politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I’m now betting that Cameron will not appear in any lea
Comments
-
It's the age we live in... headline grabbing, spin and faux outrage over minority interests bar progress on tackling real problemsAndyJS said:Extreme feminism is clearly out of control in today's UK.
They celebrate the end of Page 3 but have nothing to say on FGM or forced marriages.TheScreamingEagles said:Someone tell me this is a spoof.
Page 3 helped create the Jimmy Savile era
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B756xXHCcAASQtp.jpg0 -
The article points out the similarity of Page 3 and the Burka, both different forms of the objectification of women.AndyJS said:Extreme feminism is clearly out of control in today's UK.
They celebrate the end of Page 3 but have nothing to say on FGM or forced marriages.TheScreamingEagles said:Someone tell me this is a spoof.
Page 3 helped create the Jimmy Savile era
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B756xXHCcAASQtp.jpg
A very sound point, but doesn't fit your pre-conception.0 -
Er! Yes, it would, given the support that Cameron gave to the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns.TheScreamingEagles said:
I don't think so.FrancisUrquhart said:I wonder who is going to get the blame for what the Daily Rant are calling a "cover-up" over Chilcott?
Is there any danger for the Tories / Cameron here?
What the fun thing would be, if it were leaked during the election campaign.
It would have been disastrous to him to have been critical of the republican POTUS at that time. Rupert M. would have made so much fun of him on Faux News0 -
I am sure after UKIP give Labour a run for their money in the north Harman will be forced to eat humble PIE.isam said:Harmans banging on about UKIP being sexist.. so lefty & feminist it's like reading comments from the Tories on this site!
Interesting ideas about UKIP sexual technique from her though.. is there something overtly chauvinistic about people who take sex backwards?
"Ukip is a party led by 'Neanderthal sexists', blasts Harman: Feminist Labour deputy leader says women should 'beware' of the party in provocative attack
Criticised senior Ukip women, saying party wanted to take sex 'backwards'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2920641/Ukip-party-led-Neanderthal-sexists-blasts-Harman.html#ixzz3PUwT8Lol
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
0 -
Clearly largely dependent on the number of candidates they field. Currently I'd favour the <5.5% option. Should they score >6.5% they are going to damage Labour significantly in any number of marginals.Artist said:Paddy Power have changed their Greens vote share line.
Over 5.5% 5/6
Under 5.5% 5/60 -
Lord Oakeshott is donating £300,000 to Labour candidates in marginal seats.0
-
They're going to get cream crackered by the Nats.Danny565 said:
Tories actually UP on the poll where they led yesterday -- difference is Labour have a bigger share of the leftie vote in this sample.Scott_P said:@Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%
I repeat what I said yesterday: Labour's separate battles with the SNP/UKIP/Greens will determine the election.0 -
It's amazing how we managed to survive English MPs voting on Scotish matters for 300 years.peter_from_putney said:"Tonight Nicola Sturgeon has said her SNP MPs would be willing to vote on English only issues if she thinks it affects Scotland."
Should that prove to be the case then that will prove to be the end of the Union as we know it and will inevitably lead to the onset of an English Parliament to replace Westminster.0 -
Evan Davis: "if anyone can solve the world's problems, the global elite in Davos surely can".0
-
Noooooooo! Bang goes my (partial) ELBOW crossover I reported earlier today!Scott_P said:@Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%
0 -
YouGov
Swingover
Crossback0 -
Further, my chief criticism of Cameron and the modernisers is that they were (are) a social homogenous and urbane group, centred on London, with their politics driven by the attitudes of their contemporaries and reverence of Blair.
They drew the wrong conclusions. They felt they had to shed the Right and become a more left-wing party, and attract the soft Guardianista left, to win. They did that by trying to increase the gender, sexual and racial diversity of Conservatives candidates, who tended to still be well-off and from similar social backgrounds, and by positioning on the Environment. However, they didn't actually address any of the underlying cultural problems of the Conservative party.
What strategy they did have depended on those on the Right being disappointed having nowhere else to go. In reality, they lost the Right, whilst the voter group on the centre-left was never numerous enough to make a national difference, nor were they going to vote Tory anyway. Also they failed to understand they could not longer centrally control and manage a tight media message in the noughties in the same way Blair had done in the nineties.
