Skip to content

A 5% return in just over a week? (and potentially 40% in over a week?) – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,170
edited April 29 in General
A 5% return in just over a week? (and potentially 40% in over a week?) – politicalbetting.com

This markets from Ladbrokes in my humble opinion represents a decent return in a short space of time. Whilst I do expect the Greens to do well next week I don’t expect them to finish first.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,687
    God save the King!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,687
    edited April 29
    Not just Tuapse on fire, Perm is also on fire again.

    https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/2049374465402745281
    https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/2049378492358316235
    https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/2049373426704433201

    This is a key pumping station node and refinery on a pipeline, 1,000 miles from Ukraine.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,379
    How does that bet look if Farage keels over tomorrow?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,379
    FPT:
    MarqueeMark said:

    Another 1,180 Russian troops and 54 artillery systems unavaible to parade in Red Square as of yesterday.

    On another victory parade metric, the Russian soldiers lost in Ukraine in April alone - 31,150 with two days to go - if they were in groups of 10 x 10, would compromise 311 such "squares". They would take some 45 minutes to march past Putin...

    If they were White Walkers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,833
    Reform will probably come first, but I am not tempted.

    It is an anti-Labour, anti-Tory wave of anger, and there is a new kid on the block. Faragism is looking increasingly dog-earred.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,379
    Sandpit said:

    Not just Tuapse on fire, Perm is also on fire again.

    https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/2049374465402745281
    https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/2049378492358316235
    https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/2049373426704433201

    This is a key pumping station node and refinery on a pipeline, 1,000 miles from Ukraine.

    Time for Ust-Luga and the Baltic facilities to be hit again.
  • isamisam Posts: 44,230
    edited April 29
    Someone on here tipped the Greens to beat the Lib Dems in a match bet at 11/10, it’s 2/7 now
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,687
    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339
    MarqueeMark said:

    How does that bet look if Farage keels over tomorrow?

    We must pray for our saviour, St Nigel of Farage, and his continued good health for the next 10 days or so.
  • isamisam Posts: 44,230
    A podcast on the betting markets for the locals and Sir Keir’s demise

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/betthehouse/id1751361014?i=1000764154806
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,687
    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT:
    MarqueeMark said:

    Another 1,180 Russian troops and 54 artillery systems unavaible to parade in Red Square as of yesterday.

    On another victory parade metric, the Russian soldiers lost in Ukraine in April alone - 31,150 with two days to go - if they were in groups of 10 x 10, would compromise 311 such "squares". They would take some 45 minutes to march past Putin...

    If they were White Walkers.

    The other thing that’s massively flipped recently is the KIA vs wounded numbers.

    Usually 1:3 or 1:4, in the last few months it’s been 3:1 for the Russians.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,379
    Foxy said:

    Reform will probably come first, but I am not tempted.

    It is an anti-Labour, anti-Tory wave of anger, and there is a new kid on the block. Faragism is looking increasingly dog-earred.

    Dog-eared will be distinctly kind by the time of the next election.

    Rough as a badger's arse would be my take.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339
    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT:
    MarqueeMark said:

    Another 1,180 Russian troops and 54 artillery systems unavaible to parade in Red Square as of yesterday.

    On another victory parade metric, the Russian soldiers lost in Ukraine in April alone - 31,150 with two days to go - if they were in groups of 10 x 10, would compromise 311 such "squares". They would take some 45 minutes to march past Putin...

    If they were White Walkers.

    Trouble is, if you lost 25 million countrymen during the Great Patriotic War, losing tens of thousands now is merely unfortunate.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,379
    Sandpit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT:
    MarqueeMark said:

    Another 1,180 Russian troops and 54 artillery systems unavaible to parade in Red Square as of yesterday.

    On another victory parade metric, the Russian soldiers lost in Ukraine in April alone - 31,150 with two days to go - if they were in groups of 10 x 10, would compromise 311 such "squares". They would take some 45 minutes to march past Putin...

    If they were White Walkers.

    The other thing that’s massively flipped recently is the KIA vs wounded numbers.

    Usually 1:3 or 1:4, in the last few months it’s been 3:1 for the Russians.
    Those drone-dropped grenades are utterly unforgiving. Far more fatally targetted than conventional artillery, with its widespread shrapnel injuries.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    Foxy said:

    Reform will probably come first, but I am not tempted.

    It is an anti-Labour, anti-Tory wave of anger, and there is a new kid on the block. Faragism is looking increasingly dog-earred.

    Copium time
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 9,132
    Foxy said:

    Reform will probably come first, but I am not tempted.

    It is an anti-Labour, anti-Tory wave of anger, and there is a new kid on the block. Faragism is looking increasingly dog-earred.

    The question is whether the locals give Reform another boost or if the decline will continue

    The elections last year undoubtedly confirmed they had arrived on the scene and gave them a huge opportunity - an opportunity I would suggest they have only half capitalised on. While they still lead the polls they have not been able to demonstrate the seriousness of organisation or advance their popularity with sensible well thought out policy making, that could have seen them boosted into the high 30s. Instead they’ve gone backwards.

    I suspect they might get another chance in the coming months and a slight poll recovery, though knowing what we do now I suspect they’ll miss the chance to fully capitalise on it again.

    Watch the Greens - particularly if Starmer remains in situ. While I think they’ll end up suffering the same problem as Reform and I don’t expect this to be long term, I think it’s plausible these results give them a similar boost which could see them leading a couple of polls.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    Sandpit said:

    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.

    That’s a rarity. A good political advert. It’s smart
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,134
    Foxy said:

    Reform will probably come first, but I am not tempted.

    It is an anti-Labour, anti-Tory wave of anger, and there is a new kid on the block. Faragism is looking increasingly dog-earred.

    That's understating it, it's an anti-fellow human vote. Even if you ignore the racism there's a high probability of their assorted paper candidates and the dogma of others making council services worse.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,379
    Sandpit said:

    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.

    Not hitting the Tories, Nige? Focus groups not so impressed with that maybe?
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    numbertwelve said:

    Foxy said:

    Reform will probably come first, but I am not tempted.

    It is an anti-Labour, anti-Tory wave of anger, and there is a new kid on the block. Faragism is looking increasingly dog-earred.

