politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest PB/Polling Matters podcast: The YouGov LAB leade
Comments
-
The hacker would no doubt be advertising penis enlargement and Viagra.Pulpstar said:
If he'd have been hacked then he'd be advertising a quick $10,000 a month from home rather than going on about gays and frogs.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I did and was loathe to do so at risk of upsetting the sensitivities of our LD posters on here. Some of whom think that Farron can feed 5,000 with a bit of bread and fish.oxfordsimon said:
Have you seen his latest problems in this area?TCPoliticalBetting said:
Farron's same sex issues continue to haunt him and he is being targeted by some LGBT activists. It will suppress LD support because the support the LDs are trying to attract are very pro-LGBT. Maybe unfair but it is a reality.foxinsoxuk said:
The Autumn conference will be interesting, but the May 2015 result has led to the party pulling together rather than pulling apart, at least that is my impression from the leadership hustings.antifrank said:The Lib Dems still don't seem to have any consciousness of what has happened to them. A uniform 5% swing would net them 16 seats. A 5% swing is pretty chunky of course. That also ignores the multiple fronts they're fighting on: they divide 10 Conservative seats, 3 Labour seats and 3 SNP seats. Oh, and there will very probably be boundary changes. Oh, and many/most of their former incumbents will not be fighting again next time.
In reality, the Lib Dems picking up five seats next time would be a good effort. And it's by no means impossible that they could lose seats next time. Three (Southport, Sheffield Hallam and Orkney & Shetland) all look to have serious challenges next time for different reasons.
I do not think any LD thinks it will be an easy road back to be a substantial third party (or more), but that recognition that it will take a decade or longer has at least sunk in, unlike Labour.
http://order-order.com/2015/07/24/libdem-leader-sorry-over-tweet-comparing-gay-people-to-frogs/#_@/Xhsq0ZvlTq9mpg
People don't get their account hacked in this way. It is just not credible.0 -
He is too far in nowTOPPING said:
Yes exactly - now, Corbyn may well think that and be working towards it. However, I just wonder, as a seasoned politician whether he really (really) believes it.oxfordsimon said:
But one of the key things about a socialist revolution is that you have to destroy to rebuild in a pure wayTOPPING said:
Yes well as mentioned yesterday on here, we are at the anger stage so there is a lot of internal debate (ie none) atm.TGOHF said:Topping - Kendall started off the campaign with some strident policies which Labour members admit in polling could win elections - but she is booed at hustings.
It's not the clearness of the policies that makes Corbyn appealing to Labour types - it's the batshit mad purity of failed Marxism that appeals.
Like a team getting relegated playing "the right kind of football" rather than staying up with a four long ball approach.
How much do Labour want to be in power ? Not much - so why vote for them..
Those supporting Corbyn, as you say, really do think that "one last push" will deliver a pure socialist country if only the electorate would see sense. But for others in Lab (and us), we appreciate his clarity. It will force Lab to define itself. That definition will be a million miles from Corbyn's vision but at present they are drifting dangerously.
It is pretty similar to the LibDems during the coalition - they were becoming featureless and rudderless and had a golden opportunity to define themselves but sadly no one grasped that nettle. Lab need to get grabbing. And Liz, Andy & Yvette (I am on Yvette at 3-1) seem likely to do that.
On the other hand, I have been trying to find a way to back Corbyn withdrawing. Although I think a Corbyn victory will eventually lead to Lab regeneration, he must look at the current chaos and ponder whether he is being too destructive.0 -
I don't think moving right or left matters so much to the Lib Dems as finding distinctive populist issues they can exploit at local level.0
-
Mr, kle4, Lotus' problem is that the current owners (Genii, I think) want to sell and are only providing funding sufficient to keep it a trundling around kind of going concern. If they get bought by Renault or someone else, prospects could improve quickly.
Mind you, if Manor can run...0 -
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/11/14/how-the-unions-saved-labour/Plato said:Yes, they stopped Labour losing their marbles. Now some actively encouraging it.
That was all in the public domain. What was not known was the reaction of a group of long-standing, moderate, brave and far-sighted trade union leaders who believed that the party could not fulfil its role of getting trade unionists into parliament if it became unelectable. They decided to use their block votes to change the composition of the hard left NEC as a precondition for ‘saving’ the Labour party and making it an electoral force again...
The fledging, secret, trade union gathering – named the St Ermin’s Group after the hotel where it met – knew that it had to defeat this challenge, or risk a greater defection of MPs to the SDP which was riding high in the polls....TCPoliticalBetting said:Would I be correct in thinking that one key difference for Labour back in the 1980s was that the largest Unions which funded Labour tended to have more centre left Leaders rather than the hard left ones that are now in place?
Plato many thanks. I thought the moderates played a key role in money but unaware of this work.
0 -
Seeing coverage of the forthcoming US presidential elections, even knowing that people like to hear it, can any of the candidates really mean or be believed by the public when they talk about straightening out DC and similar talk? I mean, they all say it, I'm sure (and like here, people with decades of experience of the establishment, perhaps in DC, still try to act like outsiders), but no one can take that seriously, surely?0
-
This could lead to a nasty confrontation with the Greens. I imagine Labour will open a nearby nail concession.TheScreamingEagles said:
Any tree will do.Jonathan said:
What type of tree?TheScreamingEagles said:
Goes Labour for the first time ever.Pulpstar said:
Does Hallam finally go Labour, or could it be one of the Conservative's greatest triumphs in 2020 ?antifrank said:The Lib Dems still don't seem to have any consciousness of what has happened to them. A uniform 5% swing would net them 16 seats. A 5% swing is pretty chunky of course. That also ignores the multiple fronts they're fighting on: they divide 10 Conservative seats, 3 Labour seats and 3 SNP seats. Oh, and there will very probably be boundary changes. Oh, and many/most of their former incumbents will not be fighting again next time.
