeout than the MRP are predicting by quite some margin. I reckon the Lab 350-400 seat band is a reasonable punt too.
I know this site isn't indicative of the wider world, but reading the runes it's hard to see where Conservative support is coming from, beyond the client pensioner vote - which may well save them from total wipeout.
I said in last night's thread that if you take people like Bart (the libertarian right) and Leon (the anti immigration voter), the Conservatives have lost both of them, they're both hopping mad about this lot. And they lost the moderate Cameroon types like TSE long ago. So who is left? Single issue voters like Casino.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the polls are right and this will be an epoch defining wipeout for the Conservatives. Even natural conservatives are saying "kick 'em out so they can have a good long think about what they want to be while in opposition". I have bet accordingly...
If you look at the age banded word cloud posted here a day or two ago 65+ is not particularly fussed about money. Triple lock is guaranteed by both parties anyway. They love national service though
I am seriously worried about the far right on the other sideof the GE. I am predicting something big going down. Capitol Hill UK style. Try going to the express coverage of tommy robinson's shin dig in London.... the comments section is terrifying.
You think they're going to fight to keep their man, Rishi Sunak, in office?
Despite vast amounts of hopecasting from certain sections of the media, Yaxley-Lennon and chums remain a tiny crowds of semi-demi-ex-football hooligans.
Reform and their ilk have realised that support collapses if they go anywhere near that pile of shite.
Despite the ludicrous fears of some, the British public are proven to be very resistant to nutters.
Consider Rotherham. The tailor made race war spark. Comically, as it became clear that it was going to come out, some in social services were demanding plans for martial law and the army to be called in. The actual result - crickets pretty much. Not a pogrom.
I currently live in the South Cambridgeshire constituency, which used to be fairly firmly Conservative. Unlike many constituencies however, in 2019 the Conservative majority reduced considerably, with the new Conservative MP, Anthony Browne, having just a 4.3% margin from the Lib Dems.
South Cambridgeshire council (borders not coincident with the constituency) is very strongly Lib Dem (25 majority).
The constituency has been considerably redrawn for this general election, and am I now in the new St Neots and mid Cambridgeshire constituency.
Interestingly, Anthony Browne is standing in this general election, but not in his old seat of South Cambridgeshire, but in the new seat of St Neots and mid Cambridgeshire.
I still expect him to lose, and the Lib Dems to gain St Neots and mid Cambridgeshire. Because of the way the constituencies have been split, I have no idea who will win South Cambridgeshire...
The Economist - who only give the Lib Dems 22 seats - have South Cambridgeshire as a Lib Dem gain, 10pp ahead of Labour and Tories tied on 25%.
They forecast St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire as a tight Conservative hold 29-28-24. To be honest, a lot of the Economist numbers look really implausible.
Is there a well designed site that would be good for a beginner?
This is a good point. Could TSE maybe repost something from the early days of the site (if such a header exists) where OGH detailed some of the basics? There must have been a lot of betting newbies when this site started in the Noughties?
Peter the Punter had at least one good article about the basics of betting strategy - establishing a betting bank, and spreading your bets around.
The other recommendation I would make a diary of what, where and why you have bet.
It helps when looking at losing bets to avoid repeating mistakes. It is too easy to concentrate on the winners and skip over the losses. Indeed bookies are very keen for you to do so.
Smarkets have rather a good system of emailing you every month your score for the previous month
Only problem is they are jinxed for me. Everything I bet there is a loser.
In the pub, listening to a conversation on the next table. So far it has covered Liz Truss, COVID, Vaccines, Ukraine, AI. The nutter level is extreme.
Are you next to a chap having a five sided conversation with himself? Looks a little like airport thriller writer Sean Thomas Knox, but apparently isn’t him?
I doubt there are many people on here who would bet that the Tories would get less than 150 seats.
I have. Indeed I think the 100-150 seats reasonable value. My current assessment is Con on about 120 seats.
This is a less severe wipeout than the MRP are predicting by quite some margin. I reckon the Lab 350-400 seat band is a reasonable punt too.