    The question is whether the locals give Reform another boost or if the decline will continue

    The elections last year undoubtedly confirmed they had arrived on the scene and gave them a huge opportunity - an opportunity I would suggest they have only half capitalised on. While they still lead the polls they have not been able to demonstrate the seriousness of organisation or advance their popularity with sensible well thought out policy making, that could have seen them boosted into the high 30s. Instead they’ve gone backwards.

    I suspect they might get another chance in the coming months and a slight poll recovery, though knowing what we do now I suspect they’ll miss the chance to fully capitalise on it again.

    Watch the Greens - particularly if Starmer remains in situ. While I think they’ll end up suffering the same problem as Reform and I don’t expect this to be long term, I think it’s plausible these results give them a similar boost which could see them leading a couple of polls.
    The Greens already are stalling. Now down to 15% with Yougov.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    numbertwelve said:

    Foxy said:

    Reform will probably come first, but I am not tempted.

    It is an anti-Labour, anti-Tory wave of anger, and there is a new kid on the block. Faragism is looking increasingly dog-earred.

    The question is whether the locals give Reform another boost or if the decline will continue

    The elections last year undoubtedly confirmed they had arrived on the scene and gave them a huge opportunity - an opportunity I would suggest they have only half capitalised on. While they still lead the polls they have not been able to demonstrate the seriousness of organisation or advance their popularity with sensible well thought out policy making, that could have seen them boosted into the high 30s. Instead they’ve gone backwards.

    I suspect they might get another chance in the coming months and a slight poll recovery, though knowing what we do now I suspect they’ll miss the chance to fully capitalise on it again.

    Watch the Greens - particularly if Starmer remains in situ. While I think they’ll end up suffering the same problem as Reform and I don’t expect this to be long term, I think it’s plausible these results give them a similar boost which could see them leading a couple of polls.
    The Greens already are stalling. Now down to 15% with Yougov.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,943
    MarqueeMark said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.

    Not hitting the Tories, Nige? Focus groups not so impressed with that maybe?
    He had Straight out of commons/compton for Kemi. Wonder what made him think of that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,379
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    How does that bet look if Farage keels over tomorrow?

    We must pray for our saviour, St Nigel of Farage, and his continued good health for the next 10 days or so.
    *sheepishly puts down the voodoo doll...*

    (they may actually be called poppets - there's some debate).
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,444
    Good luck to all who take a flutter. The outcome will be fascinating anyway.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,379
    edited April 29
    noneoftheabove said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.

    Not hitting the Tories, Nige? Focus groups not so impressed with that maybe?
    He had Straight out of commons/compton for Kemi. Wonder what made him think of that.
    Just a racist dig with the N word - for those who know the NWA album.

    Stay classy, Nigel.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,943
    MarqueeMark said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.

    Not hitting the Tories, Nige? Focus groups not so impressed with that maybe?
    He had Straight out of commons/compton for Kemi. Wonder what made him think of that.
    Just a racist dig with the N word - for those who know the NWA album.
    It is excellent dog whistling to be fair, if she complains it will be a mix of she cant take a joke and its the complainers mind thats sick to have made that link that never occurred at all to colour blind Nigel himself.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,379
    Taz said:

    numbertwelve said:

    Foxy said:

    Reform will probably come first, but I am not tempted.

    It is an anti-Labour, anti-Tory wave of anger, and there is a new kid on the block. Faragism is looking increasingly dog-earred.

    The question is whether the locals give Reform another boost or if the decline will continue

    The elections last year undoubtedly confirmed they had arrived on the scene and gave them a huge opportunity - an opportunity I would suggest they have only half capitalised on. While they still lead the polls they have not been able to demonstrate the seriousness of organisation or advance their popularity with sensible well thought out policy making, that could have seen them boosted into the high 30s. Instead they’ve gone backwards.

    I suspect they might get another chance in the coming months and a slight poll recovery, though knowing what we do now I suspect they’ll miss the chance to fully capitalise on it again.

    Watch the Greens - particularly if Starmer remains in situ. While I think they’ll end up suffering the same problem as Reform and I don’t expect this to be long term, I think it’s plausible these results give them a similar boost which could see them leading a couple of polls.
    The Greens already are stalling. Now down to 15% with Yougov.
    There's only so big the tits can get with mind-control...
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,444
    Sandpit said:

    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.

    Followed the link because I wasn't too sure what negative advertising meant. Made me LOL, very clever.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,860
    MarqueeMark said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.

    Not hitting the Tories, Nige? Focus groups not so impressed with that maybe?
    He had Straight out of commons/compton for Kemi. Wonder what made him think of that.
    Just a racist dig with the N word - for those who know the NWA album.

    Stay classy, Nigel.
    Can one stay classy if one wasn't classy in the first place?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339
    FPT:-
    turbotubbs said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I am not a great royalist but fair play to Charles he played a blinder

    And that's why you should be.
    No, the fact that we have had a run of mostly decent monarchs over the last 90 years doesn't invalidate that it is a genetic lottery.

    We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
    It’s not all genetics though. As PoW Charles was going to be king and was prepared and groomed for it. That was his destiny and curse. Andrew was destined to be the spare. That was his curse.

    Same for William and Andrew.
    We need to be careful with this heir and spare business. Twice in the last century the second son became king: Edward VII and George VI. Don't tear up those betting slips on King Harry.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,687
    MarqueeMark said:

    Sandpit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT:
    MarqueeMark said:

    Another 1,180 Russian troops and 54 artillery systems unavaible to parade in Red Square as of yesterday.

    On another victory parade metric, the Russian soldiers lost in Ukraine in April alone - 31,150 with two days to go - if they were in groups of 10 x 10, would compromise 311 such "squares". They would take some 45 minutes to march past Putin...

    If they were White Walkers.

    The other thing that’s massively flipped recently is the KIA vs wounded numbers.