In reality, the Lib Dems picking up five seats next time would be a good effort. And it's by no means impossible that they could lose seats next time. Three (Southport, Sheffield Hallam and Orkney & Shetland) all look to have serious challenges next time for different reasons.
Lib Dems in Hallam would rather nail their testicles to a tree than vote tactically for the Tories.
They are annoyed at the way the Tories cannibalised them at the election0 -
That rules out Scotland then.Sean_F said:I don't think moving right or left matters so much to the Lib Dems as finding distinctive populist issues they can exploit at local level.
0 -
That's the issue, they didn't accept it, certainly in the East in that fundamentally split country. The US knew exactly what they were doing but it is the European nations who should have known better as the HoL report rightly heavily criticised the government for. Of course Nuland's f##k the EU comment reflected those divergent interests.kle4 said:
While I dislike the EU, to play devil's advocate, even if they proposed such a deal, more responsibility falls on people who accept a deal than propose it, so long as it is not forced from the proposerFalseFlag said:
it was the EU who proposed a deal that would have required the severing of ties with RussiaJEO said:
That's a bit of a rewriting of history. It was pro-Russian politicians in charge that decided to impose themselves on the West by cancelling the trade deal. That was what led to the protests. I have a colleague from the East (albeit not Luhansk or Donetsk) and she says support for Russia collapsed after Russia invaded. While she spoke Russian as her mother tongue she still identified as Ukrainian. It's like English speaking Scots not feeling English.Chris123 said:
That's an outlandish scenario. We might as well talk about martians landing... Ukraine is a different situation because it isn't a historically grown state. What is now Ukraine historically belonged to the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Kievan Rus. Modern-day Ukraine is an invention that lacks a historical basis and a homogeneous population that identifies as a nation. Ukrainian nationalism originated in Western Ukraine where the population felt oppressed by the Poles (and Austro-Hungary). In Eastern Ukraine there was no nationalist movement - people spoke Russian and felt close affinity with Russia... Those that seek to split Ukraine and drive it into a Western or Eastern bloc are doing the country a great disservice. It cannot be either with the West or with Russia, it's got to be both. That's a reality dictated by the diverse makeup of the population. Unfortunately some politicians in Kiev ignored that and sought to impose themselves on the East... The Baltic states are a completely different scenario.Financier said:Regarding Obama's remarks about the strength of the unity of the EU. Does he realise that if Russia went to claim back the Baltic states plus most of its former eastern Europe countries, that the EU would take lots of committees to decide and disagree that it would just fold up as Russia advanced. Basically there is less united strength in the EU than in what remains in NATO.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/russia-warned-years-ago-growth-us-influence-ukraine-could-cause-trouble0 -
The tweet (if it was from Farron) is very poor science. Conflating oestrogenic chemicals at minute concentrations and weak activities as a potential cause for something as major as sexual orientation is nonsense. That's the real issue.
Gratuitous insults are irrelevant and almost routine on twitter. Get over it or don't tweet.
Which leads me onto my main point. When did the rhyme change to "Sticks and stones won't break my bones, but names will always hurt me."
0 -
Big brother is listening - they'll need to recruit some "Weegies" etc to translate the calls:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snoopgate-scandal-brit-spooks-spying-61270950 -
It is certainly hard to swallow Jeb Bush claiming he is running as an outsider but I guess they think it works.kle4 said:Seeing coverage of the forthcoming US presidential elections, even knowing that people like to hear it, can any of the candidates really mean or be believed by the public when they talk about straightening out DC and similar talk? I mean, they all say it, I'm sure (and like here, people with decades of experience of the establishment, perhaps in DC, still try to act like outsiders), but no one can take that seriously, surely?
0 -
I don't think it is all that split. The share that believe different world leaders will do the right thing:FalseFlag said:That's the issue, they didn't accept it, certainly in the East in that fundamentally split country. The US knew exactly what they were doing but it is the European nations who should have known better as the HoL report rightly heavily criticised the government for. Of course Nuland's f##k the EU comment reflected those divergent interests.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/russia-warned-years-ago-growth-us-influence-ukraine-could-cause-trouble
West
Merkel: 63%
Obama: 62%
Putin: 8%
East (less the small conflict areas)
Merkel: 47%
Obama: 37%
Putin: 12%
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/06/Russia-Ukraine-Report-03.png
So you have a West that is very pro-Western, and an East that is moderately pro-Western. This chimes with my Eastern Ukrainian colleague: previously she was split between Russia and the West, but support for Russia has gone out the window when they started annexing parts of Ukraine.0 -
Here's another one. More important to have strong ties with the EU or Russia:
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/06/Russia-Ukraine-Report-02.png
West
EU: 72%
Both: 16%
Russia: 6%
East
EU: 39%
Both: 30%
Russia: 18%0 -
Ah, the disinformation about the House of Lords report again. Let's give that key quotation from the summary again:FalseFlag said:That's the issue, they didn't accept it, certainly in the East in that fundamentally split country. The US knew exactly what they were doing but it is the European nations who should have known better as the HoL report rightly heavily criticised the government for. Of course Nuland's f##k the EU comment reflected those divergent interests.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/russia-warned-years-ago-growth-us-influence-ukraine-could-cause-trouble
