I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
Oh, this nonsense reminds me that I never got around to telling you to fuck off for calling for people to be drowned.
So, er, fuck off.
There, glad I got that off my chest.
Charming. Especially, given that I did no such thing.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
That's a nasty little conspiracy theory to try to deny that the country was genuinely split almost down the middle over the issue, by suggesting that actually Remain was much further behind. It's trying to make Remain voters unpeople who don't exist.
You should pay things like that no heed at all.
Yebbut - it expalins the higher turnout than in general elections....
It seems not wholly unlikely. The EU was seen by those in charge (the USA) as integral to US/UK/EU relationships going forward. We were the US's man inside the EU, ensuring they stayed US-aligned. Remember 'back of the queue.' Every trick in the book was always going to be deployed to get Remain over the line.
"For a lot of the current Tories ethics is a county in the East of England where a lot of the young ladies look like wotsits. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it."
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yay, somebody spotted my subtle homophone/joke.
I spotted it too.
40 years ago.
I first heard it 47 years ago (I can date it because I know which boring school master I heard it from. I strongly doubt it was original to him.)
Nothing clever or funny about homophonia, any more than there is about these radical bus people. It's just pure tramsphobia.
Been resisting bringing this up, but I'm going to. Others may remember/know differently, but I'm sure OGH said he had sight of the 2010 Exit Poll at around 21:30 when he was at the BBC about to be interviewed by 5Live or something, but he said he wasn't in a position to do anything with it (I guess pre-smart phone). Perhaps he wouldn't have done anything, but if I remember rightly, he said it with frustration that he couldn't take advantage. I may be wrong.
I only remember this story because I was shocked that the Exit Poll isn't top secret. Perhaps things are different these days with smart phones making betting on this sort of information being much easier.
No, Mike's problem was he couldn't bet on his phone, he'd have to wait until he got in front of his laptop back home in Bedford, which would be around 11.30 pm which left him at a disadvantage.
Average 3G speeds then were about 300 Kbps.
On the spreads IIRC the Lib Dems were around 85 seats and the exit poll showed them going from 62 MPs to 57 MPs and as a buyer of the Lib Dems he couldn't close out his position.
Thanks, so I am right that he would have taken advantage if he could. The exit poll is far more important than any opinion poll you might have early sight of.
No, he would have waited until 10pm like everybody else.
His frustration was that by going to the BBC studios he was left in a worse position than the average punter at 10pm.
No, sorry, that's bollocks. You don't get to see such information and then wait until 10pm like everyone else.
Sporting would cancel Mike's account (and anybody else's account) if they suspect they had early sight of the exit poll.
Plus it is likely to meet the threshold for insider dealing unlike a bet with Ladbrokes of William Hill.
Spread bets are considered trading and regulated as such, as you know.
Been resisting bringing this up, but I'm going to. Others may remember/know differently, but I'm sure OGH said he had sight of the 2010 Exit Poll at around 21:30 when he was at the BBC about to be interviewed by 5Live or something, but he said he wasn't in a position to do anything with it (I guess pre-smart phone). Perhaps he wouldn't have done anything, but if I remember rightly, he said it with frustration that he couldn't take advantage. I may be wrong.
I only remember this story because I was shocked that the Exit Poll isn't top secret. Perhaps things are different these days with smart phones making betting on this sort of information being much easier.
No, Mike's problem was he couldn't bet on his phone, he'd have to wait until he got in front of his laptop back home in Bedford, which would be around 11.30 pm which left him at a disadvantage.
Average 3G speeds then were about 300 Kbps.
On the spreads IIRC the Lib Dems were around 85 seats and the exit poll showed them going from 62 MPs to 57 MPs and as a buyer of the Lib Dems he couldn't close out his position.
Thanks, so I am right that he would have taken advantage if he could. The exit poll is far more important than any opinion poll you might have early sight of.
No, he would have waited until 10pm like everybody else.
His frustration was that by going to the BBC studios he was left in a worse position than the average punter at 10pm.
No, sorry, that's bollocks. You don't get to see such information and then wait until 10pm like everyone else.
Sporting would cancel Mike's account (and anybody else's account) if they suspect they had early sight of the exit poll.
Plus it is likely to meet the threshold for insider dealing unlike a bet with Ladbrokes of William Hill.
Spread bets are considered trading and regulated as such, as you know.
What's the difference between a 150 seat and a 300 seat majority. Other things being equal, which of course they aren't, probably around 2 five year terms, i.e. 10 years.
It doesn't matter to Labour, but it matters an awful lot to the Conservatives.
A 150 majority, a bit less bad than 1997, should be recoverable in time.
A majority of 300 puts the Conservatives comfortably below 100 MPs. If that happens, irrelevance beckons.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
Oh, this nonsense reminds me that I never got around to telling you to fuck off for calling for people to be drowned.
So, er, fuck off.
There, glad I got that off my chest.
Charming. Especially, given that I did no such thing.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
That's a nasty little conspiracy theory to try to deny that the country was genuinely split almost down the middle over the issue, by suggesting that actually Remain was much further behind. It's trying to make Remain voters unpeople who don't exist.
You should pay things like that no heed at all.
It also implies that our spooks aren't able to fiddle a vote effectively.
Quite. Let's hope they've upped their game for next month
Been resisting bringing this up, but I'm going to. Others may remember/know differently, but I'm sure OGH said he had sight of the 2010 Exit Poll at around 21:30 when he was at the BBC about to be interviewed by 5Live or something, but he said he wasn't in a position to do anything with it (I guess pre-smart phone). Perhaps he wouldn't have done anything, but if I remember rightly, he said it with frustration that he couldn't take advantage. I may be wrong.
I only remember this story because I was shocked that the Exit Poll isn't top secret. Perhaps things are different these days with smart phones making betting on this sort of information being much easier.
No, Mike's problem was he couldn't bet on his phone, he'd have to wait until he got in front of his laptop back home in Bedford, which would be around 11.30 pm which left him at a disadvantage.
Average 3G speeds then were about 300 Kbps.
On the spreads IIRC the Lib Dems were around 85 seats and the exit poll showed them going from 62 MPs to 57 MPs and as a buyer of the Lib Dems he couldn't close out his position.
Thanks, so I am right that he would have taken advantage if he could. The exit poll is far more important than any opinion poll you might have early sight of.
No, he would have waited until 10pm like everybody else.
His frustration was that by going to the BBC studios he was left in a worse position than the average punter at 10pm.
No, sorry, that's bollocks. You don't get to see such information and then wait until 10pm like everyone else.
Sporting would cancel Mike's account (and anybody else's account) if they suspect they had early sight of the exit poll.
Plus it is likely to meet the threshold for insider dealing unlike a bet with Ladbrokes of William Hill.