    Usually 1:3 or 1:4, in the last few months it’s been 3:1 for the Russians.
    Those drone-dropped grenades are utterly unforgiving. Far more fatally targetted than conventional artillery, with its widespread shrapnel injuries.
    Yeah, dropping a tank shell on a car doesn’t lead to many injured soldiers.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,687
    edited April 29
    Dupe, Vanilla having another bad day.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,424
    isam said:

    Someone on here tipped the Greens to beat the Lib Dems in a match bet at 11/10, it’s 2/7 now

    The variability on LD seats is probably quite limited - they'll do well in their strong areas, but won't gain that many and not lose that many, either. So that bet is essentially a gamble on the Greens sweeping lots of seats in London and the other cities - which certainly looks possible even likely. The risk factor is lots of strong Green performances that don't quite topple seats under FPTP - but with Labour flat on its back it's not clear they or anyone else is more likely to win in places like Islington and Hackney?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,511
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    FPT:-

    turbotubbs said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I am not a great royalist but fair play to Charles he played a blinder

    And that's why you should be.
    No, the fact that we have had a run of mostly decent monarchs over the last 90 years doesn't invalidate that it is a genetic lottery.

    We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
    It’s not all genetics though. As PoW Charles was going to be king and was prepared and groomed for it. That was his destiny and curse. Andrew was destined to be the spare. That was his curse.

    Same for William and Andrew.
    We need to be careful with this heir and spare business. Twice in the last century the second son became king: Edward VII and George VI. Don't tear up those betting slips on King Harry.
    Harry isn't second in line any more, is he?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,490
    edited April 29
    Fishing said:

    dixiedean said:

    viewcode said:

    williamglenn said:

    Interesting response to a recent piece from the FT data guy:

    https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/no-the-us-is-not-a-poor-society-with

    British people like to think that both Britain and America are "poor societies with a few very rich people". In fact, this only describes Britain, not the U.S.

    British people simply have difficulty comprehending how rich even working-class Americans are.

    You don't need a graph. All you need is the size of the houses in the sitcoms. Roseanne's house was huge.
    Yes, but. America is huge. Not surprising they have big houses.
    That's nothing to do with it. Only a trivial amount of our land is the footprint of our houses - 1% or 2% I seem to recall. In any case new houses in the UK used to be the biggest in Europe before WW2 - around 1600 sq ft I think, twice as big as they are now.

    The issue is not the size of the country, it's a deliberate and disastrous policy choice by governments to keep the land released for housing completely inadequate, to appease our NIMBYs.
    Now there's a can of worms for a morning !

    (The actual number for dwelling floor area in England is around 1900 sqkm - 25 million dwellings at 75sqm, which would be land occupied if they were all bungalows, which would be 1.5% ish of the area of England (~130k-135k sqkm). But they are multi-storey, so for physical land under the actual dwellings it is probably more like 0.6-0.8%.

    The key stat is floor area to land area ration, which in developments varies from perhaps 10% to 300% depending whether it is an estate for wealthy people (consider Cyclefree's 5000sqm plot quoted the other day with a perhaps 200-300 sqm house - my guess), or flats in a city (the Barbican has 16 hectares of floorspace in a 16 Hectare site - so is 100% roughly).

    But that is not the land required. That stat can be made 5x bigger or smaller by what you count. Famously Shelter did a claim that Golf Courses in England took up 2x more land than housing, which they came to by excluding gardens, excluding driveways, excluding estate roads, excluding the legally required 10% Green Space in any decent size (2Ha iirc) development, and so on and so on..

    When you ignore perhaps 90% of the actual land needing to be used, it is easy to argue that there is plenty available. Obviously our media swallowed such a claim, which is what it was designed for.

    They had their pants pulled down by More or Less iirc, and doubled down. That is one reason amongst many I never believe a Shelter press release at first sight.

    https://blog.shelter.org.uk/a-fair-way-do-we-prioritise-golf-or-homes/
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339
    edited April 29
    noneoftheabove said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.

    Not hitting the Tories, Nige? Focus groups not so impressed with that maybe?
    He had Straight out of commons/compton for Kemi. Wonder what made him think of that.
    Just a racist dig with the N word - for those who know the NWA album.
    It is excellent dog whistling to be fair, if she complains it will be a mix of she cant take a joke and its the complainers mind thats sick to have made that link that never occurred at all to colour blind Nigel himself.
    Are the covers mocked up by Farage or did he just stumble across a joke record shop in Rhyl?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,860
    noneoftheabove said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.

    Not hitting the Tories, Nige? Focus groups not so impressed with that maybe?
    He had Straight out of commons/compton for Kemi. Wonder what made him think of that.
    Just a racist dig with the N word - for those who know the NWA album.
    It is excellent dog whistling to be fair, if she complains it will be a mix of she cant take a joke and its the complainers mind thats sick to have made that link that never occurred at all to colour blind Nigel himself.
    That's the talent that Nigel and Zack share. Spouting rubbish, often nasty rubbish, that's actually quite hard to argue against.

    The existence of hard-to-argue truths and easy-to-argue untruths is why debates aren't always brilliant as a decision-making process.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,885
    Scott_xP said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    FPT:-

    turbotubbs said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I am not a great royalist but fair play to Charles he played a blinder

    And that's why you should be.
    No, the fact that we have had a run of mostly decent monarchs over the last 90 years doesn't invalidate that it is a genetic lottery.

    We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
    It’s not all genetics though. As PoW Charles was going to be king and was prepared and groomed for it. That was his destiny and curse. Andrew was destined to be the spare. That was his curse.

    Same for William and Andrew.
    We need to be careful with this heir and spare business. Twice in the last century the second son became king: Edward VII and George VI. Don't tear up those betting slips on King Harry.
    Harry isn't second in line any more, is he?
    Nope, George is. And then his brother. It would take something truly catastrophic to get back to Harry again. That ship has sailed, just as it did with Andrew. It is not an excuse but what then is the point of your life?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,511
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    FPT:-

    turbotubbs said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I am not a great royalist but fair play to Charles he played a blinder

    And that's why you should be.
    No, the fact that we have had a run of mostly decent monarchs over the last 90 years doesn't invalidate that it is a genetic lottery.

    We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
    It’s not all genetics though. As PoW Charles was going to be king and was prepared and groomed for it. That was his destiny and curse. Andrew was destined to be the spare. That was his curse.