"We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues. However, a strong sanctions policy requires a well-defined exit strategy that is clearly communicated. Therefore, if there is genuine progress on the Minsk Protocol, Member States should be prepared to ratchet down these sanctions. On the other hand, if there is a further deterioration in eastern Ukraine, the EU should move to target individuals close to the regime and broaden sanctions into the Russian financial sector. The dismemberment of a sovereign independent state is not acceptable."0 -
Plato "Yes, they stopped Labour losing their marbles. Now some actively encouraging it. "
This is possibly the main difference to the situation Labour found itself in the 1980s. It had with Foot a hard left Leader but saved by most of its largest unions being more soft left. If Corbyn wins then we have a perfect combination (for a new party) of a hard left Leader with no moderating force from 2/3 of its paymasters.0 -
Francis O'Grady seems pretty sensible - she's nowhere in this mess. https://www.tuc.org.uk/frances-ogradyTCPoliticalBetting said:
Plato "Yes, they stopped Labour losing their marbles. Now some actively encouraging it. "
This is possibly the main difference to the situation Labour found itself in the 1980s. It had with Foot a hard left Leader but saved by most of its largest unions being more soft left. If Corbyn wins then we have a perfect combination (for a new party) of a hard left Leader with no moderating force from 2/3 of its paymasters.0 -
As predicted last night
Andy Burnham aide 'dismissing women' in Labour leadership sexism row
Liz Kendall says Lord Falconer's suggestion that women candidates could not be leader are a 'gross insult'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11760083/Andy-Burnham-aide-dismissing-women-in-Labour-leadership-sexism-row.html0 -
Plus we have anti american fruit loop conspiracy theorists believing everything Putin tells them.JEO said:
I don't think it is all that split. The share that believe different world leaders will do the right thing:FalseFlag said:That's the issue, they didn't accept it, certainly in the East in that fundamentally split country. The US knew exactly what they were doing but it is the European nations who should have known better as the HoL report rightly heavily criticised the government for. Of course Nuland's f##k the EU comment reflected those divergent interests.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/russia-warned-years-ago-growth-us-influence-ukraine-could-cause-trouble
West
Merkel: 63%
Obama: 62%
Putin: 8%
East (less the small conflict areas)
Merkel: 47%
Obama: 37%
Putin: 12%
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/06/Russia-Ukraine-Report-03.png
So you have a West that is very pro-Western, and an East that is moderately pro-Western. This chimes with my Eastern Ukrainian colleague: previously she was split between Russia and the West, but support for Russia has gone out the window when they started annexing parts of Ukraine.0 -
Can't imagine there will be many syllables.calum said:Big brother is listening - they'll need to recruit some "Weegies" etc to translate the calls:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snoopgate-scandal-brit-spooks-spying-6127095
Spooks doing their jobs - carry on...0 -
Someone should ask him - perhaps they have - how many members of his family would have to become president before he was no longer an outsider.DecrepitJohnL said:
It is certainly hard to swallow Jeb Bush claiming he is running as an outsiderkle4 said:Seeing coverage of the forthcoming US presidential elections, even knowing that people like to hear it, can any of the candidates really mean or be believed by the public when they talk about straightening out DC and similar talk? I mean, they all say it, I'm sure (and like here, people with decades of experience of the establishment, perhaps in DC, still try to act like outsiders), but no one can take that seriously, surely?
I hope he wins and that George P Bush runs as an outsider in 2024.
0 -
"Conservatives cannot win elections" was once a theme we read somewhere....
Since 1974 Labour has had 7 new Leaders and only 1 of these – Tony Blair – won a GE.
Since 1974 the Conservatives have had 6 new Leaders and 3 of these – Thatcher, Major and Cameron have won a GE.
Labour are about to try number 8.0 -
They did not suffer a uniform swing in 2015, and they will not have a uniform swing in 2020 either.antifrank said:The Lib Dems still don't seem to have any consciousness of what has happened to them. A uniform 5% swing would net them 16 seats. A 5% swing is pretty chunky of course. That also ignores the multiple fronts they're fighting on: they divide 10 Conservative seats, 3 Labour seats and 3 SNP seats. Oh, and there will very probably be boundary changes. Oh, and many/most of their former incumbents will not be fighting again next time.
In reality, the Lib Dems picking up five seats next time would be a good effort. And it's by no means impossible that they could lose seats next time. Three (Southport, Sheffield Hallam and Orkney & Shetland) all look to have serious challenges next time for different reasons.
A 5 per cent uniform swing would mean (say) gaining 2.5 per cent and Conservatives losing 2.5 per cent in five years, which is not much and should be considered tantamount to a "no-change" scenario.
It will probably be like every other election since the 1970s: when the Conservatives do well, the Lib Dems will do badly, and vice versa.0 -
Whats more interesting is the crude comments from the morons who inhabit Guido's.Pulpstar said:
If he'd have been hacked then he'd be advertising a quick $10,000 a month from home rather than going on about gays and frogs.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I did and was loathe to do so at risk of upsetting the sensitivities of our LD posters on here. Some of whom think that Farron can feed 5,000 with a bit of bread and fish.oxfordsimon said:
Have you seen his latest problems in this area?TCPoliticalBetting said:
Farron's same sex issues continue to haunt him and he is being targeted by some LGBT activists. It will suppress LD support because the support the LDs are trying to attract are very pro-LGBT. Maybe unfair but it is a reality.foxinsoxuk said:
The Autumn conference will be interesting, but the May 2015 result has led to the party pulling together rather than pulling apart, at least that is my impression from the leadership hustings.antifrank said:The Lib Dems still don't seem to have any consciousness of what has happened to them. A uniform 5% swing would net them 16 seats. A 5% swing is pretty chunky of course. That also ignores the multiple fronts they're fighting on: they divide 10 Conservative seats, 3 Labour seats and 3 SNP seats. Oh, and there will very probably be boundary changes. Oh, and many/most of their former incumbents will not be fighting again next time.