Hang on, sorry, I must have misunderstood your first post. Are you saying Mike didn't see the 2010 exit poll? I must have imagined him saying he did, if so.
There are cartoonists, and then there’s Matt Pritchett.
He gets paid more than the editor, and you can see why.
And the only bit of the DT worth looking at is free on Twitter. Amazing.
Edit: I see this has already been said. Perhaps it's worth saying twice. And telling all your friends. Presumably Matt cares about people being able to see his stuff, even if it's free. That's a real artist.
There are cartoonists, and then there’s Matt Pritchett.
He gets paid more than the editor, and you can see why.
What I don't get is that his cartoons appear to be free to view by everyone, on a website that isn't the Telegraph.
Why do they not more closely guard their best asset?
Because Matt wrote his own contract?
Pretty much. Nice work if you can get it.
I wrote my updated contract of employment.
Although it was slightly modified.
I am specifically enjoined from using more than one language, other than English, in reports I write.
Funny you say that. I just got asked to write a JD for my own job today, as the last time this role’s JD had been updated was 2007. I’m the senior IT guy, it’s not a difficult JD for the HR to write herself.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
That's a nasty little conspiracy theory to try to deny that the country was genuinely split almost down the middle over the issue, by suggesting that actually Remain was much further behind. It's trying to make Remain voters unpeople who don't exist.
You should pay things like that no heed at all.
Yebbut - it expalins the higher turnout than in general elections....
There's a wealth of polling evidence that people who don't normally vote in general elections turned out to vote in the Brexit referendum (and disproportionately voted Leave, if I remember correctly).
A moments consideration of how postal votes work should be enough for anyone with half a brain cell to conclude it's cobblers. We had OKC just telling us that his postal vote in the local elections was rejected because his signature had changed since he'd registered to vote by post. There's no practical easy to add large numbers of postal votes. It simply isn't possible.
The British government can't even set a date for the general election without people using their inside knowledge to bet on the outcome. But we're asked to believe there was a huge conspiracy to add remain postal votes, and only a few anonymous postal workers found out about it?
Been resisting bringing this up, but I'm going to. Others may remember/know differently, but I'm sure OGH said he had sight of the 2010 Exit Poll at around 21:30 when he was at the BBC about to be interviewed by 5Live or something, but he said he wasn't in a position to do anything with it (I guess pre-smart phone). Perhaps he wouldn't have done anything, but if I remember rightly, he said it with frustration that he couldn't take advantage. I may be wrong.
I only remember this story because I was shocked that the Exit Poll isn't top secret. Perhaps things are different these days with smart phones making betting on this sort of information being much easier.
No, Mike's problem was he couldn't bet on his phone, he'd have to wait until he got in front of his laptop back home in Bedford, which would be around 11.30 pm which left him at a disadvantage.
Average 3G speeds then were about 300 Kbps.
On the spreads IIRC the Lib Dems were around 85 seats and the exit poll showed them going from 62 MPs to 57 MPs and as a buyer of the Lib Dems he couldn't close out his position.
Thanks, so I am right that he would have taken advantage if he could. The exit poll is far more important than any opinion poll you might have early sight of.
No, he would have waited until 10pm like everybody else.
His frustration was that by going to the BBC studios he was left in a worse position than the average punter at 10pm.
No, sorry, that's bollocks. You don't get to see such information and then wait until 10pm like everyone else.
Sporting would cancel Mike's account (and anybody else's account) if they suspect they had early sight of the exit poll.
Plus it is likely to meet the threshold for insider dealing unlike a bet with Ladbrokes of William Hill.
Hang on, sorry, I must have misunderstood your first post. Are you saying Mike didn't see the 2010 exit poll? I must have imagined him saying he did, if so.
He did see the exit poll.
His frustration was that when it became public at 10pm it would move the market he wouldn't be able to bet until later on that night because he was in the BBC studios.
I'd clarify, Sporting would have cancelled Mike's account if they suspected Mike had bet due to early access to the exit poll.
RIP Donald Sutherland. He was my favourite Blofeld in ‘You Only Live Twice’ and, more recently, knocked it out of the park as Jack Bauer in ‘24’. An exceptionally long and versatile career.
His drama about Scottish law in the 1970's was also impressive, and his method acting as a Westminster constituency from 1801–1918 had to be seen to be believed.
More precisely a Norwegian colony. Despite being in the far north Sutherland is nevertheless south of Orkney.
Don't Look Now is the most Donald Sutherland film in my opinion.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
That's a nasty little conspiracy theory to try to deny that the country was genuinely split almost down the middle over the issue, by suggesting that actually Remain was much further behind. It's trying to make Remain voters unpeople who don't exist.
You should pay things like that no heed at all.
It also implies that our spooks aren't able to fiddle a vote effectively.
Typical public services rotten to the core innit.
Apparently, in places where such practices are indulged in (typically in nationwide direct presidential elections), it is a delicate game. Add too many in and you risk making it too obvious and risk getting caught, so while you can tip over a close result, you can't reverse a bigger gap.
One advantage of having 650 constituencies is that it makes such activities very difficult if not impossible. As does having the votes counted in 650 different places immediately.
And before anyone thinks I'm going all Maga, the fact that each state votes for representatives in an electoral college and it is not a direct election also provides this protection (as well as stopping California effectively making the decision for everyone).
Been resisting bringing this up, but I'm going to. Others may remember/know differently, but I'm sure OGH said he had sight of the 2010 Exit Poll at around 21:30 when he was at the BBC about to be interviewed by 5Live or something, but he said he wasn't in a position to do anything with it (I guess pre-smart phone). Perhaps he wouldn't have done anything, but if I remember rightly, he said it with frustration that he couldn't take advantage. I may be wrong.
I only remember this story because I was shocked that the Exit Poll isn't top secret. Perhaps things are different these days with smart phones making betting on this sort of information being much easier.
No, Mike's problem was he couldn't bet on his phone, he'd have to wait until he got in front of his laptop back home in Bedford, which would be around 11.30 pm which left him at a disadvantage.
Average 3G speeds then were about 300 Kbps.
On the spreads IIRC the Lib Dems were around 85 seats and the exit poll showed them going from 62 MPs to 57 MPs and as a buyer of the Lib Dems he couldn't close out his position.
Thanks, so I am right that he would have taken advantage if he could. The exit poll is far more important than any opinion poll you might have early sight of.
No, he would have waited until 10pm like everybody else.
His frustration was that by going to the BBC studios he was left in a worse position than the average punter at 10pm.
No, sorry, that's bollocks. You don't get to see such information and then wait until 10pm like everyone else.
Sporting would cancel Mike's account (and anybody else's account) if they suspect they had early sight of the exit poll.
Plus it is likely to meet the threshold for insider dealing unlike a bet with Ladbrokes of William Hill.