What Cameron should have done instead is tackle the root and branch culture of the Conservative party from Day One. Fundamentally reformed party structures - and not blame it on the oldie blue-rise members in the Shire constituencies. Appointed a *socially diverse* cabinet, from all wings of the party, not just from his social group and political friends. Open primaries, referenda, public consultations everywhere. Huge central subsided funding of poorer prospective parliamentary candidates from modest backgrounds. Cheap £1 membership. More regional accents. Less snobbery. More targeted working class candidacies. Encouraged diversity of opinion. Independent individual thought. Kept the popular policies on immigration and europe, but also balanced it up with an equal interest in public services.
Essentially, showing his party reflected the British people, and that it was on the side of the ordinary working person. In this he failed.
0 -
Yes, £300K to Labour candidates and the same amount to LibDem candidates ..... how bloody odd!AndyJS said:Lord Oakeshott is donating £300,000 to Labour candidates in marginal seats.
0 -
Do you feel the same about Sykes bankrolling UKIP? And the cash Wheeler gave them?Socrates said:
We really need to clamp down on campaign finance. It's not right that single individuals can have so much influence.AndyJS said:Lord Oakeshott is donating £300,000 to Labour candidates in marginal seats.
0 -
Oh my, the sun have tits on page 3 tomorrow. An epic troll job?0
-
Oh, one last point, Sturgeon will not be invited to the TV chatalong, she is not, will ever be an MP at Westminster. She can the never be a potential PM. Salmond is not an MP, again he cannot be a PM, mind you all the other debaters would be able to make a poond o'mince of him.
Stand up to the front, Stewart Hosie. cough, cough.0 -
Can't wait to see Oakeshott's face if his supported candidates don't win.0
-
The Sun Page 3 tomorrow will be Nicole, 22 from Bournemouth says Guido
Tits out the lot!0 -
I just seen the tweet, there is going to be some serious choking on granola and red faces come the morning.Tissue_Price said:Oh my, the sun have tits on page 3 tomorrow. An epic troll job?
0 -
Yawn, Casino Royale. Sorry but that was even more dull than Wolf Hall.
It won't come down to whether or not he irritated you over gay marriage. It'll be down to management of the economy. And on that they've done a good job.
Ukip are on the slide.
0 -
We await SeanT with some anticipation...FrancisUrquhart said:I just seen the tweet, there is going to be some serious choking on granola and red faces come the morning.
0 -
The excellent Gillian Tett on Newsnight now.0
-
Haha!
"Clarifications & Corrections"
The Sun @TheSunNewspaper · 13m13 minutes ago
Tomorrow's #Page3... pic.twitter.com/pzyZ7Qhe9N
0 -
The lead story of tomorrow BBC...outrage at the return of Page 3 in the Sun. Murdoch....yadda yadda yadda, now to Harriet Harman for her opinion.
I did think it interesting the Sun basically said no comment when this was the ludicrous top story of the day.
I am wondering if the Sun might just just done a massive setup job on the media, probably started by sending out somebody to have a quiet drink with a known loudmouth from a sister newspaper.
0 -
That is very funny, if true. I wonder if Radio 4 will have an infuriated Stella Creasy back on tomorrow morning doing a volte-face.isam said:The Sun Page 3 tomorrow will be Nicole, 22 from Bournemouth says Guido
Tits out the lot!0 -
Good bet. They did it at the Euro elections last year so it's got to be value at that price.TheScreamingEagles said:
I know I haven't mentioned this much, but I'm on at 20/1 on the Greens outpolling the Lib Dems.foxinsoxuk said:
4.0 still there with Shadsy on Greens vs LD on match betting.TheScreamingEagles said:Another poll with the Lib Dems trailing the Greens.
0 -
The empty chair is even better than that. Neutrality laws mean CCHQ would be on the phone to the BBC first thing next morning demanding equal time for their man -- without the distraction of the other leaders.SquareRoot said:The more I think about it, the better an Empty chair is for Cameron. Let the minnows squabble whilst Dave governs in the interests of the people.. No wonder tim tried to get to Lynton Crosby with some very personal attacks.
And maybe that is the idea.0 -
What about the Hedge Funds and others paying into the Tories via underground ways?TheWatcher said:
Do you feel the same about Sykes bankrolling UKIP? And the cash Wheeler gave them?Socrates said:
We really need to clamp down on campaign finance. It's not right that single individuals can have so much influence.AndyJS said:Lord Oakeshott is donating £300,000 to Labour candidates in marginal seats.
0 -
Socrates was the one complaining. I wondered how he felt about his own party being bankrolled by squillionaires.Edin_Rokz said:
What about the Hedge Funds and others paying into the Tories via underground ways?TheWatcher said:
Do you feel the same about Sykes bankrolling UKIP? And the cash Wheeler gave them?Socrates said:
We really need to clamp down on campaign finance. It's not right that single individuals can have so much influence.AndyJS said:Lord Oakeshott is donating £300,000 to Labour candidates in marginal seats.