    Same for William and Andrew.
    We need to be careful with this heir and spare business. Twice in the last century the second son became king: Edward VII and George VI. Don't tear up those betting slips on King Harry.
    Harry isn't second in line any more, is he?
    Nope, George is. And then his brother. It would take something truly catastrophic to get back to Harry again. That ship has sailed, just as it did with Andrew. It is not an excuse but what then is the point of your life?
    His sister I think
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,511
    The line of Succession

    SOVEREIGN

    1. The Prince of Wales

    2. Prince George of Wales

    3. Princess Charlotte of Wales

    4. Prince Louis of Wales

    5. The Duke of Sussex

    6. Prince Archie of Sussex

    7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex

    8. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339
    Rupert Lowe is not a fan of Keir Starmer but suggests in this 25-seconds clip that his staying in post is better for opposition parties:-
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/90G_FZuOGl8
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,429
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    FPT:-

    turbotubbs said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I am not a great royalist but fair play to Charles he played a blinder

    And that's why you should be.
    No, the fact that we have had a run of mostly decent monarchs over the last 90 years doesn't invalidate that it is a genetic lottery.

    We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
    It’s not all genetics though. As PoW Charles was going to be king and was prepared and groomed for it. That was his destiny and curse. Andrew was destined to be the spare. That was his curse.

    Same for William and Andrew.
    We need to be careful with this heir and spare business. Twice in the last century the second son became king: Edward VII and George VI. Don't tear up those betting slips on King Harry.
    Harry isn't second in line any more, is he?
    Nope, George is. And then his brother. It would take something truly catastrophic to get back to Harry again. That ship has sailed, just as it did with Andrew. It is not an excuse but what then is the point of your life?
    George, then Charlotte, then Louis. The law of succession has changed.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,518
    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT:
    MarqueeMark said:

    Another 1,180 Russian troops and 54 artillery systems unavaible to parade in Red Square as of yesterday.

    On another victory parade metric, the Russian soldiers lost in Ukraine in April alone - 31,150 with two days to go - if they were in groups of 10 x 10, would compromise 311 such "squares". They would take some 45 minutes to march past Putin...

    If they were White Walkers.

    Trouble is, if you lost 25 million countrymen during the Great Patriotic War, losing tens of thousands now is merely unfortunate.
    The Great Patriotic War was not a war of choice - it was an existential threat from the Nazis.

    Despite trying to brand it as such, it is widely understood within Russia that the Ukraine SMO was Putin's own land-grab. The better parallel is with Afghanistan, where far, far fewer casualties ground down any support for that adventure.

    And this one is trashing the Russian economy as Ukraine has fought dirty - by blowing up Russia as a gas station.
    The Russian birth rate is something like 100k a month.

    If they are losing 30k troops a month, that’s about half the number of male children born.

    And they are already in a demographic crisis.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,892
    edited April 29
    Sandpit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Sandpit said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT:
    MarqueeMark said:

    Another 1,180 Russian troops and 54 artillery systems unavaible to parade in Red Square as of yesterday.

    On another victory parade metric, the Russian soldiers lost in Ukraine in April alone - 31,150 with two days to go - if they were in groups of 10 x 10, would compromise 311 such "squares". They would take some 45 minutes to march past Putin...

    If they were White Walkers.

    The other thing that’s massively flipped recently is the KIA vs wounded numbers.

    Usually 1:3 or 1:4, in the last few months it’s been 3:1 for the Russians.
    Those drone-dropped grenades are utterly unforgiving. Far more fatally targetted than conventional artillery, with its widespread shrapnel injuries.
    Yeah, dropping a tank shell on a car doesn’t lead to many injured soldiers.
    The IDF have certainly killed more journalists and medics, sorry, Hamas & Hezbollah terrorists, with drones rather than tank shells.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,943
    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    Who on earth do you think is demonising her?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    FPT:-

    turbotubbs said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I am not a great royalist but fair play to Charles he played a blinder

    And that's why you should be.
    No, the fact that we have had a run of mostly decent monarchs over the last 90 years doesn't invalidate that it is a genetic lottery.

    We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
    It’s not all genetics though. As PoW Charles was going to be king and was prepared and groomed for it. That was his destiny and curse. Andrew was destined to be the spare. That was his curse.

    Same for William and Andrew.
    We need to be careful with this heir and spare business. Twice in the last century the second son became king: Edward VII and George VI. Don't tear up those betting slips on King Harry.
    Harry isn't second in line any more, is he?
    Nope, George is. And then his brother. It would take something truly catastrophic to get back to Harry again. That ship has sailed, just as it did with Andrew. It is not an excuse but what then is the point of your life?
    George's sister, Charlotte, comes next before Louis.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,675
    Morning all :)

    On a related, continued support for the Newham Independents in the Ladbrokes market for the Newham Mayoral contest.

    Now 11/8, having not long ago been 5/2. Labour still 8/11 and money for the Greens who are 16s into 8s.

    I can't see the Greens winning this - they are only working Royal Victoria (which they probably will win) and the two Forest Gate Wards (where the NIP might beat them) . They'll hold Olympic Park without too much trouble so I think only four for the Greens.

    The NIP and Labour have more people and resources.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,129
    Good morning

    Charlie saves the day is not what I expected to write this am but he absolutely has

    His speeches were clever, witty, and won over America

    At the same time he put Trump in the shadows, and showed Starmer you do not need to fawn over Trump to win your argument
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    Quality trolling of Trump by Gavin Newsom

    https://x.com/govpressoffice/status/2049333646302355849?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    Quality trolling of Trump by Gavin Newsom

    https://x.com/govpressoffice/status/2049333646302355849?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,511
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    showed Starmer you do not need to fawn over Trump to win your argument

    The difference between them is that Trump wants to be Charles, and doesn't want to be Starmer.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,943
    Taz said:

    Quality trolling of Trump by Gavin Newsom

    https://x.com/govpressoffice/status/2049333646302355849?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    Poor effort for Newsom, he didn't even thank me for my attention to this matter.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,630
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good morning

    Charlie saves the day is not what I expected to write this am but he absolutely has

    His speeches were clever, witty, and won over America

    At the same time he put Trump in the shadows, and showed Starmer you do not need to fawn over Trump to win your argument

    What's actually changed?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,892
    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    They don’t want change per se, but very crudely they want their and their kids’ lives to get progressively better as they did in the post war decades rather than stall or regress.