In reality, the Lib Dems picking up five seats next time would be a good effort. And it's by no means impossible that they could lose seats next time. Three (Southport, Sheffield Hallam and Orkney & Shetland) all look to have serious challenges next time for different reasons.
I do not think any LD thinks it will be an easy road back to be a substantial third party (or more), but that recognition that it will take a decade or longer has at least sunk in, unlike Labour.
http://order-order.com/2015/07/24/libdem-leader-sorry-over-tweet-comparing-gay-people-to-frogs/#_@/Xhsq0ZvlTq9mpg
People don't get their account hacked in this way. It is just not credible.0 -
Surely the counter to that would be to say simply: I wasn't referring to "women", just you.TheScreamingEagles said:As predicted last night
Andy Burnham aide 'dismissing women' in Labour leadership sexism row
Liz Kendall says Lord Falconer's suggestion that women candidates could not be leader are a 'gross insult'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11760083/Andy-Burnham-aide-dismissing-women-in-Labour-leadership-sexism-row.html0 -
Why any major politician has a Twitter account is beyond me. They only ever seem to have a negative affect.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I did and was loathe to do so at risk of upsetting the sensitivities of our LD posters on here. Some of whom think that Farron can feed 5,000 with a bit of bread and fish.oxfordsimon said:
Have you seen his latest problems in this area?TCPoliticalBetting said:
Farron's same sex issues continue to haunt him and he is being targeted by some LGBT activists. It will suppress LD support because the support the LDs are trying to attract are very pro-LGBT. Maybe unfair but it is a reality.foxinsoxuk said:
The Autumn conference will be interesting, but the May 2015 result has led to the party pulling together rather than pulling apart, at least that is my impression from the leadership hustings.antifrank said:The Lib Dems still don't seem to have any consciousness of what has happened to them. A uniform 5% swing would net them 16 seats. A 5% swing is pretty chunky of course. That also ignores the multiple fronts they're fighting on: they divide 10 Conservative seats, 3 Labour seats and 3 SNP seats. Oh, and there will very probably be boundary changes. Oh, and many/most of their former incumbents will not be fighting again next time.
In reality, the Lib Dems picking up five seats next time would be a good effort. And it's by no means impossible that they could lose seats next time. Three (Southport, Sheffield Hallam and Orkney & Shetland) all look to have serious challenges next time for different reasons.
I do not think any LD thinks it will be an easy road back to be a substantial third party (or more), but that recognition that it will take a decade or longer has at least sunk in, unlike Labour.
http://order-order.com/2015/07/24/libdem-leader-sorry-over-tweet-comparing-gay-people-to-frogs/#_@/Xhsq0ZvlTq9mpg
People don't get their account hacked in this way. It is just not credible.
If they want to know what is going on in the twittersphere, they only need to read pb.com...
0 -
I tend not to look below the header there, but it must be pretty bad, as he's outright mentioned them derogatorily on several occasions.Flightpathl said:
Whats more interesting is the crude comments from the morons who inhabit Guido's.Pulpstar said:
If he'd have been hacked then he'd be advertising a quick $10,000 a month from home rather than going on about gays and frogs.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I did and was loathe to do so at risk of upsetting the sensitivities of our LD posters on here. Some of whom think that Farron can feed 5,000 with a bit of bread and fish.oxfordsimon said:
Have you seen his latest problems in this area?TCPoliticalBetting said:
Farron's same sex issues continue to haunt him and he is being targeted by some LGBT activists. It will suppress LD support because the support the LDs are trying to attract are very pro-LGBT. Maybe unfair but it is a reality.foxinsoxuk said:
The Autumn conference will be interesting, but the May 2015 result has led to the party pulling together rather than pulling apart, at least that is my impression from the leadership hustings.antifrank said:The Lib Dems still don't seem to have any consciousness of what has happened to them. A uniform 5% swing would net them 16 seats. A 5% swing is pretty chunky of course. That also ignores the multiple fronts they're fighting on: they divide 10 Conservative seats, 3 Labour seats and 3 SNP seats. Oh, and there will very probably be boundary changes. Oh, and many/most of their former incumbents will not be fighting again next time.
In reality, the Lib Dems picking up five seats next time would be a good effort. And it's by no means impossible that they could lose seats next time. Three (Southport, Sheffield Hallam and Orkney & Shetland) all look to have serious challenges next time for different reasons.
I do not think any LD thinks it will be an easy road back to be a substantial third party (or more), but that recognition that it will take a decade or longer has at least sunk in, unlike Labour.
http://order-order.com/2015/07/24/libdem-leader-sorry-over-tweet-comparing-gay-people-to-frogs/#_@/Xhsq0ZvlTq9mpg
People don't get their account hacked in this way. It is just not credible.
0 -
KISS is more accurate although obviously they don't include rebel held areas or refugees in Russia, neither does this, and report all too many won't say.JEO said:Here's another one. More important to have strong ties with the EU or Russia:
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2015/06/Russia-Ukraine-Report-02.png
West
EU: 72%
Both: 16%
Russia: 6%
East
EU: 39%
Both: 30%
Russia: 18%0 -
Corbyn is not 'out there bonkers', he's out there bigoted. Like hls nutjob supporters. He is serene in sailing through this contest because his opponents will not admit it or espouse it. Apparently he gave a major policy speech the other day to the chosen few but excluded the press. I'd say that speaks volumes.TOPPING said:Agree with much that has been said - Corbyn might be out there bonkers but he is very clear on what he stands for and that is delighting CiF & labourlist, and actually many more besides, on the right and left.
And that is good for the country. As it seems clear that Andy, Yvette & Liz are not going to come up with a flagship policy (and yes it is possible to have one abiding theme this far out, which characterises your approach) then to have a clear demarcation of what Lab stands for (bonkers policies) will clarify politics for voters who complain about politicians all being the same.