Hang on, sorry, I must have misunderstood your first post. Are you saying Mike didn't see the 2010 exit poll? I must have imagined him saying he did, if so.
He did see the exit poll.
His frustration was that when it became public at 10pm it would move the market he wouldn't be able to bet until later on that night because he was in the BBC studios.
I'd clarify, Sporting would have cancelled Mike's account if they suspected Mike had bet due to early access to the exit poll.
OGH intended to close his position at 10pm on the dot, but was stuck in the studio with no means to do so.
There are cartoonists, and then there’s Matt Pritchett.
He gets paid more than the editor, and you can see why.
And the only bit of the DT worth looking at is free on Twitter. Amazing.
Edit: I see this has already been said. Perhaps it's worth saying twice. And telling all your friends. Presumably Matt cares about people being able to see his stuff, even if it's free. That's a real artist.
The only bit of the Spectator of interest is on the front cover!
Been resisting bringing this up, but I'm going to. Others may remember/know differently, but I'm sure OGH said he had sight of the 2010 Exit Poll at around 21:30 when he was at the BBC about to be interviewed by 5Live or something, but he said he wasn't in a position to do anything with it (I guess pre-smart phone). Perhaps he wouldn't have done anything, but if I remember rightly, he said it with frustration that he couldn't take advantage. I may be wrong.
I only remember this story because I was shocked that the Exit Poll isn't top secret. Perhaps things are different these days with smart phones making betting on this sort of information being much easier.
No, Mike's problem was he couldn't bet on his phone, he'd have to wait until he got in front of his laptop back home in Bedford, which would be around 11.30 pm which left him at a disadvantage.
Average 3G speeds then were about 300 Kbps.
On the spreads IIRC the Lib Dems were around 85 seats and the exit poll showed them going from 62 MPs to 57 MPs and as a buyer of the Lib Dems he couldn't close out his position.
Thanks, so I am right that he would have taken advantage if he could. The exit poll is far more important than any opinion poll you might have early sight of.
No, he would have waited until 10pm like everybody else.
His frustration was that by going to the BBC studios he was left in a worse position than the average punter at 10pm.
No, sorry, that's bollocks. You don't get to see such information and then wait until 10pm like everyone else.
Sporting would cancel Mike's account (and anybody else's account) if they suspect they had early sight of the exit poll.
Plus it is likely to meet the threshold for insider dealing unlike a bet with Ladbrokes of William Hill.
Hang on, sorry, I must have misunderstood your first post. Are you saying Mike didn't see the 2010 exit poll? I must have imagined him saying he did, if so.
He did see the exit poll.
His frustration was that when it became public at 10pm it would move the market he wouldn't be able to bet until later on that night because he was in the BBC studios.
I'd clarify, Sporting would have cancelled Mike's account if they suspected Mike had bet due to early access to the exit poll.
Right, my point was that being ready to bet at 10pm is cheating. I've never played the SPIN markets so I don't know how quickly they move, but I guess that they move pretty quickly after the exit poll (assuming they are not suspended). So either Mike would have had everything ready to go at 10pm on the dot - like I say, cheating - or he wouldn't have been able to do much about his position anyway.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
That's a nasty little conspiracy theory to try to deny that the country was genuinely split almost down the middle over the issue, by suggesting that actually Remain was much further behind. It's trying to make Remain voters unpeople who don't exist.
You should pay things like that no heed at all.
Yebbut - it expalins the higher turnout than in general elections....
It seems not wholly unlikely. The EU was seen by those in charge (the USA) as integral to US/UK/EU relationships going forward. We were the US's man inside the EU, ensuring they stayed US-aligned. Remember 'back of the queue.' Every trick in the book was always going to be deployed to get Remain over the line.
Not surprised that you would believe such a steaming pile of horseshit. You're essentially denying my existence and my vote.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
Oh, this nonsense reminds me that I never got around to telling you to fuck off for calling for people to be drowned.
So, er, fuck off.
There, glad I got that off my chest.
Charming. Especially, given that I did no such thing.
I got that wrong, and I apologise.
Your conspiracy theory is still nonsense.
Thanks.
In the cold light of day I could have worded it better but appreciate your comment.
Yes it probably is nonsense but amusing nonetheless to think of the security services trying to be James Bond and ending up being Basildon Bond.
Been resisting bringing this up, but I'm going to. Others may remember/know differently, but I'm sure OGH said he had sight of the 2010 Exit Poll at around 21:30 when he was at the BBC about to be interviewed by 5Live or something, but he said he wasn't in a position to do anything with it (I guess pre-smart phone). Perhaps he wouldn't have done anything, but if I remember rightly, he said it with frustration that he couldn't take advantage. I may be wrong.
I only remember this story because I was shocked that the Exit Poll isn't top secret. Perhaps things are different these days with smart phones making betting on this sort of information being much easier.
No, Mike's problem was he couldn't bet on his phone, he'd have to wait until he got in front of his laptop back home in Bedford, which would be around 11.30 pm which left him at a disadvantage.
Average 3G speeds then were about 300 Kbps.
On the spreads IIRC the Lib Dems were around 85 seats and the exit poll showed them going from 62 MPs to 57 MPs and as a buyer of the Lib Dems he couldn't close out his position.
Thanks, so I am right that he would have taken advantage if he could. The exit poll is far more important than any opinion poll you might have early sight of.
No, he would have waited until 10pm like everybody else.
His frustration was that by going to the BBC studios he was left in a worse position than the average punter at 10pm.
No, sorry, that's bollocks. You don't get to see such information and then wait until 10pm like everyone else.
Sporting would cancel Mike's account (and anybody else's account) if they suspect they had early sight of the exit poll.
Plus it is likely to meet the threshold for insider dealing unlike a bet with Ladbrokes of William Hill.
Hang on, sorry, I must have misunderstood your first post. Are you saying Mike didn't see the 2010 exit poll? I must have imagined him saying he did, if so.
He did see the exit poll.
His frustration was that when it became public at 10pm it would move the market he wouldn't be able to bet until later on that night because he was in the BBC studios.
I'd clarify, Sporting would have cancelled Mike's account if they suspected Mike had bet due to early access to the exit poll.
Right, my point was that being ready to bet at 10pm is cheating. I've never played the SPIN markets so I don't know how quickly they move, but I guess that they move pretty quickly after the exit poll (assuming they are not suspended). So either Mike would have had everything ready to go at 10pm on the dot - like I say, cheating - or he wouldn't have been able to do much about his position anyway.
It wasn’t unknown at the time, for the spreads to be suspended five minutes before the exit poll, and repriced five minutes later. They can take down any market at any time at the own discretion, as it’s legally trading rather than betting.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
Oh, this nonsense reminds me that I never got around to telling you to fuck off for calling for people to be drowned.