I know this site isn't indicative of the wider world, but reading the runes it's hard to see where Conservative support is coming from, beyond the client pensioner vote - which may well save them from total wipeout.
I said in last night's thread that if you take people like Bart (the libertarian right) and Leon (the anti immigration voter), the Conservatives have lost both of them, they're both hopping mad about this lot. And they lost the moderate Cameroon types like TSE long ago. So who is left? Single issue voters like Casino.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the polls are right and this will be an epoch defining wipeout for the Conservatives. Even natural conservatives are saying "kick 'em out so they can have a good long think about what they want to be while in opposition". I have bet accordingly...
If you look at the age banded word cloud posted here a day or two ago 65+ is not particularly fussed about money. Triple lock is guaranteed by both parties anyway. They love national service though
Perhaps they should do it, then.
They hallucinate that they did it last time round.
The Spectator makes the (tiny bit tongue in cheek) case for Truss as post-Sunapocalypse leader:
None of her enthusiasm for politics seems to have been dimmed. Her book, damned by many Westminster insiders, became a surprise bestseller. Moreover, there is still a large number of Conservative members who think she was done over by the political establishment – a British Trump, in other words – and never forgave it for imposing Sunak on them instead. How to seek revenge? By electing her leader a second time. Were they to be reduced to under 100 seats, no one would expect the Tories to be back after one term out of office, so Conservative members would not be picking a PM. Why not, then, go for the candidate who would be sure to make the greatest noise?
Old olhei is honestly one of the most amazing places I’ve ever been. It must be one of the oldest continuously settled locales on earth - continuous evidence since 20,000-30,000 BC. THE NOOM IS GREAT
I am walking down a sunlit valley. Donkey carts pass. The limestone cliffs are filled with caves that date back to Dacian times. The river has Neolithic remains. There is a Tatar caravanserai. I can hear a cuckoo. The polenta is good and I hate polenta. Everyone makes their own cheese and wine. The girls are pretty and they do pagan dances in the gardens which are full of wildflowers
The roads are shit. The men are drunk but happy. Old men dig beets in the soft warmth barechested. Putin might invade. I just saw someone fall of a bicycle. Children laugh as granny has another apricot vodka. There is a hideous commie concrete bridge going nowhere but beneath it the river flows as it has flowed for ten billions years and a beautiful girl sings a song to a turnip
My feeling is that the conservative party has come to the end of its life. They have a massive political legacy and a platform to do whatever they want, but they have nothing to offer. If they get the chance to reinvent themselves it will need to become a totally different party. My sense is that the space they need to occupy is as a radical right wing party, to become the dominant antithesis to 'woke centrism'. Although people will be outraged at this idea ultimately it is the only logical place for the tories to go and it may get them back to power quickly.
Yes I expect a much lower swing in the end to the LDs than to Labour. Sunak appeals more to bluewall seats than Boris did but much less to redwall and Leave seats.
In the end they will probably get about 30-40 seats and of course in 2019 most Labour voters in LD target seats already tactically voted LD while LD voters didn't tactically vote Labour in Labour target seats because of Corbyn but likely will vote Labour now Starmer has replaced him.
If I was Rishi I would have a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million to minimise losses to the LDs in the wealthy South and Home Counties in the Eastern region
We may now be at (or long past) the point where your policy announcements make any difference.
You’re not going to win. So try the invested bribe route to shore up blue wall conservatives and they’re going to ignore you. Ravings of a madman and all that.
If you or your parents live in a 1-£2 million+ house in Surrey, Oxfordshire, Tunbridge Wells or Sevenoaks, Epping Forest, Uttlesford or Brentwood and Ongar, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, West Sussex, Hampshire or West London, Finchley or Bromley you certainly won't ignore a massive windfall that could come your way, even if possibly leaning LD or Starmer Labour it would probably keep you voting Tory. Most families with assets over the £325k IHT threshold would also welcome the fact that rises to £2 million even beyond Osborne's exemption for the family home for married couples up to £1 million.