    No politician wants to break the bad news to them.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,703
    Wow 2/5 on Greens 2nd most seats, what next ZP really is a miracle worker atmosphere.

    Could all blow up of course especially if Burnham becomes PM and wins back the centre left

  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    Here’s a thought.

    Talk to them and find out. Instead of sitting on your arse saying we don’t know what they mean by change. I suspect it means their lives being improved. A lot of people exist, and that’s it.

    Political canvassing seems to be a dying art.

    If the main parties just criticise the voters for not seeing their brilliance and just assume the new kids on the block are ‘charlatans’ (they’re no more charlatans than the three main parties) and tell the voters they are stupid, as they do, then they will keep getting the same result.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    noneoftheabove said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    Who on earth do you think is demonising her?
    Plenty on PB for starters. Plenty on social media. Voters are deemed stupid, ignorant, thick, voting against their own interests if they support these parties. Especially reform

    You may not have seen it. I have. And drop the passive aggressive responses. I’m just the messenger.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,860
    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    A wise manager once said that the key question to ask a complaining parent was "what do you want to happen?"

    It's one thing to say things aren't OK. I suspect that few people would really disagree.

    It would be an interesting exercise to specify what that means, especially in terms of how much of it is really due to the government.

    It would be a really really interesting exercise to list "these are the concrete changes I want."

    It would be utterly fascinating, and possibly useful, to turn that into specific policies with indications of who should pay for them.

    More productive than blaming a Them, or buying another panacea.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,429
    edited April 29
    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    Yes. Voting for a different party every time chasing a rainbow is a symptom of a deeper thing. The largest issue is the lack of courage from the traditional parties to explain and plan and acknowledge the gigantic common ground, which leads people to drift to even less honest and even more divisive parties.

    In turn this seems to affect the calibre of people wanting to enter the House of Commons. I suppose most of my life I have thought it's an honour and privilege to be an MP. Now I feel sorry for those MPs bright enough to realise how much they have sold out and been betrayed, and collectively betrayed us.

    Not long ago I could and did vote for Rory. Once upon a time Willie Whitelaw. I don't think Rory wants to go back there. I don't blame him. Can I remember the name of my MP now? Not offhand.

  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,877
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    FPT:-

    turbotubbs said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I am not a great royalist but fair play to Charles he played a blinder

    And that's why you should be.
    No, the fact that we have had a run of mostly decent monarchs over the last 90 years doesn't invalidate that it is a genetic lottery.

    We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
    It’s not all genetics though. As PoW Charles was going to be king and was prepared and groomed for it. That was his destiny and curse. Andrew was destined to be the spare. That was his curse.

    Same for William and Andrew.
    We need to be careful with this heir and spare business. Twice in the last century the second son became king: Edward VII and George VI. Don't tear up those betting slips on King Harry.
    Harry isn't second in line any more, is he?
    Nope, George is. And then his brother. It would take something truly catastrophic to get back to Harry again. That ship has sailed, just as it did with Andrew. It is not an excuse but what then is the point of your life?
    George's sister, Charlotte, comes next before Louis.
    And a Republic comes before King Harry and Queen Meghan.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    They don’t want change per se, but very crudely they want their and their kids’ lives to get progressively better as they did in the post war decades rather than stall or regress.

    No politician wants to break the bad news to them.
    My Father always said to me and my sister when we were young he didn’t want us to have the same sort of upbringing and life chances he had. Sitting outside a pub every day while his dad and mom got pissed up. Having little to eat growing up in a crap part of Brum. Hand me down clothes. No educational opportunities and the only work being manual factory work.

    I agree with you. It’s no different today. Although we’re starting from a different base.

    I just think it boils down to people want a better life and life chances.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,943
    edited April 29
    Taz said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    Here’s a thought.

    Talk to them and find out. Instead of sitting on your arse saying we don’t know what they mean by change. I suspect it means their lives being improved. A lot of people exist, and that’s it.

    Political canvassing seems to be a dying art.

    If the main parties just criticise the voters for not seeing their brilliance and just assume the new kids on the block are ‘charlatans’ (they’re no more charlatans than the three main parties) and tell the voters they are stupid, as they do, then they will keep getting the same result.
    If there was a lever that said "improve the lives of the population" don't you think of our last dozen PMs might have tried pulling it?

    The bigger things that can be done to improve the lives of the population (that we aren't already doing) take effect over 10-30 years with extra costs early on and rewards generations later. Good luck getting voters to vote for that, however much one engages with them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,687
    AnneJGP said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, Farage with a nostalgic walk around a record shop.

    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/2048810375832023175

    This is how you do negative political advertising, not what Labour did.

    Followed the link because I wasn't too sure what negative advertising meant. Made me LOL, very clever.
    In a political context, negative advertising is talking about your opponents rather than yourself.

    See the Labour PPB from last week for another example.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    noneoftheabove said:

    Taz said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    Here’s a thought.

    Talk to them and find out. Instead of sitting on your arse saying we don’t know what they mean by change. I suspect it means their lives being improved. A lot of people exist, and that’s it.

    Political canvassing seems to be a dying art.

    If the main parties just criticise the voters for not seeing their brilliance and just assume the new kids on the block are ‘charlatans’ (they’re no more charlatans than the three main parties) and tell the voters they are stupid, as they do, then they will keep getting the same result.
    If there was a lever that said "improve the lives of the population" don't you think of our last dozen PMs might have tried pulling it?

    The bigger things that can be done to improve the lives of the population (that we aren't already doing) take effect over 10-30 years with extra costs early on and rewards generations later. Good luck getting voters to vote for that, however much one engages with them.
    Fine. Keep getting what you’re getting and don’t complain.

    As for your first sentence, quality Joey Deacon stuff that. No one is claiming there’s a magic bullet.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,760
    EIGHT DAYS TO SAVE THE LABOUR PARTY!!
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,943
    Taz said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    Who on earth do you think is demonising her?
    Plenty on PB for starters. Plenty on social media. Voters are deemed stupid, ignorant, thick, voting against their own interests if they support these parties. Especially reform

    You may not have seen it. I have. And drop the passive aggressive responses. I’m just the messenger.
    Voters not voting in their self interest is a thing. Collectively we impact the politicians we get. By voting for short term, quick fix, charlatans, whether they are in main stream parties like Corbyn and Johnson, or outside like Farage or Polanski, we don't improve our lives but harm them.