So, er, fuck off.
There, glad I got that off my chest.
Charming. Especially, given that I did no such thing.
I got that wrong, and I apologise.
Your conspiracy theory is still nonsense.
Thanks.
In the cold light of day I could have worded it better but appreciate your comment.
Yes it probably is nonsense but amusing nonetheless to think of the security services trying to be James Bond and ending up being Basildon Bond.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
That's a nasty little conspiracy theory to try to deny that the country was genuinely split almost down the middle over the issue, by suggesting that actually Remain was much further behind. It's trying to make Remain voters unpeople who don't exist.
You should pay things like that no heed at all.
Yebbut - it expalins the higher turnout than in general elections....
It seems not wholly unlikely. The EU was seen by those in charge (the USA) as integral to US/UK/EU relationships going forward. We were the US's man inside the EU, ensuring they stayed US-aligned. Remember 'back of the queue.' Every trick in the book was always going to be deployed to get Remain over the line.
Not surprised that you would believe such a steaming pile of horseshit. You're essentially denying my existence and my vote.
Like most conspiracy theories this one is based entirely on inuendo and misdirection.
The vote was fair. One side won and the other lost. The sadness is that neither side understood or cared what a close result actually meant and how it should have informed their decision making going forward.
Keir Starmer has been under pressure tonight. The audience questions and Fiona Bruce's probing has illustrated the lack of detail in some Labour policies and his tendency to change his views. That said his response on politics of service is good.
Been resisting bringing this up, but I'm going to. Others may remember/know differently, but I'm sure OGH said he had sight of the 2010 Exit Poll at around 21:30 when he was at the BBC about to be interviewed by 5Live or something, but he said he wasn't in a position to do anything with it (I guess pre-smart phone). Perhaps he wouldn't have done anything, but if I remember rightly, he said it with frustration that he couldn't take advantage. I may be wrong.
I only remember this story because I was shocked that the Exit Poll isn't top secret. Perhaps things are different these days with smart phones making betting on this sort of information being much easier.
No, Mike's problem was he couldn't bet on his phone, he'd have to wait until he got in front of his laptop back home in Bedford, which would be around 11.30 pm which left him at a disadvantage.
Average 3G speeds then were about 300 Kbps.
On the spreads IIRC the Lib Dems were around 85 seats and the exit poll showed them going from 62 MPs to 57 MPs and as a buyer of the Lib Dems he couldn't close out his position.
Thanks, so I am right that he would have taken advantage if he could. The exit poll is far more important than any opinion poll you might have early sight of.
No, he would have waited until 10pm like everybody else.
His frustration was that by going to the BBC studios he was left in a worse position than the average punter at 10pm.
No, sorry, that's bollocks. You don't get to see such information and then wait until 10pm like everyone else.
Sporting would cancel Mike's account (and anybody else's account) if they suspect they had early sight of the exit poll.
Plus it is likely to meet the threshold for insider dealing unlike a bet with Ladbrokes of William Hill.
Hang on, sorry, I must have misunderstood your first post. Are you saying Mike didn't see the 2010 exit poll? I must have imagined him saying he did, if so.
He did see the exit poll.
His frustration was that when it became public at 10pm it would move the market he wouldn't be able to bet until later on that night because he was in the BBC studios.
I'd clarify, Sporting would have cancelled Mike's account if they suspected Mike had bet due to early access to the exit poll.
Right, my point was that being ready to bet at 10pm is cheating. I've never played the SPIN markets so I don't know how quickly they move, but I guess that they move pretty quickly after the exit poll (assuming they are not suspended). So either Mike would have had everything ready to go at 10pm on the dot - like I say, cheating - or he wouldn't have been able to do much about his position anyway.
It wasn’t unknown at the time, for the spreads to be suspended five minutes before the exit poll, and repriced five minutes later. They can take down any market at any time at the own discretion, as it’s legally trading rather than betting.
In which case - and again, I stress, I might be misremembering what Mike said - seeing the Exit Poll was of no significance from a betting perspective. But I swear Mike made it sound like it was.
Been resisting bringing this up, but I'm going to. Others may remember/know differently, but I'm sure OGH said he had sight of the 2010 Exit Poll at around 21:30 when he was at the BBC about to be interviewed by 5Live or something, but he said he wasn't in a position to do anything with it (I guess pre-smart phone). Perhaps he wouldn't have done anything, but if I remember rightly, he said it with frustration that he couldn't take advantage. I may be wrong.
I only remember this story because I was shocked that the Exit Poll isn't top secret. Perhaps things are different these days with smart phones making betting on this sort of information being much easier.
No, Mike's problem was he couldn't bet on his phone, he'd have to wait until he got in front of his laptop back home in Bedford, which would be around 11.30 pm which left him at a disadvantage.
Average 3G speeds then were about 300 Kbps.
On the spreads IIRC the Lib Dems were around 85 seats and the exit poll showed them going from 62 MPs to 57 MPs and as a buyer of the Lib Dems he couldn't close out his position.
Thanks, so I am right that he would have taken advantage if he could. The exit poll is far more important than any opinion poll you might have early sight of.
No, he would have waited until 10pm like everybody else.
His frustration was that by going to the BBC studios he was left in a worse position than the average punter at 10pm.
No, sorry, that's bollocks. You don't get to see such information and then wait until 10pm like everyone else.
Sporting would cancel Mike's account (and anybody else's account) if they suspect they had early sight of the exit poll.
Plus it is likely to meet the threshold for insider dealing unlike a bet with Ladbrokes of William Hill.
Hang on, sorry, I must have misunderstood your first post. Are you saying Mike didn't see the 2010 exit poll? I must have imagined him saying he did, if so.
He did see the exit poll.
His frustration was that when it became public at 10pm it would move the market he wouldn't be able to bet until later on that night because he was in the BBC studios.
I'd clarify, Sporting would have cancelled Mike's account if they suspected Mike had bet due to early access to the exit poll.
Right, my point was that being ready to bet at 10pm is cheating. I've never played the SPIN markets so I don't know how quickly they move, but I guess that they move pretty quickly after the exit poll (assuming they are not suspended). So either Mike would have had everything ready to go at 10pm on the dot - like I say, cheating - or he wouldn't have been able to do much about his position anyway.
No, let me clarify.
Mike's financial position would have been better if he had stayed at home.
If he had stayed at home and with no sight of the exit poll at 10pm the markets would have reacted (both on the spreads and Betfair) he would have been able to update his betting positions.
By being in the BBC studio he wasn't able to react like everybody else could at 10pm, even if he hadn't seen the exit poll.
It's why at subsequent elections when he had media duties, he did them from home, via the internet so he could bet freely.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
Oh, this nonsense reminds me that I never got around to telling you to fuck off for calling for people to be drowned.