And then, from that bonkers position, they can start again drifting to the right and stop somewhere that differentiates them but is electable.
At the moment, if Corbyn doesn't get in, I fear for Lab - not in terms of having a sensible approach but in terms of why bother electing them. Events notwithstanding, and as was shown in May, in 2020 it will be a case of "if it ain't broke..."0 -
Left and right are more important for Labour and the Conservatives because their raison d'etre is to represent an economic point of view, and apart from their large group of personality- and policy-based voters, they also fight for the uncommitted/swing/centrist/low-information voters through the mass media who see politics instrumentally as a way to defend their financial interests.
It doesn't really matter how left or right the Lib Dem or Ukip or SNP leader is because that's not their raison d'etre and their voters are won through intense personality- and policy-based campaigning. Maybe it's important for the Greens.0 -
Taken together, around 11% would be on the NMW/NLW by 2020. Just looking at those aged 25+ and the NLW, the proportion in 2020 is also around 11% of that group.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/the-national-living-wage-expands-state-power-why-wont-the-tories-admit-this/
That a very large number of people dependent on what the NMW/NLW will be.0 -
It's all at the same end of the "out there" spectrum. He will shock Lab into something dramatic that I don't see the others as doing.Flightpathl said:
Corbyn is not 'out there bonkers', he's out there bigoted. Like hls nutjob supporters. He is serene in sailing through this contest because his opponents will not admit it or espouse it. Apparently he gave a major policy speech the other day to the chosen few but excluded the press. I'd say that speaks volumes.TOPPING said:Agree with much that has been said - Corbyn might be out there bonkers but he is very clear on what he stands for and that is delighting CiF & labourlist, and actually many more besides, on the right and left.
And that is good for the country. As it seems clear that Andy, Yvette & Liz are not going to come up with a flagship policy (and yes it is possible to have one abiding theme this far out, which characterises your approach) then to have a clear demarcation of what Lab stands for (bonkers policies) will clarify politics for voters who complain about politicians all being the same.
And then, from that bonkers position, they can start again drifting to the right and stop somewhere that differentiates them but is electable.
At the moment, if Corbyn doesn't get in, I fear for Lab - not in terms of having a sensible approach but in terms of why bother electing them. Events notwithstanding, and as was shown in May, in 2020 it will be a case of "if it ain't broke..."
Do I as a Cons want a strong opposition but not too strong? Yes I suppose I do, as I am not an out there bonkers Tory. Nearly but not quite, and if there isn't someone sensible at the dispatch box opposite us I might feel a bit nervous.0 -
Another interesting question: how many times has a Labour PM successfully handed over to a new Labour PM in office, who then subsequently went on to win an election?TCPoliticalBetting said:"Conservatives cannot win elections" was once a theme we read somewhere....
Since 1974 Labour has had 7 new Leaders and only 1 of these – Tony Blair – won a GE.
Since 1974 the Conservatives have had 6 new Leaders and 3 of these – Thatcher, Major and Cameron have won a GE.
Labour are about to try number 8.
The Tories can claim Baldwin, Eden, MacMillan, and Major. Also arguably Chamberlain would have won in 1939 too but there was no election due to WWII so that can't be proved. Only Douglas-Home and (strangely) Churchill failed. But Churchill did go on to win another GE subsequently.
Labour have failed with both Callaghan, and Brown and haven't succeeded with a handover of power (electorally) to anyone yet.
0 -
Andy Burnham has a real women problem in the final round. 57% of women go for Corbyn and only 43% go for the Scouse Ed Miliband.DaemonBarber said:
Surely the counter to that would be to say simply: I wasn't referring to "women", just you.TheScreamingEagles said:As predicted last night
Andy Burnham aide 'dismissing women' in Labour leadership sexism row
Liz Kendall says Lord Falconer's suggestion that women candidates could not be leader are a 'gross insult'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11760083/Andy-Burnham-aide-dismissing-women-in-Labour-leadership-sexism-row.html
This won't help him close that gap.
0 -
And yet they all do:MarqueeMark said:
Why any major politician has a Twitter account is beyond me. They only ever seem to have a negative affect.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I did and was loathe to do so at risk of upsetting the sensitivities of our LD posters on here. Some of whom think that Farron can feed 5,000 with a bit of bread and fish.oxfordsimon said:
Have you seen his latest problems in this area?TCPoliticalBetting said:
Farron's same sex issues continue to haunt him and he is being targeted by some LGBT activists. It will suppress LD support because the support the LDs are trying to attract are very pro-LGBT. Maybe unfair but it is a reality.foxinsoxuk said:
The Autumn conference will be interesting, but the May 2015 result has led to the party pulling together rather than pulling apart, at least that is my impression from the leadership hustings.antifrank said:The Lib Dems still don't seem to have any consciousness of what has happened to them. A uniform 5% swing would net them 16 seats. A 5% swing is pretty chunky of course. That also ignores the multiple fronts they're fighting on: they divide 10 Conservative seats, 3 Labour seats and 3 SNP seats. Oh, and there will very probably be boundary changes. Oh, and many/most of their former incumbents will not be fighting again next time.
In reality, the Lib Dems picking up five seats next time would be a good effort. And it's by no means impossible that they could lose seats next time. Three (Southport, Sheffield Hallam and Orkney & Shetland) all look to have serious challenges next time for different reasons.
I do not think any LD thinks it will be an easy road back to be a substantial third party (or more), but that recognition that it will take a decade or longer has at least sunk in, unlike Labour.
http://order-order.com/2015/07/24/libdem-leader-sorry-over-tweet-comparing-gay-people-to-frogs/#_@/Xhsq0ZvlTq9mpg
People don't get their account hacked in this way. It is just not credible.