    That is the reality, however people want to label it.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,429
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    They don’t want change per se, but very crudely they want their and their kids’ lives to get progressively better as they did in the post war decades rather than stall or regress.

    No politician wants to break the bad news to them.
    Change is a terrible word in politics. It is associated with all the things we hate in little ways and cause inconvenience. What people want, IMHO, is summed up thus: They want all the stuff the state has decided to be responsible and accountable for to work well (this is immense but by far the most important). They want graduated incremental improvement. They want equality of opportunity to be maximised, but not equality of outcomes. They want change to be organic and developmental not revolutionary.

  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,242
    Seems that voters are dying out. Deaths are expected to outnumber births in the UK every year from 2026, according to projections from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)

    Between mid-2024 and mid-2034, the ONS projects:


    6.4 million people will be born

    6.9 million people will die

    7.3 million will immigrate to the UK on a long-term basis

    5.1 million people will emigrate long-term from the UK




    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgpjd2zzl8o
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339
    I've greened up on the year Starmer will be replaced.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,943
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    EIGHT DAYS TO SAVE THE LABOUR PARTY!!

    Why would we want to do that?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,339
    Battlebus said:

    Seems that voters are dying out. Deaths are expected to outnumber births in the UK every year from 2026, according to projections from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)

    Between mid-2024 and mid-2034, the ONS projects:


    6.4 million people will be born

    6.9 million people will die

    7.3 million will immigrate to the UK on a long-term basis

    5.1 million people will emigrate long-term from the UK




    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgpjd2zzl8o

    So we'll save money on printing ballot papers and polling cards. Huzzah!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,615
    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    A touch of strawmanning in that argument.
    It's not "demonising" them to point out the likely futility of their choices.

    Many of us are just as frustrated with the efforts of the former duopoly, but we seriously doubt that change brought about by a prospective Reform or Green administration would do anything to improve matters.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,675
    Taz said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    They don’t want change per se, but very crudely they want their and their kids’ lives to get progressively better as they did in the post war decades rather than stall or regress.

    No politician wants to break the bad news to them.
    My Father always said to me and my sister when we were young he didn’t want us to have the same sort of upbringing and life chances he had. Sitting outside a pub every day while his dad and mom got pissed up. Having little to eat growing up in a crap part of Brum. Hand me down clothes. No educational opportunities and the only work being manual factory work.

    I agree with you. It’s no different today. Although we’re starting from a different base.

    I just think it boils down to people want a better life and life chances.
    NO - what they want is a better life and life chances for their children.

    Aspiration isn't a selfish thing - yes, people would like a better life for themselves but the unwritten "deal" has always been you work hard and sacrifice for your children and family so they can have the life you would have liked and wanted.

    Two parts of this have shifted - first, fewer people are having children and having them later and second, the promise of that better life now seems a chimera. If anything, for perhaps the first generation ever, our children might have a worse life than we do now (or that's what is being peddled around as the truth).

    Instead of coming up with ideas as to how to make life better, the mainstream parties (as you call them) are struggling while the populist rabble are either promising the sun, moon and the stars or scapegoating groups in order to blame them for everything else that's wrong.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,242
    These population projections would indicate the net 2.2mn for immigration will be key. Will it be highly skilled taxpayers coming in or highly skilled taxpayers leaving. The mix will be critical in paying for post-2029 government spend.

    Grim reaper appearing all over the world in China, Japan, Korea, Russia (with a little UKrainian help) and Europe in general. It's going to be a different future from the one people expect.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,615
    Dura_Ace said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good morning

    Charlie saves the day is not what I expected to write this am but he absolutely has

    His speeches were clever, witty, and won over America

    At the same time he put Trump in the shadows, and showed Starmer you do not need to fawn over Trump to win your argument

    What's actually changed?
    The king is now on Vance's shitlist.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    They don’t want change per se, but very crudely they want their and their kids’ lives to get progressively better as they did in the post war decades rather than stall or regress.

    No politician wants to break the bad news to them.
    My Father always said to me and my sister when we were young he didn’t want us to have the same sort of upbringing and life chances he had. Sitting outside a pub every day while his dad and mom got pissed up. Having little to eat growing up in a crap part of Brum. Hand me down clothes. No educational opportunities and the only work being manual factory work.

    I agree with you. It’s no different today. Although we’re starting from a different base.

    I just think it boils down to people want a better life and life chances.
    NO - what they want is a better life and life chances for their children.

    Aspiration isn't a selfish thing - yes, people would like a better life for themselves but the unwritten "deal" has always been you work hard and sacrifice for your children and family so they can have the life you would have liked and wanted.

    Two parts of this have shifted - first, fewer people are having children and having them later and second, the promise of that better life now seems a chimera. If anything, for perhaps the first generation ever, our children might have a worse life than we do now (or that's what is being peddled around as the truth).

    Instead of coming up with ideas as to how to make life better, the mainstream parties (as you call them) are struggling while the populist rabble are either promising the sun, moon and the stars or scapegoating groups in order to blame them for everything else that's wrong.
    Some people don’t have children.

    But, you’re right, a sizeable chunk want a better life for their kids. My Dad did as I explained above.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,760
    noneoftheabove said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    EIGHT DAYS TO SAVE THE LABOUR PARTY!!

    Why would we want to do that?
    "Humour - it is a difficult concept. It is not logical." - Lt. Saavik.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    A touch of strawmanning in that argument.
    It's not "demonising" them to point out the likely futility of their choices.

    Many of us are just as frustrated with the efforts of the former duopoly, but we seriously doubt that change brought about by a prospective Reform or Green administration would do anything to improve matters.
    When you put it like that it’s a thoroughly disheartening scenario.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,943
    Scott_xP said:

    The line of Succession

    SOVEREIGN

    1. The Prince of Wales

    2. Prince George of Wales

    3. Princess Charlotte of Wales

    4. Prince Louis of Wales

    5. The Duke of Sussex

    6. Prince Archie of Sussex

    7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex

    8. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

    And I'm supposed to believe that this is God's will? Whereas God didn't bother to let us know his opinion about say global warming or the second world war?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,429
    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good morning

    Charlie saves the day is not what I expected to write this am but he absolutely has

    His speeches were clever, witty, and won over America

    At the same time he put Trump in the shadows, and showed Starmer you do not need to fawn over Trump to win your argument

    What's actually changed?
    The king is now on Vance's shitlist.
    Vance was clapping away like a North Korean during the speech. Heart of stone......