You're OK with Labour cooking up back room deals with their rich Union backers?
0 -
@ScottyNational: FM denies breaking SNP principles by voting on English laws: 'The principles can still be read on the original elastic they were written on'0
-
-
I don't think so... as long as they have offered all parties the opportunity to share the air time they have fulfilled their obligations as far as equality goesDecrepitJohnL said:
The empty chair is even better than that. Neutrality laws mean CCHQ would be on the phone to the BBC first thing next morning demanding equal time for their man -- without the distraction of the other leaders.SquareRoot said:The more I think about it, the better an Empty chair is for Cameron. Let the minnows squabble whilst Dave governs in the interests of the people.. No wonder tim tried to get to Lynton Crosby with some very personal attacks.
And maybe that is the idea.0 -
Arf. Someone's having fun at the soaraway Sun.isam said:The Sun Page 3 tomorrow will be Nicole, 22 from Bournemouth says Guido
Tits out the lot!0 -
Labour still on course, just barely, then.
On the subject of the GE though, I had always been somewhat skeptical of the idea that even at the start of 2015 there were people who were not only not interested in politics, which is normal, but actually unaware a GE was to take place very shortly, but in discussion with a relative today I discovered there is at least one person who had no idea a GE was coming up. Now I guess I must try to consider how many others of a similar mind are out there. Granted, they are someone who has never voted before and insists they will not this time either, but there's probably some people out there who would vote despite still not realizing there was a vote coming.
On the SNP move, entirely unsurprising, if their votes could swing the conclusion of an issue of course they would revise their approach somewhat. It's permissible and only been their restraint that has prevent that sort of thing before, it was inevitable the time would come when tactically that would change.0 -
Didn't the Sun give Savile a "day out" with some page 3 girls a couple of years before his death? I remember reading the article when the story broke before the paywall went up, though they've almost certainly taken it down now anyway.Sean_F said:
I wonder what she'd say if she read Cosmopolitan.TheScreamingEagles said:Someone tell me this is a spoof.
Page 3 helped create the Jimmy Savile era
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B756xXHCcAASQtp.jpg0 -
-
Sorry, once you get us non-Cameron fans started on gay marriage, we just can't stop.audreyanne said:Yawn, Casino Royale. Sorry but that was even more dull than Wolf Hall.
It won't come down to whether or not he irritated you over gay marriage. It'll be down to management of the economy. And on that they've done a good job.
Ukip are on the slide.
All the blame should lie with Lord Arran; legalising homosexual intercourse was the biggest mistake of the last century. We never should have repealed the Buggery Act of 1533.0 -
I would hope so, otherwise those are some absurd rules (not that we lack for such things). If someone from CCHQ demanded equal time for their man the BBC and others could justifiably state they gave him that and he turned it down of his own volition, and politely tell them to bugger off.isam said:
I don't think so... as long as they have offered all parties the opportunity to share the air time they have fulfilled their obligations as far as equality goesDecrepitJohnL said:
The empty chair is even better than that. Neutrality laws mean CCHQ would be on the phone to the BBC first thing next morning demanding equal time for their man -- without the distraction of the other leaders.SquareRoot said:The more I think about it, the better an Empty chair is for Cameron. Let the minnows squabble whilst Dave governs in the interests of the people.. No wonder tim tried to get to Lynton Crosby with some very personal attacks.
And maybe that is the idea.
0 -
Ok, so lets start looking at the River Funds back in the 1950's which were devised to fund the Tories without the Inland Revenue being "involved". What about the organisations set up in the '60's to 80's where employer blacklists were run to supply funds to the Tories.TheWatcher said:
Socrates was the one complaining. I wondered how he felt about his own party being bankrolled by squillionaires.Edin_Rokz said:
What about the Hedge Funds and others paying into the Tories via underground ways?TheWatcher said:
Do you feel the same about Sykes bankrolling UKIP? And the cash Wheeler gave them?Socrates said:
We really need to clamp down on campaign finance. It's not right that single individuals can have so much influence.AndyJS said:Lord Oakeshott is donating £300,000 to Labour candidates in marginal seats.
You're OK with Labour cooking up back room deals with their rich Union backers?
Not happy with that? Well there are plenty of examples up to the present day.
One thing you cannot argue about, is that the Labour party provide is clear and clean accounts of funding, due to the fact that the right wing media is trying to find problems.