It would likely be enough to get the Tories closer to 30% than 20-25% at least
But it *won’t* be coming their way. Not is there a plan to pay for it - the exact kind of invested giveaway bribe these voters are against in principle
Sticks in the craw, not going to happen, won’t change the dial.
You’d be better off sticking to the dont let Labour smash our economic recovery line.”
Yes I expect a much lower swing in the end to the LDs than to Labour. Sunak appeals more to bluewall seats than Boris did but much less to redwall and Leave seats.
In the end they will probably get about 30-40 seats and of course in 2019 most Labour voters in LD target seats already tactically voted LD while LD voters didn't tactically vote Labour in Labour target seats because of Corbyn but likely will vote Labour now Starmer has replaced him.
If I was Rishi I would have a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million to minimise losses to the LDs in the wealthy South and Home Counties in the Eastern region
We may now be at (or long past) the point where your policy announcements make any difference.
You’re not going to win. So try the invested bribe route to shore up blue wall conservatives and they’re going to ignore you. Ravings of a madman and all that.
If you or your parents live in a 1-£2 million+ house in Surrey, Oxfordshire, Tunbridge Wells or Sevenoaks, Epping Forest, Uttlesford or Brentwood and Ongar, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, West Sussex, Hampshire or West London, Finchley or Bromley you certainly won't ignore a massive windfall that could come your way, even if possibly leaning LD or Starmer Labour it would probably keep you voting Tory. Most families with assets over the £325k IHT threshold would also welcome the fact that rises to £2 million even beyond Osborne's exemption for the family home for married couples up to £1 million.
It would likely be enough to get the Tories closer to 30% than 20-25% at least
Well I exceed that asset level multiple times and neither of my children would dream of voting Conservative. I don't think inheritance crosses their mind and hopefully it will be several decades before it becomes relevant and I'm doing my best to spend it.
Yes I expect a much lower swing in the end to the LDs than to Labour. Sunak appeals more to bluewall seats than Boris did but much less to redwall and Leave seats.
In the end they will probably get about 30-40 seats and of course in 2019 most Labour voters in LD target seats already tactically voted LD while LD voters didn't tactically vote Labour in Labour target seats because of Corbyn but likely will vote Labour now Starmer has replaced him.
If I was Rishi I would have a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million to minimise losses to the LDs in the wealthy South and Home Counties in the Eastern region
We may now be at (or long past) the point where your policy announcements make any difference.
You’re not going to win. So try the invested bribe route to shore up blue wall conservatives and they’re going to ignore you. Ravings of a madman and all that.
If you or your parents live in a 1-£2 million+ house in Surrey, Oxfordshire, Tunbridge Wells or Sevenoaks, Epping Forest, Uttlesford or Brentwood and Ongar, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, West Sussex, Hampshire or West London, Finchley or Bromley you certainly won't ignore a massive windfall that could come your way, even if possibly leaning LD or Starmer Labour it would probably keep you voting Tory. Most families with assets over the £325k IHT threshold would also welcome the fact that rises to £2 million even beyond Osborne's exemption for the family home for married couples up to £1 million.
It would likely be enough to get the Tories closer to 30% than 20-25% at least
Why would anyone trust the Tories to do anything? You have a huge majority and have pissed about with it achieving nothing. You could have raised the IHT threshold already if it was that important.
Also nobody expects the Tories to win so there will be no “windfall” for anyone. It’s an empty promise.
Is there a well designed site that would be good for a beginner?
This is a good point. Could TSE maybe repost something from the early days of the site (if such a header exists) where OGH detailed some of the basics? There must have been a lot of betting newbies when this site started in the Noughties?
Peter the Punter had at least one good article about the basics of betting strategy - establishing a betting bank, and spreading your bets around.
The other recommendation I would make a diary of what, where and why you have bet.
It helps when looking at losing bets to avoid repeating mistakes. It is too easy to concentrate on the winners and skip over the losses. Indeed bookies are very keen for you to do so.
Smarkets have rather a good system of emailing you every month your score for the previous month
Only problem is they are jinxed for me. Everything I bet there is a loser.