So, er, fuck off.
There, glad I got that off my chest.
Charming. Especially, given that I did no such thing.
I got that wrong, and I apologise.
Your conspiracy theory is still nonsense.
Thanks.
In the cold light of day I could have worded it better but appreciate your comment.
Yes it probably is nonsense but amusing nonetheless to think of the security services trying to be James Bond and ending up being Basildon Bond.
Trying to be an incompetent, misogynistic drunk, whose methods of “investigating” is basically put a brick through a window and who hasn’t noticed that he ends up in hospital at the end of every book?
Vs a popular brand of notepaper that actually works?
Been resisting bringing this up, but I'm going to. Others may remember/know differently, but I'm sure OGH said he had sight of the 2010 Exit Poll at around 21:30 when he was at the BBC about to be interviewed by 5Live or something, but he said he wasn't in a position to do anything with it (I guess pre-smart phone). Perhaps he wouldn't have done anything, but if I remember rightly, he said it with frustration that he couldn't take advantage. I may be wrong.
I only remember this story because I was shocked that the Exit Poll isn't top secret. Perhaps things are different these days with smart phones making betting on this sort of information being much easier.
No, Mike's problem was he couldn't bet on his phone, he'd have to wait until he got in front of his laptop back home in Bedford, which would be around 11.30 pm which left him at a disadvantage.
Average 3G speeds then were about 300 Kbps.
On the spreads IIRC the Lib Dems were around 85 seats and the exit poll showed them going from 62 MPs to 57 MPs and as a buyer of the Lib Dems he couldn't close out his position.
Thanks, so I am right that he would have taken advantage if he could. The exit poll is far more important than any opinion poll you might have early sight of.
No, he would have waited until 10pm like everybody else.
His frustration was that by going to the BBC studios he was left in a worse position than the average punter at 10pm.
No, sorry, that's bollocks. You don't get to see such information and then wait until 10pm like everyone else.
Sporting would cancel Mike's account (and anybody else's account) if they suspect they had early sight of the exit poll.
Plus it is likely to meet the threshold for insider dealing unlike a bet with Ladbrokes of William Hill.
Hang on, sorry, I must have misunderstood your first post. Are you saying Mike didn't see the 2010 exit poll? I must have imagined him saying he did, if so.
He did see the exit poll.
His frustration was that when it became public at 10pm it would move the market he wouldn't be able to bet until later on that night because he was in the BBC studios.
I'd clarify, Sporting would have cancelled Mike's account if they suspected Mike had bet due to early access to the exit poll.
Right, my point was that being ready to bet at 10pm is cheating. I've never played the SPIN markets so I don't know how quickly they move, but I guess that they move pretty quickly after the exit poll (assuming they are not suspended). So either Mike would have had everything ready to go at 10pm on the dot - like I say, cheating - or he wouldn't have been able to do much about his position anyway.
No, let me clarify.
Mike's financial position would have been better if he had stayed at home.
If he had stayed at home and with no sight of the exit poll at 10pm the markets would have reacted (both on the spreads and Betfair) he would have been able to update his betting positions.
By being in the BBC studio he wasn't able to react like everybody else could at 10pm, even if he hadn't seen the exit poll.
It's why at subsequent elections when he had media duties, he did them from home, via the internet so he could bet freely.
Okay, I may be wrong, but I swear Mike's words were to the effect of "I had sight of the Exit Poll and there was nothing I could do about it."
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
Oh, this nonsense reminds me that I never got around to telling you to fuck off for calling for people to be drowned.
So, er, fuck off.
There, glad I got that off my chest.
Charming. Especially, given that I did no such thing.
I got that wrong, and I apologise.
Your conspiracy theory is still nonsense.
Thanks.
In the cold light of day I could have worded it better but appreciate your comment.
Yes it probably is nonsense but amusing nonetheless to think of the security services trying to be James Bond and ending up being Basildon Bond.
You really need to be careful about going down this conspiracy theory route. We in Scotland have had a couple of years head start after the 2014 referendum when idiotic tales were going round that you should use a pen instead of a pencil because the "security services" will erase your Yes vote and replace it with a No vote. This is the stock in trade of those who want to undermine out democracy by undermining our faith in democracy. For example, Russia. They put these stories about to harm us. The same story about pens went about in 2016 at the EU referendum, and a few of us up here were "aye, right, we've seen this one before". Since then all kinds of crap has been said and amplified. They spread because they're interesting, but before forwarding them you should ask whether you have any evidence and whether spreading a false rumour of this nature can be harmful. If the answers are "no" and "yes", please exercise restraint and keep it to yourself. We, and our democracy, have enemies. Don't do their work for them.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
So Mr TSE what first attracted you to the Mone ennobling, Brexit enabling, Greensill ramping, forehead-polishing, Old Etonian David Cameron?
Austerity?
That too, I am in favour of sound money.
I am in favour of all the good government we can afford.
Greensill was all my joy Greensill was my delight, Greensill was my heart of gold, And who but my lady Greensill?
Either you like posh upper class blaggers living high on the hog off the state, or you don't. I'm not even sure who is more intelligent of DC and KCIII. Make your mind up.
On immigration: "How can you make a plan for the economy when you won't say how many people you want in the country "
How indeed.
I would counter that with "how can businesses invest when they know the labour market is being made inflexible by quotas?" Immigration means more jobs created. It's not obvious, I'll admit, but it's true.
Plus, how much do you actually want the government "planning" the economy? Do we want five year plans? I don't think we do. Let the market do its thing.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
That's a nasty little conspiracy theory to try to deny that the country was genuinely split almost down the middle over the issue, by suggesting that actually Remain was much further behind. It's trying to make Remain voters unpeople who don't exist.
You should pay things like that no heed at all.
Yebbut - it expalins the higher turnout than in general elections....
There's a wealth of polling evidence that people who don't normally vote in general elections turned out to vote in the Brexit referendum (and disproportionately voted Leave, if I remember correctly).
A moments consideration of how postal votes work should be enough for anyone with half a brain cell to conclude it's cobblers. We had OKC just telling us that his postal vote in the local elections was rejected because his signature had changed since he'd registered to vote by post. There's no practical easy to add large numbers of postal votes. It simply isn't possible.
The British government can't even set a date for the general election without people using their inside knowledge to bet on the outcome. But we're asked to believe there was a huge conspiracy to add remain postal votes, and only a few anonymous postal workers found out about it?
Trump has clearly had some effect on our politics after all. If only by example.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
The 2019 result was disproportionate as were many others. It’s a feature of non proportional representation systems. The trick is to disapprove when it favours your side.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
Just like the current government. That's why we need PR.