I look forward to the day that Gideon does the same.0 -
What the party needed was William Hague in 97 and IDS in 2004. How could that have possibly gone wrong?Casino_Royale said:Further, my chief criticism of Cameron and the modernisers is that they were (are) a social homogenous and urbane group, centred on London, with their politics driven by the attitudes of their contemporaries and reverence of Blair.
They drew the wrong conclusions. They felt they had to shed the Right and become a more left-wing party, and attract the soft Guardianista left, to win. They did that by trying to increase the gender, sexual and racial diversity of Conservatives candidates, who tended to still be well-off and from similar social backgrounds, and by positioning on the Environment. However, they didn't actually address any of the underlying cultural problems of the Conservative party.
What strategy they did have depended on those on the Right being disappointed having nowhere else to go. In reality, they lost the Right, whilst the voter group on the centre-left was never numerous enough to make a national difference, nor were they going to vote Tory anyway. Also they failed to understand they could not longer centrally control and manage a tight media message in the noughties in the same way Blair had done in the nineties.
What Cameron should have done instead is tackle the root and branch culture of the Conservative party from Day One. Fundamentally reformed party structures - and not blame it on the oldie blue-rise members in the Shire constituencies. Appointed a *socially diverse* cabinet, from all wings of the party, not just from his social group and political friends. Open primaries, referenda, public consultations everywhere. Huge central subsided funding of poorer prospective parliamentary candidates from modest backgrounds. Cheap £1 membership. More regional accents. Less snobbery. More targeted working class candidacies. Encouraged diversity of opinion. Independent individual thought. Kept the popular policies on immigration and europe, but also balanced it up with an equal interest in public services.
Essentially, showing his party reflected the British people, and that it was on the side of the ordinary working person. In this he failed.
(Notable too that both of these were core members of Camerons cabinet)0 -
When Stella Creasy was on QT talking about Gay MarriageFrancisUrquhart said:
"If you don't like it... don't marry a man!!!"
Oh how we laughed!
Well, Nelson dearest, if you don't like page 3...0 -
Yeah ! Live on Google +audreyanne said:Good, balanced, thread Mike.
I still think Dave debating alone with the Greens would be an amusing riposte but unlikely to happen.0 -
@Edin_Rokz
Smaller scale, but I particularly liked the raffle for a chance to play tennis with Dave and partner.
I believe the high bidder was the "friend" of a Russian oligarch?0 -
Its late and I have just looked in. But what is Mr Smithson talking about, the one debate with Farage and the censorship of the Greens? Or ALL debates with the other two? The first one I suspect will not go ahead without the greens and Labour probably now themselves thing exposing the Greens to scrutiny might not be a bad idea.
Debates are rubbish and do nothing prove nothing other than encourage everything that people criticise politicians for. Just how clever were all the people who thought 'clagg' was a good idea?Why is there the need to 'debate' anything? Politicians and their parties have theor policies and can spread them. Televising parliament is bad enough.
There is a need of course for the TV companies to promote their self esteem and I think that the BBC licence and charter are totally irrelevant. .0 -
I find the argument that Page 3 facilitated Savile's crimes unconvincing. Every era has had its child rapists.foxinsoxuk said:
The article points out the similarity of Page 3 and the Burka, both different forms of the objectification of women.AndyJS said:Extreme feminism is clearly out of control in today's UK.
They celebrate the end of Page 3 but have nothing to say on FGM or forced marriages.TheScreamingEagles said:Someone tell me this is a spoof.
Page 3 helped create the Jimmy Savile era
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B756xXHCcAASQtp.jpg
A very sound point, but doesn't fit your pre-conception.0 -
It's similar to the way that my grandmother would get worked up about sex scenes in TV drama, and tell us how disgusting they were - and always insist on watching the drama in question. We always laughed and pointed out there was a switch.isam said:
When Stella Creasy was on QT talking about Gay MarriageFrancisUrquhart said:
"If you don't like it... don't marry a man!!!"
Oh how we laughed!
Well, Nelson dearest, if you don't like page 3...0 -
@Flightpath
Exactly the point Dave made on video several times before the last election!.....
Or possibly not?0 -
How much do you pay to avoid playing tennis with Dave and partner?Smarmeron said:@Edin_Rokz
Smaller scale, but I particularly liked the raffle for a chance to play tennis with Dave and partner.
I believe the high bidder was the "friend" of a Russian oligarch?0 -
Like most unrepentant modernisers, you spectacularly miss the point. That's almost always (as predictable as the sun rising in the east) the response I get.foxinsoxuk said:
What the party needed was William Hague in 97 and IDS in 2004. How could that have possibly gone wrong?Casino_Royale said:
Essentially, showing his party reflected the British people, and that it was on the side of the ordinary working person. In this he failed.