You are missing a commercial opportunity - put bets on at Smarkets, post on here what you’ve bet on so everyone here lays what you’ve done and then you get a share of the winnings, say 10% from everyone.
The Spectator makes the (tiny bit tongue in cheek) case for Truss as post-Sunapocalypse leader:
None of her enthusiasm for politics seems to have been dimmed. Her book, damned by many Westminster insiders, became a surprise bestseller. Moreover, there is still a large number of Conservative members who think she was done over by the political establishment – a British Trump, in other words – and never forgave it for imposing Sunak on them instead. How to seek revenge? By electing her leader a second time. Were they to be reduced to under 100 seats, no one would expect the Tories to be back after one term out of office, so Conservative members would not be picking a PM. Why not, then, go for the candidate who would be sure to make the greatest noise?
I don't regard that as tongue in cheek. I imagine colonel and Mrs miggins of Tunbridge Wells are seething with outrage that their chosen darling was undemocratically ousted by a rich Indian. What better revenge on the parliamentary party?
Yes I expect a much lower swing in the end to the LDs than to Labour. Sunak appeals more to bluewall seats than Boris did but much less to redwall and Leave seats.
In the end they will probably get about 30-40 seats and of course in 2019 most Labour voters in LD target seats already tactically voted LD while LD voters didn't tactically vote Labour in Labour target seats because of Corbyn but likely will vote Labour now Starmer has replaced him.
If I was Rishi I would have a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million to minimise losses to the LDs in the wealthy South and Home Counties in the Eastern region
We may now be at (or long past) the point where your policy announcements make any difference.
You’re not going to win. So try the invested bribe route to shore up blue wall conservatives and they’re going to ignore you. Ravings of a madman and all that.
If you or your parents live in a 1-£2 million+ house in Surrey, Oxfordshire, Tunbridge Wells or Sevenoaks, Epping Forest, Uttlesford or Brentwood and Ongar, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, West Sussex, Hampshire or West London, Finchley or Bromley you certainly won't ignore a massive windfall that could come your way, even if possibly leaning LD or Starmer Labour it would probably keep you voting Tory. Most families with assets over the £325k IHT threshold would also welcome the fact that rises to £2 million even beyond Osborne's exemption for the family home for married couples up to £1 million.
It would likely be enough to get the Tories closer to 30% than 20-25% at least
Why would anyone trust the Tories to do anything? You have a huge majority and have pissed about with it achieving nothing. You could have raised the IHT threshold already if it was that important.
Osborne did effectively raise the IHT threshold to £1 million, at least for family homes
Yes I expect a much lower swing in the end to the LDs than to Labour. Sunak appeals more to bluewall seats than Boris did but much less to redwall and Leave seats.
In the end they will probably get about 30-40 seats and of course in 2019 most Labour voters in LD target seats already tactically voted LD while LD voters didn't tactically vote Labour in Labour target seats because of Corbyn but likely will vote Labour now Starmer has replaced him.
If I was Rishi I would have a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million to minimise losses to the LDs in the wealthy South and Home Counties in the Eastern region
We may now be at (or long past) the point where your policy announcements make any difference.
You’re not going to win. So try the invested bribe route to shore up blue wall conservatives and they’re going to ignore you. Ravings of a madman and all that.
If you or your parents live in a 1-£2 million+ house in Surrey, Oxfordshire, Tunbridge Wells or Sevenoaks, Epping Forest, Uttlesford or Brentwood and Ongar, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, West Sussex, Hampshire or West London, Finchley or Bromley you certainly won't ignore a massive windfall that could come your way, even if possibly leaning LD or Starmer Labour it would probably keep you voting Tory. Most families with assets over the £325k IHT threshold would also welcome the fact that rises to £2 million even beyond Osborne's exemption for the family home for married couples up to £1 million.
It would likely be enough to get the Tories closer to 30% than 20-25% at least
Why would anyone trust the Tories to do anything? You have a huge majority and have pissed about with it achieving nothing. You could have raised the IHT threshold already if it was that important.