If they want to know what is going on in the twittersphere, they only need to read pb.com...
https://twitter.com/david_cameron
https://twitter.com/borisjohnson
https://twitter.com/yvettecoopermp0 -
Umm
More than 300 police officers have been convicted of crimes in the past three years and many are still serving.
Offences include sex attacks, violence, drug possession and viewing child pornography.
Figures show 309 police officers and police community support officers have been given criminal records since the start of 2012 – equivalent to around two a week. Among them are several senior officers, including a chief inspector, a detective chief superintendent and two sergeants.
Separate figures show at least 295 police officers and PCSOs with convictions are serving with forces, potentially at odds with guidelines that insist on ‘proven integrity’.
The statistics may be the tip of the iceberg as only 25 out of 45 forces responded to requests for details under freedom of information laws.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3172748/The-cops-pounding-beat-convicted-criminals-300-committed-offences-including-sex-attacks-violence-serving.html#ixzz3gnx9zzuX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook0 -
I don't understand your point, the report before that condemns the approach towards EU and NATO enlargement, the conclusion would never say anything different? There has been progress from the rebel side however no progress from the Kiev government's side.antifrank said:
Ah, the disinformation about the House of Lords report again. Let's give that key quotation from the summary again:FalseFlag said:That's the issue, they didn't accept it, certainly in the East in that fundamentally split country. The US knew exactly what they were doing but it is the European nations who should have known better as the HoL report rightly heavily criticised the government for. Of course Nuland's f##k the EU comment reflected those divergent interests.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/russia-warned-years-ago-growth-us-influence-ukraine-could-cause-trouble
"We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues. However, a strong sanctions policy requires a well-defined exit strategy that is clearly communicated. Therefore, if there is genuine progress on the Minsk Protocol, Member States should be prepared to ratchet down these sanctions. On the other hand, if there is a further deterioration in eastern Ukraine, the EU should move to target individuals close to the regime and broaden sanctions into the Russian financial sector. The dismemberment of a sovereign independent state is not acceptable."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/02/putins-bite-is-worse-than-his-bark-should-we-have-been-surprised.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/deep-roots-of-chaos-in-ukraine0 -
Seems women prefer the old sailor to manicured Andy.TheScreamingEagles said:
Andy Burnham has a real women problem in the final round. 57% of women go for Corbyn and only 43% go for the Scouse Ed Miliband.DaemonBarber said:
Surely the counter to that would be to say simply: I wasn't referring to "women", just you.TheScreamingEagles said:As predicted last night
Andy Burnham aide 'dismissing women' in Labour leadership sexism row
Liz Kendall says Lord Falconer's suggestion that women candidates could not be leader are a 'gross insult'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11760083/Andy-Burnham-aide-dismissing-women-in-Labour-leadership-sexism-row.html
This won't help him close that gap.0 -
Many they think Andy will nick their Masarca.Pulpstar said:
Seems women prefer the old sailor to manicured Andy.TheScreamingEagles said:
Andy Burnham has a real women problem in the final round. 57% of women go for Corbyn and only 43% go for the Scouse Ed Miliband.DaemonBarber said:
Surely the counter to that would be to say simply: I wasn't referring to "women", just you.TheScreamingEagles said:As predicted last night
Andy Burnham aide 'dismissing women' in Labour leadership sexism row
Liz Kendall says Lord Falconer's suggestion that women candidates could not be leader are a 'gross insult'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11760083/Andy-Burnham-aide-dismissing-women-in-Labour-leadership-sexism-row.html
This won't help him close that gap.0 -
More disinformation. On the subject of NATO, the report specifically says:FalseFlag said:
I don't understand your point, the report before that condemns the approach towards EU and NATO enlargement, the conclusion would never say anything different? There has been progress from the rebel side however no progress from the Kiev government's side.antifrank said:
Ah, the disinformation about the House of Lords report again. Let's give that key quotation from the summary again:FalseFlag said:That's the issue, they didn't accept it, certainly in the East in that fundamentally split country. The US knew exactly what they were doing but it is the European nations who should have known better as the HoL report rightly heavily criticised the government for. Of course Nuland's f##k the EU comment reflected those divergent interests.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/russia-warned-years-ago-growth-us-influence-ukraine-could-cause-trouble
"We welcome Member States uniting around an ambitious package of sanctions and hope that this continues. However, a strong sanctions policy requires a well-defined exit strategy that is clearly communicated. Therefore, if there is genuine progress on the Minsk Protocol, Member States should be prepared to ratchet down these sanctions. On the other hand, if there is a further deterioration in eastern Ukraine, the EU should move to target individuals close to the regime and broaden sanctions into the Russian financial sector. The dismemberment of a sovereign independent state is not acceptable."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/02/putins-bite-is-worse-than-his-bark-should-we-have-been-surprised.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/deep-roots-of-chaos-in-ukraine
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the cornerstone of defence for its EU Members, is outside the scope of this report."
And so far as EU enlargement is concerned, it observes only the following:
"While we are clear that NATO is a defensive alliance, for the Russians NATO is seen as a hostile military threat, and successive rounds of NATO’s eastern enlargement have, as the Russians see it, brought it threateningly close to the Russian border. EU enlargement, as it has become conflated with NATO enlargement, has also taken on the aspect of a security threat. These views are sincerely and widely held in Russia, and need to be factored into Member States’ strategic analyses of Russian actions and policies."