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 46,466
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT:
    MarqueeMark said:

    Another 1,180 Russian troops and 54 artillery systems unavaible to parade in Red Square as of yesterday.

    On another victory parade metric, the Russian soldiers lost in Ukraine in April alone - 31,150 with two days to go - if they were in groups of 10 x 10, would compromise 311 such "squares". They would take some 45 minutes to march past Putin...

    If they were White Walkers.

    Trouble is, if you lost 25 million countrymen during the Great Patriotic War, losing tens of thousands now is merely unfortunate.
    Though nowadays most people are not as keen/stupid to want to get shot as they were in olden times.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112

    We thought we were getting a TACO

    "Trump Always Chickens Out"

    But so far we are getting a NACHO

    "Not A Chance Hormuz Opens"

    (With appreciation to the trader who told me)

    https://x.com/javierblas/status/2049391155431825685?s=61
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,334
    Taz said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’


    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    But what do people actually want? “Change” is meaningless in of itself. I wish we had a proper grown up debate on the change people actually want to see and the realistic avenues of getting there (with the positives and negatives of each course of action). Instead we have charlatans pretending that the course is easy and the reason everything is not perfect is because of malice.
    Here’s a thought.

    Talk to them and find out. Instead of sitting on your arse saying we don’t know what they mean by change. I suspect it means their lives being improved. A lot of people exist, and that’s it.

    Political canvassing seems to be a dying art.

    If the main parties just criticise the voters for not seeing their brilliance and just assume the new kids on the block are ‘charlatans’ (they’re no more charlatans than the three main parties) and tell the voters they are stupid, as they do, then they will keep getting the same result.
    I started to write a response then realised its worthy of a thread so I've submitted it
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,687
    numbertwelve said:

    Foxy said:

    Reform will probably come first, but I am not tempted.

    It is an anti-Labour, anti-Tory wave of anger, and there is a new kid on the block. Faragism is looking increasingly dog-earred.

    The question is whether the locals give Reform another boost or if the decline will continue

    The elections last year undoubtedly confirmed they had arrived on the scene and gave them a huge opportunity - an opportunity I would suggest they have only half capitalised on. While they still lead the polls they have not been able to demonstrate the seriousness of organisation or advance their popularity with sensible well thought out policy making, that could have seen them boosted into the high 30s. Instead they’ve gone backwards.

    I suspect they might get another chance in the coming months and a slight poll recovery, though knowing what we do now I suspect they’ll miss the chance to fully capitalise on it again.

    Watch the Greens - particularly if Starmer remains in situ. While I think they’ll end up suffering the same problem as Reform and I don’t expect this to be long term, I think it’s plausible these results give them a similar boost which could see them leading a couple of polls.
    Farage seriously missed a trick by not being in the Commons last night for the vote on Starmer and the Standards Committee.

    He had the opportunity to spend the next week talking about nothing else other than Labour whipping a vote on “Starmer’s Lies”, but his own absence significantly blunts that line of attack.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,943
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    EIGHT DAYS TO SAVE THE LABOUR PARTY!!

    Why would we want to do that?
    "Humour - it is a difficult concept. It is not logical." - Lt. Saavik.
    Is it to avoid the Wrath of (Sadiq) Khan?
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,112
    Battlebus said:

    Seems that voters are dying out. Deaths are expected to outnumber births in the UK every year from 2026, according to projections from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)

    Between mid-2024 and mid-2034, the ONS projects:


    6.4 million people will be born

    6.9 million people will die

    7.3 million will immigrate to the UK on a long-term basis

    5.1 million people will emigrate long-term from the UK




    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgpjd2zzl8o

    So still 730,000 immigrants a year coming to the UK.

    Presumably a fair proportion of students ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,615
    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    A touch of strawmanning in that argument.
    It's not "demonising" them to point out the likely futility of their choices.

    Many of us are just as frustrated with the efforts of the former duopoly, but we seriously doubt that change brought about by a prospective Reform or Green administration would do anything to improve matters.
    When you put it like that it’s a thoroughly disheartening scenario.
    It is.

    One of the reasons I favour PR (a rate point of agreement with Farage, though I'm sceptical he'd do anything about it if he actually got into government) is that it offers at least the possibility of honest pragmatists having some influence.
    The current system more strongly incentivises the bullshitters, IMO.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 46,466
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Battlebus said:

    Seems that voters are dying out. Deaths are expected to outnumber births in the UK every year from 2026, according to projections from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)

    Between mid-2024 and mid-2034, the ONS projects:


    6.4 million people will be born

    6.9 million people will die

    7.3 million will immigrate to the UK on a long-term basis

    5.1 million people will emigrate long-term from the UK




    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgpjd2zzl8o

    So we'll save money on printing ballot papers and polling cards. Huzzah!
    5 million high skilled tax paying people leave and 7 million mainly low skilled , benefits candidates come in , seems nirvana is just round the corner for UK
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 46,466
    Scott_xP said:

    The line of Succession

    SOVEREIGN

    1. The Prince of Wales

    2. Prince George of Wales

    3. Princess Charlotte of Wales

    4. Prince Louis of Wales

    5. The Duke of Sussex

    6. Prince Archie of Sussex

    7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex

    8. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

    Parasites all.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,615
    Interesting thread.
    I hadn't realised the pervasive extent of the Chinese influence in occupied Ukraine.

    China is rebuilding how occupied Ukrainian territories function — step by step.