(Notable too that both of these were core members of Camerons cabinet)
It would be patronising, if I wasn't so bored of it by now. I didn't vote for David Davis or Liam Fox in 2005, I voted for Cameron. In fact, I was a Cameroon before Cameron. Because I thought he would get it: he didn't.
The problem with the Conservative Party is the social and economic diversity of the people in it, their backgrounds, and its acerbic culture. And, no, I don't mean the ordinary party members.
The modernisation strategy should have been focussed on that. It wasn't.0 -
As predicted last night, Yougov loses Gold Standard in 24 hours.Scott_P said:@Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead by one: CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 6%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%
0 -
Mike is right about the odds on Cameron ducking out being worth a bet.
Not for the many reasons I have heard here tonight, but for the simple reason that many of you always assume Cameron wins PMQ's.
He never answers a straight question and always gets the last word.
He knows any proper "chairman" would crucify him for it in a TV debate.0 -
Same people buy and read the Daily Mail, work themselves up into a tizz-wazz, and then oggle the thumbnails of shame on the RHS.Sean_F said:
It's similar to the way that my grandmother would get worked up about sex scenes in TV drama, and tell us how disgusting they were - and always insist on watching the drama in question. We always laughed and pointed out there was a switch.isam said:
When Stella Creasy was on QT talking about Gay MarriageFrancisUrquhart said:
"If you don't like it... don't marry a man!!!"
Oh how we laughed!
Well, Nelson dearest, if you don't like page 3...
0 -
Actually what it exposes (!) is the dogmatic, authoritarian nature of the modern Labour party, behind the mask of equality and fairnessSean_F said:
It's similar to the way that my grandmother would get worked up about sex scenes in TV drama, and tell us how disgusting they were - and always insist on watching the drama in question. We always laughed and pointed out there was a switch.isam said:
When Stella Creasy was on QT talking about Gay MarriageFrancisUrquhart said:
"If you don't like it... don't marry a man!!!"
Oh how we laughed!
Well, Nelson dearest, if you don't like page 3...
Her argument to people who disagreed with the principle of gay marriage was "if you don't like it, you don't have to do it".. as if she was free and easy with what went on in society
... and thought she had stumbled upon a devastating reposte.
Typical smug leftie humour
Well surely the same goes for things that she disagrees with too? There is no pressure on her to appear on page 3, or to ever look at it
But that doesn't seem to be the case...0 -
And of course a lot of Saville's activities pre-dated the start of Page 3 in 1970. Despite the headline, Saville was only a peripheral part of of Steadmans article.Sean_F said:
I find the argument that Page 3 facilitated Savile's crimes unconvincing. Every era has had its child rapists.foxinsoxuk said:
The article points out the similarity of Page 3 and the Burka, both different forms of the objectification of women.AndyJS said:Extreme feminism is clearly out of control in today's UK.
They celebrate the end of Page 3 but have nothing to say on FGM or forced marriages.TheScreamingEagles said:Someone tell me this is a spoof.
Page 3 helped create the Jimmy Savile era
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B756xXHCcAASQtp.jpg
A very sound point, but doesn't fit your pre-conception.
So Page 3 revives zombie-like to walk amongst us again for a bit. Its days are numbered though. The curiously unsexy glamour models are obsolete in the world where anyone can view much harder core items on a smartphone.
0 -
No Westminster MP can vote on Scottish devolved matters.Alistair said:
It's amazing how we managed to survive English MPs voting on Scotish matters for 300 years.peter_from_putney said:"Tonight Nicola Sturgeon has said her SNP MPs would be willing to vote on English only issues if she thinks it affects Scotland."
Should that prove to be the case then that will prove to be the end of the Union as we know it and will inevitably lead to the onset of an English Parliament to replace Westminster.
No Scottish Westminster MP can vote on Scottish devolved matters. But they can vote on the same English matters that they cannot vote on for their constituents in Scotland.
Before devolution all MPs voted on all matters and all matters were common to all constituents. Do not argue with me but argue with the well know Scot who pointed that out.
Before devolution and for good measure there were proportionately far more Scottish MPs than English MPs.
It must have been heartbreaking being Scottish before devolution.0 -
Oh dear oh dear
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 11m11 minutes ago
Another Labour social media success. Agree? Retweet pic.twitter.com/GQChPdUC8e
0 -
Yes, I do. Of course it's impossible for one party to unilaterally disarm, but they should all get together to agree limits.TheWatcher said:
Do you feel the same about Sykes bankrolling UKIP? And the cash Wheeler gave them?Socrates said:
We really need to clamp down on campaign finance. It's not right that single individuals can have so much influence.AndyJS said:Lord Oakeshott is donating £300,000 to Labour candidates in marginal seats.