Hardly a condemnation but a recognition that the Russians' paranoia has to be taken into account. It very carefully separates the Russians' view from its own.0 -
I don't know if it's an interesting question. It's an artefact of the greater historic success of the Conservative Party, which is well-known, and the impact of multiplying larger versus smaller probabilities with themselves.Casino_Royale said:
Another interesting question: how many times has a Labour PM successfully handed over to a new Labour PM in office, who then subsequently went on to win an election?TCPoliticalBetting said:"Conservatives cannot win elections" was once a theme we read somewhere....
Since 1974 Labour has had 7 new Leaders and only 1 of these – Tony Blair – won a GE.
Since 1974 the Conservatives have had 6 new Leaders and 3 of these – Thatcher, Major and Cameron have won a GE.
Labour are about to try number 8.
The Tories can claim Baldwin, Eden, MacMillan, and Major. Also arguably Chamberlain would have won in 1939 too but there was no election due to WWII so that can't be proved. Only Douglas-Home and (strangely) Churchill failed. But Churchill did go on to win another GE subsequently.
Labour have failed with both Callaghan, and Brown and haven't succeeded with a handover of power (electorally) to anyone yet.
What is interesting is how most of those listed are regarded as inferior Prime Ministers historically, compared to Churchill, Attlee, Thatcher, Blair, who came to power through elections first. In particular Eden, but also Baldwin and MacMillan.0 -
@antifrank: Completely off topic, but something you'll know about: I'm in the process of writing to Baroness Altmann regarding what seems to be a quite ludicrous feature of pension auto-enrolment, namely that a micro-business with just employee-directors and no other employees has to go to the trouble of and expense of setting up a pension autoenrolment scheme, including entering into a contract with a pension provider, even if all the directors intend to opt out the day after the scheme is set up and thus no payments will ever be made into it.
Have I got my facts right on this lunacy? And if so, did the industry not notice that they would be setting up lots of zombie schemes which will never be activated?0 -
I think that may be in error. My accountant simply had to register the fact I was an employee director with no other employees and I was exempted from the scheme.Richard_Nabavi said:@antifrank: Completely off topic, but something you'll know about: I'm in the process of writing to Baroness Altmann regarding what seems to be a quite ludicrous feature of pension auto-enrolment, namely that a micro-business with just employee-directors and no other employees has to go to the trouble of and expense of setting up a pension autoenrolment scheme, including entering into a contract with a pension provider, even if all the directors intend to opt out the day after the scheme is set up and thus no payments will ever be made into it.
Have I got my facts right on this lunacy? And if so, did the industry not notice that they would be setting up lots of zombie schemes which will never be activated?0 -
Unfortunately the stats are missing the big question. What offences? Surely it matters little if the odd PC has been caution for affray. But sexual offences, major fraud, would be another matter.Plato said:Umm
More than 300 police officers have been convicted of crimes in the past three years and many are still serving.
Offences include sex attacks, violence, drug possession and viewing child pornography.
Figures show 309 police officers and police community support officers have been given criminal records since the start of 2012 – equivalent to around two a week. Among them are several senior officers, including a chief inspector, a detective chief superintendent and two sergeants.
Separate figures show at least 295 police officers and PCSOs with convictions are serving with forces, potentially at odds with guidelines that insist on ‘proven integrity’.
The statistics may be the tip of the iceberg as only 25 out of 45 forces responded to requests for details under freedom of information laws.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3172748/The-cops-pounding-beat-convicted-criminals-300-committed-offences-including-sex-attacks-violence-serving.html#ixzz3gnx9zzuX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook0 -
That exemption only applies if there's just one director. As soon as you have two (assuming they are also employees, which will often be the case), the company is not exempt.Richard_Tyndall said:
I think that may be in error. My accountant simply had to register the fact I was an employee director with no other employees and I was exempted from the scheme.Richard_Nabavi said:@antifrank: Completely off topic, but something you'll know about: I'm in the process of writing to Baroness Altmann regarding what seems to be a quite ludicrous feature of pension auto-enrolment, namely that a micro-business with just employee-directors and no other employees has to go to the trouble of and expense of setting up a pension autoenrolment scheme, including entering into a contract with a pension provider, even if all the directors intend to opt out the day after the scheme is set up and thus no payments will ever be made into it.
Have I got my facts right on this lunacy? And if so, did the industry not notice that they would be setting up lots of zombie schemes which will never be activated?0 -
Here's the Regulator's statement on the subject:Richard_Nabavi said:@antifrank: Completely off topic, but something you'll know about: I'm in the process of writing to Baroness Altmann regarding what seems to be a quite ludicrous feature of pension auto-enrolment, namely that a micro-business with just employee-directors and no other employees has to go to the trouble of and expense of setting up a pension autoenrolment scheme, including entering into a contract with a pension provider, even if all the directors intend to opt out the day after the scheme is set up and thus no payments will ever be made into it.
Have I got my facts right on this lunacy? And if so, did the industry not notice that they would be setting up lots of zombie schemes which will never be activated?
http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/employers/What-if-I-dont-have-any-staff.aspx
"Automatic enrolment will apply if more than one director has a contract of employment."
There are other absurdities.0 -
One employee director and you're exempt. More than one, you're not.Richard_Tyndall said:
I think that may be in error. My accountant simply had to register the fact I was an employee director with no other employees and I was exempted from the scheme.Richard_Nabavi said:@antifrank: Completely off topic, but something you'll know about: I'm in the process of writing to Baroness Altmann regarding what seems to be a quite ludicrous feature of pension auto-enrolment, namely that a micro-business with just employee-directors and no other employees has to go to the trouble of and expense of setting up a pension autoenrolment scheme, including entering into a contract with a pension provider, even if all the directors intend to opt out the day after the scheme is set up and thus no payments will ever be made into it.