    It installs 6,000 Huawei base stations, replaces dollars with yuan, and keeps factories running with Chinese engineers. no ownership, no formal role, but everything depends on Chinese tech...
    https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/2049205660311499157
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 46,466
    Dura_Ace said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Good morning

    Charlie saves the day is not what I expected to write this am but he absolutely has

    His speeches were clever, witty, and won over America

    At the same time he put Trump in the shadows, and showed Starmer you do not need to fawn over Trump to win your argument

    What's actually changed?
    Absolutely F all, most if not all would have gone over the Americans heads and if not they would still think Charlie was almost as great as their King Trump.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,334
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    This is absolutely right. Certainly for former industrial areas

    People like Rochdale get it.

    The main parties and the PB herd don’t and just demonise the likes of Lucy and ignore the reasons.

    ‘ Think this quote from Lucy who voted Conservative in 2019, Labour in 2024 and is probably voting Green now but would also consider Reform just encapsulates people’s desperation to find some/any party that would bring about the change they so desperately want’

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/2049127363737198934?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ

    A touch of strawmanning in that argument.
    It's not "demonising" them to point out the likely futility of their choices.

    Many of us are just as frustrated with the efforts of the former duopoly, but we seriously doubt that change brought about by a prospective Reform or Green administration would do anything to improve matters.
    The truth is that it doesn't matter which council you elect next week.

    They will be as broke then as they are now.
    They will have the same statutory duties to hosepipe cash at social care as they do now
    Everything that could possibly be cut has been cut
    Most councillors are normal people and that means many are at best not very good and at worst stupid and malevolent. Which means the officers who are running the council will continue to run the council
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,687
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    FPT:-

    turbotubbs said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I am not a great royalist but fair play to Charles he played a blinder

    And that's why you should be.
    No, the fact that we have had a run of mostly decent monarchs over the last 90 years doesn't invalidate that it is a genetic lottery.

    We could have had Edward VIII during WW2 and the Cold War if he had been able to keep his pants on, or Andrew instead of Charles if the sperm had arrived in different order. Or Harry instead of William (which would be my choice, albeit an unpopular one here).
    It’s not all genetics though. As PoW Charles was going to be king and was prepared and groomed for it. That was his destiny and curse. Andrew was destined to be the spare. That was his curse.

    Same for William and Andrew.
    We need to be careful with this heir and spare business. Twice in the last century the second son became king: Edward VII and George VI. Don't tear up those betting slips on King Harry.
    Harry isn't second in line any more, is he?
    Nope, George is. And then his brother. It would take something truly catastrophic to get back to Harry again. That ship has sailed, just as it did with Andrew. It is not an excuse but what then is the point of your life?
    The Princess Royal, Anne, and her children, appear to have done a pretty good job of it. Also the Duke of Edinburgh, Edward, and his family.

    Andrew and Harry, not so good.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,654
    Taz said:


    We thought we were getting a TACO

    "Trump Always Chickens Out"

    But so far we are getting a NACHO

    "Not A Chance Hormuz Opens"

    (With appreciation to the trader who told me)

    https://x.com/javierblas/status/2049391155431825685?s=61

    Iran wants money. It won't reopen Hormuz until it's paid to do so. Trump hasn't worked out a way to pay Iran without embarrassing himself. Hormuz will stay closed until he does.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,928
    FF43 said:

    Taz said:


    We thought we were getting a TACO

    "Trump Always Chickens Out"

    But so far we are getting a NACHO

    "Not A Chance Hormuz Opens"

    (With appreciation to the trader who told me)

    https://x.com/javierblas/status/2049391155431825685?s=61

    Iran wants money. It won't reopen Hormuz until it's paid to do so. Trump hasn't worked out a way to pay Iran without embarrassing himself. Hormuz will stay closed until he does.
    If that's done via a toll then the principle established will have rather significant implications, not least for the likes of Indonesia and Malaysia, but also Denmark, us and the French with the Channel, and so on.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,630
    Sandpit said:

    numbertwelve said:

    Foxy said:

    Reform will probably come first, but I am not tempted.

    It is an anti-Labour, anti-Tory wave of anger, and there is a new kid on the block. Faragism is looking increasingly dog-earred.

    The question is whether the locals give Reform another boost or if the decline will continue

    The elections last year undoubtedly confirmed they had arrived on the scene and gave them a huge opportunity - an opportunity I would suggest they have only half capitalised on. While they still lead the polls they have not been able to demonstrate the seriousness of organisation or advance their popularity with sensible well thought out policy making, that could have seen them boosted into the high 30s. Instead they’ve gone backwards.

    I suspect they might get another chance in the coming months and a slight poll recovery, though knowing what we do now I suspect they’ll miss the chance to fully capitalise on it again.

    Watch the Greens - particularly if Starmer remains in situ. While I think they’ll end up suffering the same problem as Reform and I don’t expect this to be long term, I think it’s plausible these results give them a similar boost which could see them leading a couple of polls.
    Farage seriously missed a trick by not being in the Commons last night for the vote on Starmer and the Standards Committee.

    He had the opportunity to spend the next week talking about nothing else other than Labour whipping a vote on “Starmer’s Lies”, but his own absence significantly blunts that line of attack.
    That's not how Big Nige rolls. He has no appetite for nor any particular ability at the meta of parliamentary politics. His stripe of amoral demagoguery is transacted by photo ops in 'spoons, vape shops, the toilets at Mar-a-Lago and that Thai resort owned by the cryptoc-nt who bankrolls the Fukker project.

    He's also more focussed on destroying the tories than Labour so bringing SKS down isn't his prime directive.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,654
    edited April 29
    Morris_Dancer said:

    FF43 said:

    Taz said:


    We thought we were getting a TACO

    "Trump Always Chickens Out"

    But so far we are getting a NACHO

    "Not A Chance Hormuz Opens"

    (With appreciation to the trader who told me)

    https://x.com/javierblas/status/2049391155431825685?s=61

    Iran wants money. It won't reopen Hormuz until it's paid to do so. Trump hasn't worked out a way to pay Iran without embarrassing himself. Hormuz will stay closed until he does.
    If that's done via a toll then the principle established will have rather significant implications, not least for the likes of Indonesia and Malaysia, but also Denmark, us and the French with the Channel, and so on.
    Sanctions relief would be a better option to avoid setting up a precedent for tolling waterways. But Iran doesn't trust the US not to reimpose sanctions later

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/the-real-reason-iran-and-the-us-cannot-end-the-war-money
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2026