Osborne did effectively raise the IHT threshold to £1 million, at least for family homes
Yes I expect a much lower swing in the end to the LDs than to Labour. Sunak appeals more to bluewall seats than Boris did but much less to redwall and Leave seats.
In the end they will probably get about 30-40 seats and of course in 2019 most Labour voters in LD target seats already tactically voted LD while LD voters didn't tactically vote Labour in Labour target seats because of Corbyn but likely will vote Labour now Starmer has replaced him.
If I was Rishi I would have a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million to minimise losses to the LDs in the wealthy South and Home Counties in the Eastern region
We may now be at (or long past) the point where your policy announcements make any difference.
You’re not going to win. So try the invested bribe route to shore up blue wall conservatives and they’re going to ignore you. Ravings of a madman and all that.
If you or your parents live in a 1-£2 million+ house in Surrey, Oxfordshire, Tunbridge Wells or Sevenoaks, Epping Forest, Uttlesford or Brentwood and Ongar, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, West Sussex, Hampshire or West London, Finchley or Bromley you certainly won't ignore a massive windfall that could come your way, even if possibly leaning LD or Starmer Labour it would probably keep you voting Tory. Most families with assets over the £325k IHT threshold would also welcome the fact that rises to £2 million even beyond Osborne's exemption for the family home for married couples up to £1 million.
It would likely be enough to get the Tories closer to 30% than 20-25% at least
Well I exceed that asset level multiple times and neither of my children would dream of voting Conservative. I don't think inheritance crosses their mind and hopefully it will be several decades before it becomes relevant and I'm doing my best to spend it.
Yes but you are ideological Liberals. Most voters aren't.
The biggest single poll bounce for the Tories this century came after Osborne's IHT cut proposal at the 2007 Tory conference
Comments
Everyone says "Aidan O'Brien, genius".
No-one says "Aidan O'Brien, how shit must he be to have lost the Guineas with that horse".
These stunts show he is only in it for attention. And it doesn't paint him in a positive light.
I used to know what the LDs stood for. But now? Not a clue.
They are ruining Oxfordshire and with people like Moran in senior positions, they are just seen locally as opportunistic bandwagon jumpers.
They are not putting forward a positive agenda. They don't deserve to succeed.
That strikes me as a powerful criticism of the Guardian, the BBC, and their ideological allies.
And, the feeling that American leaders, especially Republicans, are rarely treated fairly by foreign media is one of the many, many reasons for the rise of Trump.
Personally, I try not to be, but then I'm a Left-Liberal; my opponent is as honourable as I am and may, just possibly, be right.
Also, I've seen quite a few posts from the sharper posters indicating they're punting on Con <150.
In 2017, the LDs won just 6.5% of the Scottish vote. And they won 4 seats, which - if my maths are right - is about 7%.
So it is entirely possible for a party's vote to become extremely efficiently distributed.
I also suspect that the LDs will do slightly better than 9% in the polls, for two reasons: (1) turnout is not going to be as high as people expect, and (2) they LDs will get some tactical votes on the day. Lower turnout is a benefit to the LDs, and is simply a function of education levels: LD voters tend to be better educated; and turnout for better educated groups is much more likely to match certainty to vote than for other demographics.
I also suspect that - as has happened in I think every election bar one since 1979 - that the LDs will gain some share during the campaign. I don't think it'll be a massive increase, but they are getting headlines and they are getting leaflets out, and they are reminding people they exist. This is like a reverse of 2019: then the LDs were flying high on Brexit confusion, and then people were reminded that it was a Corbyn/Johnson choice. This time, everyone has forgotten the LDs exist, and Starmer simply doesn't look that threatening to centrists.
In 2019, I forecast 12-14% and 12 to 14 seats. I was in the range for votes, but slightly high on seats.
This time, I would forecast a similar vote share, but 25-30 seats. Simply: if the Conservative vote halves, and (outside Scotland and Sheffield Hallam) the LDs are only ever in competition with the Conservatives, then it would be staggering if they did not pick up a reasonable number of seats.