0 -
I am not a moderniser Tory, I am not a Tory at all, and would not be bothered if the party collapsed into an Eton Mess.Casino_Royale said:
Like most unrepentant modernisers, you spectacularly miss the point. That's almost always (as predictable as the sun rising in the east) the response I get.foxinsoxuk said:
What the party needed was William Hague in 97 and IDS in 2004. How could that have possibly gone wrong?Casino_Royale said:
Essentially, showing his party reflected the British people, and that it was on the side of the ordinary working person. In this he failed.
(Notable too that both of these were core members of Camerons cabinet)
It would be patronising, if I wasn't so bored of it by now. I didn't vote for David Davis or Liam Fox in 2005, I voted for Cameron. In fact, I was a Cameroon before Cameron. Because I thought he would get it: he didn't.
The problem with the Conservative Party is the social and economic diversity of the people in it, their backgrounds, and its acerbic culture. And, no, I don't mean the ordinary party members.
The modernisation strategy should have been focussed on that. It wasn't.
All parties pay lip service to diversity. The superficial diversity of Thornbridge or Umuna is much the same as the public school boys at the heart of UKIP. It's just PR and preferment of court favourites. Nothing new there.0 -
As it happens, I agree with the last part. It's the same reason why efforts to revive Carry On movies don't work.foxinsoxuk said:
And of course a lot of Saville's activities pre-dated the start of Page 3 in 1970. Despite the headline, Saville was only a peripheral part of of Steadmans article.Sean_F said:
I find the argument that Page 3 facilitated Savile's crimes unconvincing. Every era has had its child rapists.foxinsoxuk said:
The article points out the similarity of Page 3 and the Burka, both different forms of the objectification of women.AndyJS said:Extreme feminism is clearly out of control in today's UK.
They celebrate the end of Page 3 but have nothing to say on FGM or forced marriages.TheScreamingEagles said:Someone tell me this is a spoof.
Page 3 helped create the Jimmy Savile era
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B756xXHCcAASQtp.jpg
A very sound point, but doesn't fit your pre-conception.
So Page 3 revives zombie-like to walk amongst us again for a bit. Its days are numbered though. The curiously unsexy glamour models are obsolete in the world where anyone can view much harder core items on a smartphone.
0 -
Isn't it the same with <<Je suis Charlie>>? If you find the cartoons obscene or "offensive", don't buy it!0
-
Islamists and left wing Labour women both go to a lot of trouble to be offended.isam said:
Actually what it exposes (!) is the dogmatic, authoritarian nature of the modern Labour party, behind the mask of equality and fairnessSean_F said:
It's similar to the way that my grandmother would get worked up about sex scenes in TV drama, and tell us how disgusting they were - and always insist on watching the drama in question. We always laughed and pointed out there was a switch.isam said:
When Stella Creasy was on QT talking about Gay MarriageFrancisUrquhart said:
"If you don't like it... don't marry a man!!!"
Oh how we laughed!
Well, Nelson dearest, if you don't like page 3...
Her argument to people who disagreed with the principle of gay marriage was "if you don't like it, you don't have to do it".. as if she was free and easy with what went on in society
... and thought she had stumbled upon a devastating reposte.
Typical smug leftie humour
Well surely the same goes for things that she disagrees with too? There is no pressure on her to appear on page 3, or to ever look at it
But that doesn't seem to be the case...
0 -
0
-
From the previous thread:
Mike said "Are we seeing “shy unionists” like shy IndyRef NO voters?"
Only problem with that theory is that MORI recorded some of the strongest support for No and weakest for Yes.
And I don't get what the theory is about non-Scottish interviewers being used? What does that mean?
0 -
I do not give a damn about anybody paying to anybody (its a free country and we all like free speech don't we?) but I do object to a cheerleader for a party that relies on two donors who peddle their influence for their money complaining about someone else doing the same.Edin_Rokz said:
What about the Hedge Funds and others paying into the Tories via underground ways?TheWatcher said:
Do you feel the same about Sykes bankrolling UKIP? And the cash Wheeler gave them?Socrates said:
We really need to clamp down on campaign finance. It's not right that single individuals can have so much influence.AndyJS said:Lord Oakeshott is donating £300,000 to Labour candidates in marginal seats.