Today I cancelled my Conservative Party membership. I’ve been with the party for ten years. I stayed with it through Brexit (hugely harmful), Covid, Johnson and Truss. But I cannot in good conscience continue to support it. I hope at some point it will be able to rebuild.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
Any party getting a majority on under 50% of the vote is not legitimate.
On immigration: "How can you make a plan for the economy when you won't say how many people you want in the country "
How indeed.
I would counter that with "how can businesses invest when they know the labour market is being made inflexible by quotas?" Immigration means more jobs created. It's not obvious, I'll admit, but it's true.
Plus, how much do you actually want the government "planning" the economy? Do we want five year plans? I don't think we do. Let the market do its thing.
The businesses should be primarily investing in capital rather than labour.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
The Tories with Johnson had an 80 seat majority and could do what they liked . I’d happily support PR but it’s not going to happen anytime soon sadly .
Today I cancelled my Conservative Party membership. I’ve been with the party for ten years. I stayed with it through Brexit (hugely harmful), Covid, Johnson and Truss. But I cannot in good conscience continue to support it. I hope at some point it will be able to rebuild.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
The 2019 result was disproportionate as were many others. It’s a feature of non proportional representation systems. The trick is to disapprove when it favours your side.
Indeed but on some of the recent polls (share of vote to seats) the distortions go far beyond recent precedents.
On immigration: "How can you make a plan for the economy when you won't say how many people you want in the country "
How indeed.
Who can say how many people they want in the country? It's all a bit Soviet. We must have 67,764,923 people in the country, not one more, not one less. If anyone emigrates we must immediately get another person in. As soon as a baby is born, we must ship a granny off to Dignitas. This obsession with raw numbers is plain dumb.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
That's a nasty little conspiracy theory to try to deny that the country was genuinely split almost down the middle over the issue, by suggesting that actually Remain was much further behind. It's trying to make Remain voters unpeople who don't exist.
You should pay things like that no heed at all.
Yebbut - it expalins the higher turnout than in general elections....
It seems not wholly unlikely. The EU was seen by those in charge (the USA) as integral to US/UK/EU relationships going forward. We were the US's man inside the EU, ensuring they stayed US-aligned. Remember 'back of the queue.' Every trick in the book was always going to be deployed to get Remain over the line.
Not surprised that you would believe such a steaming pile of horseshit. You're essentially denying my existence and my vote.
Like most conspiracy theories this one is based entirely on inuendo and misdirection.
The vote was fair. One side won and the other lost. The sadness is that neither side understood or cared what a close result actually meant and how it should have informed their decision making going forward.
Indeed. But had Remain ever acknowledged the Eurosceptic position at any point in the 1992-2016 period and come to some compromise - like, for example, putting the brakes on at Lisbon - the referendum wouldn't have been necessary. I'm fairly sure there would have been a comfortable majority for membership of the EU as it was circa 2000. But the ratchet of ever closer union made the Leave cause stronger and stronger.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
It will be as legitimate as every British government has ever been, elected on precisely the same basis.
Really sad to see people on the right try to undermine British democracy by pushing these sorts of arguments.
On immigration: "How can you make a plan for the economy when you won't say how many people you want in the country "
How indeed.
Who can say how many people they want in the country? It's all a bit Soviet. We must have 67,764,923 people in the country, not one more, not one less. If anyone emigrates we must immediately get another person in. As soon as a baby is born, we must ship a granny off to Dignitas. This obsession with raw numbers is plain dumb.
You could say that about any macroeconomic target.
On immigration: "How can you make a plan for the economy when you won't say how many people you want in the country "
How indeed.
I would counter that with "how can businesses invest when they know the labour market is being made inflexible by quotas?" Immigration means more jobs created. It's not obvious, I'll admit, but it's true.
Plus, how much do you actually want the government "planning" the economy? Do we want five year plans? I don't think we do. Let the market do its thing.
So no plans is your idea. That's bonkers. I'm not saying there's a right or a wrong number but just to wing it is absurd. Lab are building 1.5m houses. What if it's not enough. They are the government and it is reasonable to ask how big they want the population to be.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
I don't get this argument. I mean I don't want any sort of Labour majority but I recognise there will be one.
And if that majority is 100 or 300, what difference does it make? Starmer will be in exactly the position Blair, Thatcher and many other PMs before them have been in. With a majority large enough that they can enact whatever laws they see fit but always with a weather eye to the next election. They won so they get to run things. Personally I find this preferable to the situation May or even Johnson with his 80 seat majority found themselves in where there is a significant clique within their own party who are able to undermine what the PM and the Cabinet want to do and cause chaos.
I am sure I am gouing to hate much of what Starmer wants to do but that is democracy. He still has to take the vast majority of his party with him which is a moderating factor on his actions. He does not ahve absolute power - if you think he does then see what would happen if he proposed banning pets or compulsory pole dancing for grannies.
What I do think is that the Lords becomes very important as an amending/checking chamber. One of the problems of the last decade has been too many acts that have not been fit for purpose, ill considered and ill written. The Lords can do a great service by making sure that Starmer's new laws and policies are actually coherent, lawful and practical.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
Any party getting a majority on under 50% of the vote is not legitimate.
So no Government in the modern era. The last one 1931? This is all very silly.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
It will be as legitimate as every British government has ever been, elected on precisely the same basis.
Really sad to see people on the right try to undermine British democracy by pushing these sorts of arguments.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
Being able to pass their programme of legislation in parliament is what comes of having a majority. It's what happens in a majoritarian system. The current government had a majority for almost five years and used it, amongst other things, to change the electoral system, alter the boundaries of our constituencies, and to require photo ID in order to vote.
We have no supermajority requirements in our political system. Passing a bill by a single vote is just as effective as passing it by 200.
On immigration: "How can you make a plan for the economy when you won't say how many people you want in the country "
How indeed.
Who can say how many people they want in the country? It's all a bit Soviet. We must have 67,764,923 people in the country, not one more, not one less. If anyone emigrates we must immediately get another person in. As soon as a baby is born, we must ship a granny off to Dignitas. This obsession with raw numbers is plain dumb.
Not at all. Haven't you noticed it is a huge issue and has resulted in *checks figures* Reform on nearly 20% of the vote.
Plus if they aren't worried then say we're not worried. Don't criticise the Cons for losing control and then have no control by design.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
Suddenly the right are worried about democracy when they’re about to lose.
Stop blaming the system. And definitely don’t blame Labour.
If there’s a massive landslide it is the fault of the Conservatives for the omnishambles of the last 5 years and no one else’s.
They are about to get everything they deserve and it’s a TRIUMPH of democracy.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
An opposition still exists whatever its numerical strength in parliament. If Starmer is making a hash of things he will get held to account by the electorate. Yes an opposition can organise better if it has greater strength in parliament, but it doesn’t preclude their role entirely.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
Any party getting a majority on under 50% of the vote is not legitimate.