If he hadn't attacked Iraq, it's highly likely he would have gone down as a successful President. But he did invade Iraq. And he (and the Federal Reserve) also allowed the housing market and mortgage markets to get enormously overlevered.
I want to see some opinion polls with fieldwork done post week 1. After Leaders first trips round the country, and Starmer's totally unnecessary contortions over Diane Abbott. I don't think the treatment of the candidate for Chingford does Labour any favours either. To be even-handed, Rishi's doing his best to lose as well. Why does he always have his back to the camera?
I hope they'll get a bit more serious now that that view has been established for voters, and I expect to see a little lift in their polling soon.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1906115/london-protests-gaza-palestine-israel-tommy-robinson
Is there a well designed site that would be good for a beginner?
Some sort of UK embraces the EU is possible and potentially popular, but only in the UK. Any plausible reintroduction represents a complete impossibility politically here in the UK.
This is (in my view) the current natural state - there's no need to be alarmed. We had a bit of a foreign dalliance and whilst it was fun, it's over.
Are there to be debates with more than just Sunak and Starmer in them?
Without that, I think third parties will struggle more.
(It's turning a little into 2017, when between them Lab+Con was nearly 83% of the vote).
And I'm beginning to seriously wonder about how long it it'll be before, with a hat-tip to Sir Terry Pratchett, the Bony One leads me across the Black Sands.
https://x.com/channel4news/status/1796938270019899817?s=61
But yes rejoin and engage, and dislocate the ghastly Benelux cabal.
Luckily I think their numbers are too small to pull off anything even remotely as dangerous as the Jan 6th business.
Tommy Robinson and his band of aging casuals on the other.
The coppers should just stand aside and leave them to it.
So far, looking pretty good for LDs (but I don't want to curse it). Plenty of orange diamonds up already, which helps on the visibility front and the tactical vote push.
Chatted to a couple of Green activists out who were leafletting. Neither they nor we have seen Labour since the start of the campaign. Possibly they're focused very specifically elsewhere.
Tories have been out, but were apparently caught on the hop by the election announcement - their canvassers were apologising to some householders for not having any leaflets or similar material because "they'd been caught by surprise."
(You couldn't make it up. We managed two leaflets before the campaign proper started on Thursday, and the Greens have got one out in a few wards, but the Tories - nothing).
They are very keen to take your money so standard and useability of websites is generally high.
South Africa 2024 General Election
for National Assembly with 96.6% reporting
African National Congress 6,316,004 40.3%
Democratic Alliance 3,387,731 21.6%
uMkhonto weSizwe 2,304,768 14.7%
Economic Freedom Fighters 1,483,851 9.5%
Inkatha Freedom Party 610,821 3.9%
Patriotic Alliance 318,689 2.0%
Freedom Front Plus[c] 212,656 1.4%
ActionSA 182,112 1.2%
44 other parties combined 855,000 5.5%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_African_general_election
This is a less severe wipeout than the MRP are predicting by quite some margin. I reckon the Lab 350-400 seat band is a reasonable punt too.
"When Vladimir Putin was about to meet with Queen Elizabeth II in 2003, the Home Secretary's dog barked loudly
The Queen quipped: 'Dogs have interesting instincts, don’t they?""
https://x.com/SamRamani2/status/1567937410314510337
(If so, politically it'd be awful. Starmer's left would immediately undermine him, and us!)
https://x.com/josiahmortimer/status/1796840570012242391?s=61
South Cambridgeshire council (borders not coincident with the constituency) is very strongly Lib Dem (25 majority).
The constituency has been considerably redrawn for this general election, and am I now in the new St Neots and mid Cambridgeshire constituency.
Interestingly, Anthony Browne is standing in this general election, but not in his old seat of South Cambridgeshire, but in the new seat of St Neots and mid Cambridgeshire.
I still expect him to lose, and the Lib Dems to gain St Neots and mid Cambridgeshire. Because of the way the constituencies have been split, I have no idea who will win South Cambridgeshire...