0 -
Iain Dale on Sky News paper review: rubbishes today's Scottish poll showing the SNP miles ahead. Says he can only see 18 SNP seats.0
-
In other news the New England Patriots have been caught cheating again.0
-
List of constituencies receiving Oakeshott money. Broxtowe isn't one of them, incidentally:
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/218509/thread0 -
and sadly the daily mail online does the same job only much more nastily. At least the Sun is objectifying without criticising the models. daily mail objectifies and passes judgement - x looks good for 40; y looks rough for 24...foxinsoxuk said:
So Page 3 revives zombie-like to walk amongst us again for a bit. Its days are numbered though. The curiously unsexy glamour models are obsolete in the world where anyone can view much harder core items on a smartphone.
I'm not going to find examples for you, you've all seen them.
0 -
To be clear, this isn't Tokyo suburbs or anything. Basically it's Tokyo plus all the adjoining prefectures to Tokyo - a lot of that area is deep in the mountains.Socrates said:Tokyo is quite big:
http://i.imgur.com/21vn60I.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Eqfme.jpg0 -
I was shocked to find out that each team gets their own set of balls, are left to look after them for several hours before kick-off and there is a certain amount of tampering allowed within the rules, such using sandpaper and placing them in the oven.Tim_B said:In other news the New England Patriots have been caught cheating again.
Imagine if you gave two cricket teams the balls they are going to bowl with for the forthcoming innings for 2-3hrs before the match and said now don't do anything naughty...0 -
If you want to have an ad during the Super Bowl in 10 days, a 30 second spot will cost you $4.5 million. The ads are already starting to be 'previewed'. They're usually pretty good and made specifically for the game.0
-
Some good news in the world.
Looks like Ebola is finally in decline. Total cases in the 3 affected countries this week were only 155 (compared to 600-700 a week not so long ago) and Liberia only had 8 cases.0 -
The Chairman doesn't make any comments in the TV debates.Smarmeron said:Mike is right about the odds on Cameron ducking out being worth a bet.
Not for the many reasons I have heard here tonight, but for the simple reason that many of you always assume Cameron wins PMQ's.
He never answers a straight question and always gets the last word.
He knows any proper "chairman" would crucify him for it in a TV debate.
0 -
Just popped a bit more on West Aberdeenshire KincardineSean_F said:
Given that it's backed up by a four-fold increase in SNP membership, I'd say the poll-boost is real enough.AndyJS said:Iain Dale on Sky News paper review: rubbishes today's Scottish poll showing the SNP miles ahead. Says he can only see 18 SNP seats.
0 -
Je Suis Page 3.0
-
I'm puzzled by this - won't they be spending right up to the legal limit in every marginal constituency anyway?AndyJS said:List of constituencies receiving Oakeshott money. Broxtowe isn't one of them, incidentally:
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/218509/thread
I know they have less money than the Conservatives nationally and I can understand they wouldn't spend so much in safe or no hope seats. But surely in key marginals they would be spending right up to the limit anyway?
0 -
Every cr@phead who was ever a tory is now peddling Kippersense. How does that square with them polling 15% ?Casino_Royale said:
That's not quite my point. The New Labour "project" was predicated on the fact that Labour had lost four elections in a row due to its perceived vested interests, anti-aspiration sentiment and left-wing policy, leading to a split centre-left vote.edmundintokyo said:
TBF the schedule required David Cameron to be designed in 2005 and pushed out to consumers in 2006/2007. They couldn't reasonably have predicted how the Lehman Shock and its aftermath would knock their strategy on its arse.Casino_Royale said:FPT @ Jane Ellison - unfortunately, for too many Conservative modernisers, their thinking didn't go much further than, "We need to be more like Blair".
They failed to diagnose that it's a different party, with different problems, in a different time, that required different solutions.
That diagnosis was basically correct: it was essentially a policy problem. Blair correctly understood he needed to distance himself from the unions, shed the left-wing dogma, be visibly seen pro-aspiration, run a very tight media operation, and prepare for a reconciliation with the Liberal Democrats. Very successful in winning middle-England, even if disillusionment set in fast. But that's another story.
In the Tories case, the problem was (is) different. It's mainly a brand problem. Much of its policy on immigration, europe, crime and putting Britain first in foreign affairs remained popular. There *was* a policy problem with the public services - that the Tories didn't care about the NHS, or Education, for instance - and that bit the modernisers got correct.
However, that can be linked to the main problem. Which is the perceived motives, attitudes and behaviour of the Conservative party itself. The perception it was self-interested, elitist, contemptuous of others, disloyal internally, out-of-touch and only interested in the wealthy.