So no Government in the modern era. The last one 1931? This is all very silly.
I heard an interesting conspiracy theory a couple of years ago about the Brexit referendum that allegedly originated with mail workers.
It was that the general shock from the top politicians when the result came in was because the spooks had seen to it that a large amount of remain postal ballots had been inserted into the system (much easier to do with a national referendum than 650 constituencies) to make sure of the result - and despite this they still lost.
That's a nasty little conspiracy theory to try to deny that the country was genuinely split almost down the middle over the issue, by suggesting that actually Remain was much further behind. It's trying to make Remain voters unpeople who don't exist.
You should pay things like that no heed at all.
It also implies that our spooks aren't able to fiddle a vote effectively.
Typical public services rotten to the core innit.
Apparently, in places where such practices are indulged in (typically in nationwide direct presidential elections), it is a delicate game. Add too many in and you risk making it too obvious and risk getting caught, so while you can tip over a close result, you can't reverse a bigger gap.
One advantage of having 650 constituencies is that it makes such activities very difficult if not impossible. As does having the votes counted in 650 different places immediately.
And before anyone thinks I'm going all Maga, the fact that each state votes for representatives in an electoral college and it is not a direct election also provides this protection (as well as stopping California effectively making the decision for everyone).
I've done polling station duty in the past. Driven the sealed boxes to the town hall. Now I wouldn't say state-mamaged fraud is impossible. I've seen Penn and Teller. Trickery is possible. But it certainly wouldn't be easy. It's quite a neatly secure system.
Hustings report: that was fucking awesome. Sat in between Tory and SNP candidates- letting them go at each other and then quoting them back to each other to utterly screw themselves.
That at one point I had to physically move my chair back to create space for Ross finger jabbing towards Logan was just crazy.
Two best bits? On Ross, he was going on about his pledge on Levelling Up money and I pointed out that they’ve scrapped Levelling up to pay for national service. He objected and had people shouting him down in the audience.
And on Logan? The inevitable debate on Independence and he said a majority vote for the SNP was a vote for independence. I pointed out that the polls show they will not win a majority of MPs so by his own argument that will be a vote against independence and he tried to say no it isn’t. At which point he got shouted down by people.
Sky News were there, will be included as part of Matthew Thompson’s package which will go up at some point (he’ll let me know when). That Sky News were there is because I invited them. And why not - couldn’t do me any harm.
This election is getting me worried about the future of democracy. It seems likely that Labour will get a disproportionate majority which is a serious distortion of their share of the vote. The 'right' on the other hand will be severely underrepresented in Parliament relative to their eventual share of the vote (probably circa 40%). The driving force for Labour in power will be passing legislation they want, which they will effectively be able to do with no opposition. I suppose this is the 'supermajority' fear that the conservatives are trying to play to , but it seems to me like a big danger for democracy, because the position of the party in power will not be seen as legitimate.
Define ‘right’. I would say that the centre-right (Gauke, Rory Stewart, Lidders, Saj etc) have been disenfranchised and the natural One Nation conservatives have nowhere to go - hence the supermajority and so I agree with you.
If Labour end up governing as a a centrist party then you could argue that these people WILL be represented (although whether labour govern as a centrist party remains to be seen - but on balance I think yes)
I think the biggest political mistake was Johnson’s purge of the centrists. (Which is similar to Corbyn / momentum’s purge of the centrists)
Like Labour, I think the conservatives can recover within a Parliament, but only if they have the right leader.
Hustings report: that was fucking awesome. Sat in between Tory and SNP candidates- letting them go at each other and then quoting them back to each other to utterly screw themselves.
That at one point I had to physically move my chair back to create space for Ross finger jabbing towards Logan was just crazy.
Two best bits? On Ross, he was going on about his pledge on Levelling Up money and I pointed out that they’ve scrapped Levelling up to pay for national service. He objected and had people shouting him down in the audience.
And on Logan? The inevitable debate on Independence and he said a majority vote for the SNP was a vote for independence. I pointed out that the polls show they will not win a majority of MPs so by his own argument that will be a vote against independence and he tried to say no it isn’t. At which point he got shouted down by people.
Sky News were there, will be included as part of Matthew Thompson’s package which will go up at some point (he’ll let me know when). That Sky News were there is because I invited them. And why not - couldn’t do me any harm.
Politics. I fucking love politics
The best of luck . I look forward to seeing the coverage when it comes out.
RIP Donald Sutherland. He was my favourite Blofeld in ‘You Only Live Twice’ and, more recently, knocked it out of the park as Jack Bauer in ‘24’. An exceptionally long and versatile career.
His drama about Scottish law in the 1970's was also impressive, and his method acting as a Westminster constituency from 1801–1918 had to be seen to be believed.
More precisely a Norwegian colony. Despite being in the far north Sutherland is nevertheless south of Orkney.
Don't Look Now is the most Donald Sutherland film in my opinion.
A nice story about that.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/dec/16/observer-obituaries-2018-nicolas-roeg-remembered-by-donald-sutherland ...I have vertigo. When I came to shoot in the little basilica the day the gantry breaks loose and John hangs for dear life to a rope swinging 50ft above the marble floor, Nic was pulling his hair out. The Italian stuntman who was supposed to double me for the fall had quit because he didn’t think the insurance was sufficient to take care of his family if he fell to his death. Nic was looking all around, saying with great anguish, “We only have this church for today”. I said, “I’ll do it.”..
Comments
Nothing clever or funny about homophonia, any more than there is about these radical bus people. It's just pure tramsphobia.
A 150 majority, a bit less bad than 1997, should be recoverable in time.
A majority of 300 puts the Conservatives comfortably below 100 MPs. If that happens, irrelevance beckons.
Your conspiracy theory is still nonsense.
Although it was slightly modified.
I am specifically enjoined from using more than one language, other than English, in reports I write.
Edit: I see this has already been said. Perhaps it's worth saying twice. And telling all your friends. Presumably Matt cares about people being able to see his stuff, even if it's free. That's a real artist.
A moments consideration of how postal votes work should be enough for anyone with half a brain cell to conclude it's cobblers. We had OKC just telling us that his postal vote in the local elections was rejected because his signature had changed since he'd registered to vote by post. There's no practical easy to add large numbers of postal votes. It simply isn't possible.
The British government can't even set a date for the general election without people using their inside knowledge to bet on the outcome. But we're asked to believe there was a huge conspiracy to add remain postal votes, and only a few anonymous postal workers found out about it?
His frustration was that when it became public at 10pm it would move the market he wouldn't be able to bet until later on that night because he was in the BBC studios.
I'd clarify, Sporting would have cancelled Mike's account if they suspected Mike had bet due to early access to the exit poll.