In the end they will probably get about 30-40 seats and of course in 2019 most Labour voters in LD target seats already tactically voted LD while LD voters didn't tactically vote Labour in Labour target seats because of Corbyn but likely will vote Labour now Starmer has replaced him.
If I was Rishi I would have a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million to minimise losses to the LDs in the wealthy South and Home Counties in the Eastern region
I said in last night's thread that if you take people like Bart (the libertarian right) and Leon (the anti immigration voter), the Conservatives have lost both of them, they're both hopping mad about this lot. And they lost the moderate Cameroon types like TSE long ago. So who is left? Single issue voters like Casino.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the polls are right and this will be an epoch defining wipeout for the Conservatives. Even natural conservatives are saying "kick 'em out so they can have a good long think about what they want to be while in opposition". I have bet accordingly...
1. It isn’t party policy. We have a 4 point plan to fix relations with Europe, and rejoin isn’t one of them
https://www.libdems.org.uk/conference/motions/spring-2022/f13
2. You remember how 2019 went?
Someone posted they have no idea what we stand for? Our Fair Deal sets out 5 policy streams:
A vibrant economy
Fair access to public services and a strong social safety net
An environment protected
Restore our place in the international order
Rebuild trust in politics, fair voting system, empower communities to make local decisions
https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan
It helps when looking at losing bets to avoid repeating mistakes. It is too easy to concentrate on the winners and skip over the losses. Indeed bookies are very keen for you to do so.
First exit polls predict 367 seats for the BJP led NDA bloc and 143 seats for the INDIA bloc led by the opposition Congress
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgllg541xmxo
You’re not going to win. So try the invested bribe route to shore up blue wall conservatives and they’re going to ignore you. Ravings of a madman and all that.
EFF are pretty hard-core, but both them and MK split from ANC for reasons.
ANC and MK IMO.
It would likely be enough to get the Tories closer to 30% than 20-25% at least
Now there was a *serious* player...
Reform and their ilk have realised that support collapses if they go anywhere near that pile of shite.
Despite the ludicrous fears of some, the British public are proven to be very resistant to nutters.
Consider Rotherham. The tailor made race war spark. Comically, as it became clear that it was going to come out, some in social services were demanding plans for martial law and the army to be called in. The actual result - crickets pretty much. Not a pogrom.
They forecast St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire as a tight Conservative hold 29-28-24. To be honest, a lot of the Economist numbers look really implausible.
Only problem is they are jinxed for me. Everything I bet there is a loser.
None of her enthusiasm for politics seems to have been dimmed. Her book, damned by many Westminster insiders, became a surprise bestseller. Moreover, there is still a large number of Conservative members who think she was done over by the political establishment – a British Trump, in other words – and never forgave it for imposing Sunak on them instead. How to seek revenge? By electing her leader a second time. Were they to be reduced to under 100 seats, no one would expect the Tories to be back after one term out of office, so Conservative members would not be picking a PM. Why not, then, go for the candidate who would be sure to make the greatest noise?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/might-liz-truss-run-for-tory-leader-again/
I am walking down a sunlit valley. Donkey carts pass. The limestone cliffs are filled with caves that date back to Dacian times. The river has Neolithic remains. There is a Tatar caravanserai. I can hear a cuckoo. The polenta is good and I hate polenta. Everyone makes their own cheese and wine. The girls are pretty and they do pagan dances in the gardens which are full of wildflowers
The roads are shit. The men are drunk but happy. Old men dig beets in the soft warmth barechested. Putin might invade. I just saw someone fall of a bicycle. Children laugh as granny has another apricot vodka. There is a hideous commie concrete bridge going nowhere but beneath it the river flows as it has flowed for ten billions years and a beautiful girl sings a song to a turnip
Sticks in the craw, not going to happen, won’t change the dial.
You’d be better off sticking to the dont let Labour smash our economic recovery line.”
Also nobody expects the Tories to win so there will be no “windfall” for anyone. It’s an empty promise.
The biggest single poll bounce for the Tories this century came after Osborne's IHT cut proposal at the 2007 Tory conference