The behaviour of too many of its MPs was simply appalling. They reeked of entitlement, pomposity and arrogance, and, far too often, moral hypocrisy as well. It didn't help that they could also be downright bastards too.
0 -
Je suis CharliesTheWatcher said:Je Suis Page 3.
0 -
For those following the CQC inspection of Circle Hitchinbrooke Hospital:
The CQC were accused of being unfair as Hitchinbrooke had recently won an award:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Quality-Hinchingbrooke-Hospitals-care-isbest-country/story-22368467-detail/story.html
but the awarders of the award were CHKS, which is part of Capita:
http://www.capita-its.co.uk/media/pages/capita-acquires-chks.aspx
and Capita are partners of Circle in bidding for NHS contracts:
http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4208750-f9ca-11e2-b8ef-00144feabdc0.html
I look forward to the Daily Mail following up its attempt at trashing the CQC by showcasing how the private sector companies give these awards.
That is the power of Google, anyone can join the dots now...0 -
-
@TheWatcher
And the Tories remain respectfully restrained while Ed asks the (unanswered) questions?
You don't listen to PMQ's much do you?
All sides do it, and it makes a mockery of Parliament.....but it is tradition?0 -
Each team must supply 12 balls two hours 15 minutes before the game, and the referee (in this case Walt Anderson) checks they are between 12.5- 13.5 psi, and puts a stamp on each ball.FrancisUrquhart said:
I was shocked to find out that each team gets their own set of balls, are left to look after them for several hours before kick-off and there is a certain amount of tampering allowed within the rules, such using sandpaper and placing them in the oven.Tim_B said:In other news the New England Patriots have been caught cheating again.
Imagine if you gave two cricket teams the balls they are going to bowl with for the forthcoming innings for 2-3hrs before the match and said now don't do anything naughty...
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
The exception to this is the Super Bowl, where every play uses a new ball.
New England has form , with 'spygate' and being caught several years ago filming their Super Bowl opponents practices from an apartment several blocks away.0 -
News you didn't want to hear - Stallone is back in Philly making yet another Rocky movie.0
-
You were specifically referring to Cameron, hence my response.Smarmeron said:@TheWatcher
And the Tories remain respectfully restrained while Ed asks the (unanswered) questions?
You don't listen to PMQ's much do you?
All sides do it, and it makes a mockery of Parliament.....but it is tradition?
As for PMQs, it's more fun with the sound turned off. One can better appreciate Miliband's gurning in silence.0 -
I don't really understand why the refs wouldn't provide and look after the balls. In cricket the umpires do, in football the same etc.Tim_B said:
Each team must supply 12 balls two hours 15 minutes before the game, and the referee (in this case Walt Anderson) checks they are between 12.5- 13.5 psi, and puts a stamp on each ball.FrancisUrquhart said:
I was shocked to find out that each team gets their own set of balls, are left to look after them for several hours before kick-off and there is a certain amount of tampering allowed within the rules, such using sandpaper and placing them in the oven.Tim_B said:In other news the New England Patriots have been caught cheating again.
Imagine if you gave two cricket teams the balls they are going to bowl with for the forthcoming innings for 2-3hrs before the match and said now don't do anything naughty...
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
The exception to this is the Super Bowl, where every play uses a new ball.
New England has form , with 'spygate' and being caught several years ago filming their Super Bowl opponents practices from an apartment several blocks away.
And they have many refs in the NFL plus the chain game, you would think between them it would be easy to keep the supply of balls going etc, without any team having their own set.0 -
excuse my ignorance- how would deflated balls help the Patriots?Tim_B said:
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.0 -
The stench of lentil farts and hairy armpits. pic.twitter.com/1HE52fF2Tw
— Iain Duncan Smith MP (@IDS_MP) January 19, 20150 -
@TheWatcher
Dave like many PM's before him evades the questions, but in his case, he is possibly surpassing even Blair.0 -
In wet and cold conditions it makes it easier to grip when throwing and also when catching it is just that bit softer.dugarbandier said:
excuse my ignorance- how would deflated balls help the Patriots?Tim_B said:
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
0 -
Edin Rotz
What on earth are you talking about? Salmond hammered Darling in the referendum debate and Darling is a better debate than Cameron or Milliband.0 -
MikeK said:
The stench of lentil farts and hairy armpits. pic.twitter.com/1HE52fF2Tw
— Iain Duncan Smith MP (@IDS_MP) January 19, 2015
'course in Japan, everyone believes its potatoes, not legumes that cause odoriferous emissions0