Don't Look Now is the most Donald Sutherland film in my opinion.
Apparently, in places where such practices are indulged in (typically in nationwide direct presidential elections), it is a delicate game. Add too many in and you risk making it too obvious and risk getting caught, so while you can tip over a close result, you can't reverse a bigger gap.
One advantage of having 650 constituencies is that it makes such activities very difficult if not impossible. As does having the votes counted in 650 different places immediately.
And before anyone thinks I'm going all Maga, the fact that each state votes for representatives in an electoral college and it is not a direct election also provides this protection (as well as stopping California effectively making the decision for everyone).
But, yeah, he does trot that out too.
In the cold light of day I could have worded it better but appreciate your comment.
Yes it probably is nonsense but amusing nonetheless to think of the security services trying to be James Bond and ending up being Basildon Bond.
I remember it well.
The vote was fair. One side won and the other lost. The sadness is that neither side understood or cared what a close result actually meant and how it should have informed their decision making going forward.
Mike's financial position would have been better if he had stayed at home.
If he had stayed at home and with no sight of the exit poll at 10pm the markets would have reacted (both on the spreads and Betfair) he would have been able to update his betting positions.
By being in the BBC studio he wasn't able to react like everybody else could at 10pm, even if he hadn't seen the exit poll.
It's why at subsequent elections when he had media duties, he did them from home, via the internet so he could bet freely.
The people remember.
Vs a popular brand of notepaper that actually works?
YouTube now
This is the stock in trade of those who want to undermine out democracy by undermining our faith in democracy. For example, Russia. They put these stories about to harm us.
The same story about pens went about in 2016 at the EU referendum, and a few of us up here were "aye, right, we've seen this one before". Since then all kinds of crap has been said and amplified. They spread because they're interesting, but before forwarding them you should ask whether you have any evidence and whether spreading a false rumour of this nature can be harmful. If the answers are "no" and "yes", please exercise restraint and keep it to yourself. We, and our democracy, have enemies. Don't do their work for them.
How indeed.
Greensill was my delight,
Greensill was my heart of gold,
And who but my lady Greensill?
Either you like posh upper class blaggers living high on the hog off the state, or you don't. I'm not even sure who is more intelligent of DC and KCIII. Make your mind up.
Immigration means more jobs created. It's not obvious, I'll admit, but it's true.
Plus, how much do you actually want the government "planning" the economy? Do we want five year plans? I don't think we do. Let the market do its thing.
If only by example.
https://x.com/bellawallerstei/status/1803850006173978956
Today I cancelled my Conservative Party membership. I’ve been with the party for ten years. I stayed with it through Brexit (hugely harmful), Covid, Johnson and Truss. But I cannot in good conscience continue to support it. I hope at some point it will be able to rebuild.
Politely skewered by Fiona Bruce on sanctions for avoiding national service.
Exclusive: Chris Skidmore, ex-energy minister, says Rishi Sunak’s bid to turn net zero into culture war issue is ‘greatest tragedy of his premiership’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/20/former-tory-minister-vows-to-vote-labour-over-tories-climate-failures
I'm fairly sure there would have been a comfortable majority for membership of the EU as it was circa 2000. But the ratchet of ever closer union made the Leave cause stronger and stronger.
https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1803734430206284139?t=hRDJapCDsBRUEQ-8BnU7JQ&s=19
Really sad to see people on the right try to undermine British democracy by pushing these sorts of arguments.
And if that majority is 100 or 300, what difference does it make? Starmer will be in exactly the position Blair, Thatcher and many other PMs before them have been in. With a majority large enough that they can enact whatever laws they see fit but always with a weather eye to the next election. They won so they get to run things. Personally I find this preferable to the situation May or even Johnson with his 80 seat majority found themselves in where there is a significant clique within their own party who are able to undermine what the PM and the Cabinet want to do and cause chaos.
I am sure I am gouing to hate much of what Starmer wants to do but that is democracy. He still has to take the vast majority of his party with him which is a moderating factor on his actions. He does not ahve absolute power - if you think he does then see what would happen if he proposed banning pets or compulsory pole dancing for grannies.
What I do think is that the Lords becomes very important as an amending/checking chamber. One of the problems of the last decade has been too many acts that have not been fit for purpose, ill considered and ill written. The Lords can do a great service by making sure that Starmer's new laws and policies are actually coherent, lawful and practical.
We have no supermajority requirements in our political system. Passing a bill by a single vote is just as effective as passing it by 200.
Plus if they aren't worried then say we're not worried. Don't criticise the Cons for losing control and then have no control by design.
Stop blaming the system. And definitely don’t blame Labour.
If there’s a massive landslide it is the fault of the Conservatives for the omnishambles of the last 5 years and no one else’s.
They are about to get everything they deserve and it’s a TRIUMPH of democracy.
He should have said it much more often.
Expectations are spectacularly low, though.
Now I wouldn't say state-mamaged fraud is impossible. I've seen Penn and Teller. Trickery is possible.
But it certainly wouldn't be easy. It's quite a neatly secure system.
That at one point I had to physically move my chair back to create space for Ross finger jabbing towards Logan was just crazy.
Two best bits? On Ross, he was going on about his pledge on Levelling Up money and I pointed out that they’ve scrapped Levelling up to pay for national service. He objected and had people shouting him down in the audience.
And on Logan? The inevitable debate on Independence and he said a majority vote for the SNP was a vote for independence. I pointed out that the polls show they will not win a majority of MPs so by his own argument that will be a vote against independence and he tried to say no it isn’t. At which point he got shouted down by people.
Sky News were there, will be included as part of Matthew Thompson’s package which will go up at some point (he’ll let me know when). That Sky News were there is because I invited them. And why not - couldn’t do me any harm.
Politics. I fucking love politics
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/07/nhs-faces-hidden-backlog-six-million-patients-awaiting-treatment/
Actually research by the NHS.
If Labour end up governing as a a centrist party then you could argue that these people WILL be represented (although whether labour govern as a centrist party remains to be seen - but on balance I think yes)
I think the biggest political mistake was Johnson’s purge of the centrists. (Which is similar to Corbyn / momentum’s purge of the centrists)
Like Labour, I think the conservatives can recover within a Parliament, but only if they have the right leader.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/dec/16/observer-obituaries-2018-nicolas-roeg-remembered-by-donald-sutherland
...I have vertigo. When I came to shoot in the little basilica the day the gantry breaks loose and John hangs for dear life to a rope swinging 50ft above the marble floor, Nic was pulling his hair out. The Italian stuntman who was supposed to double me for the fall had quit because he didn’t think the insurance was sufficient to take care of his family if he fell to his death. Nic was looking all around, saying with great anguish, “We only have this church for today”. I said, “I’ll do it.”..