Have I got my facts right on this lunacy? And if so, did the industry not notice that they would be setting up lots of zombie schemes which will never be activated?0 -
That is only the case if more than one Director has a contract of employment. If the second or subsequent directors are not employees then the exemption applies.Richard_Nabavi said:
That only applies if there's just one director. As soon as you have two (assuming they are also employees, which will often be the case), the company is not exempt.Richard_Tyndall said:
I think that may be in error. My accountant simply had to register the fact I was an employee director with no other employees and I was exempted from the scheme.Richard_Nabavi said:@antifrank: Completely off topic, but something you'll know about: I'm in the process of writing to Baroness Altmann regarding what seems to be a quite ludicrous feature of pension auto-enrolment, namely that a micro-business with just employee-directors and no other employees has to go to the trouble of and expense of setting up a pension autoenrolment scheme, including entering into a contract with a pension provider, even if all the directors intend to opt out the day after the scheme is set up and thus no payments will ever be made into it.
Have I got my facts right on this lunacy? And if so, did the industry not notice that they would be setting up lots of zombie schemes which will never be activated?
Edit: sorry I see this is what you and Antifrank have already posted. Luckily I am not in that position.0 -
Paranoia, you should be able to argue without use of loaded language. National security necessarily entails paranoia.antifrank said:
More disinformation. On the subject of NATO, the report specifically says:FalseFlag said:
I don't understand your point, the report before that condemns the approach towards EU and NATO enlargement, the conclusion would never say anything different? There has been progress from the rebel side however no progress from the Kiev government's side.antifrank said:
Ah, the disinformation about the House of Lords report again. Let's give that key quotation from the summary again:FalseFlag said:That's the issue, they didn't accept it, certainly in the East in that fundamentally split country. The US knew exactly what they were doing but it is the European nations who should have known better as the HoL report rightly heavily criticised the government for. Of course Nuland's f##k the EU comment reflected those divergent interests.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/russia-warned-years-ago-growth-us-influence-ukraine-could-cause-trouble
independent state is not acceptable."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/02/putins-bite-is-worse-than-his-bark-should-we-have-been-surprised.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/deep-roots-of-chaos-in-ukraine
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the cornerstone of defence for its EU Members, is outside the scope of this report."
And so far as EU enlargement is concerned, it observes only the following:
"While we are clear that NATO is a defensive alliance, for the Russians NATO is seen as a hostile military threat, and successive rounds of NATO’s eastern enlargement have, as the Russians see it, brought it threateningly close to the Russian border. EU enlargement, as it has become conflated with NATO enlargement, has also taken on the aspect of a security threat. These views are sincerely and widely held in Russia, and need to be factored into Member States’ strategic analyses of Russian actions and policies."
Hardly a condemnation but a recognition that the Russians' paranoia has to be taken into account. It very carefully separates the Russians' view from its own.
The EU Association Agreement included commitments to convergence in regards to the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy. NATO and EU enlargement are inextricably linked since Lisbon.
At least you have conceded that the approach was criticised.0 -
No, I haven't.FalseFlag said:
Paranoia, you should be able to argue without use of loaded language. National security necessarily entails paranoia.antifrank said:
More disinformation. On the subject of NATO, the report specifically says:FalseFlag said:
I don't understand your point, the report before that condemns the approach towards EU and NATO enlargement, the conclusion would never say anything different? There has been progress from the rebel side however no progress from the Kiev government's side.antifrank said:
Ah, the disinformation about the House of Lords report again. Let's give that key quotation from the summary again:FalseFlag said:That's the issue, they didn't accept it, certainly in the East in that fundamentally split country. The US knew exactly what they were doing but it is the European nations who should have known better as the HoL report rightly heavily criticised the government for. Of course Nuland's f##k the EU comment reflected those divergent interests.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/russia-warned-years-ago-growth-us-influence-ukraine-could-cause-trouble
independent state is not acceptable."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/02/putins-bite-is-worse-than-his-bark-should-we-have-been-surprised.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/deep-roots-of-chaos-in-ukraine
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the cornerstone of defence for its EU Members, is outside the scope of this report."
And so far as EU enlargement is concerned, it observes only the following:
"While we are clear that NATO is a defensive alliance, for the Russians NATO is seen as a hostile military threat, and successive rounds of NATO’s eastern enlargement have, as the Russians see it, brought it threateningly close to the Russian border. EU enlargement, as it has become conflated with NATO enlargement, has also taken on the aspect of a security threat. These views are sincerely and widely held in Russia, and need to be factored into Member States’ strategic analyses of Russian actions and policies."
Hardly a condemnation but a recognition that the Russians' paranoia has to be taken into account. It very carefully separates the Russians' view from its own.
The EU Association Agreement included commitments to convergence in regards to the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy. NATO and EU enlargement are inextricably linked since Lisbon.
At least you have conceded that the approach was criticised.
Your agenda is too transparent. You need to rethink your line to take.0 -
Great argument. Troll.antifrank said:
No, I haven't.FalseFlag said:
Paranoia, you should be able to argue without use of loaded language. National security necessarily entails paranoia.antifrank said:
More disinformation. On the subject of NATO, the report specifically says:FalseFlag said:
I don't understand your point, the report before that condemns the approach towards EU and NATO enlargement, the conclusion would never say anything different? There has been progress from the rebel side however no progress from the Kiev government's side.antifrank said:
Ah, the disinformation about the House of Lords report again. Let's give that key quotation from the summary again:FalseFlag said:That's the issue, they didn't accept it, certainly in the East in that fundamentally split country. The US knew exactly what they were doing but it is the European nations who should have known better as the HoL report rightly heavily criticised the government for. Of course Nuland's f##k the EU comment reflected those divergent interests.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/05/russia-warned-years-ago-growth-us-influence-ukraine-could-cause-trouble
independent state is not acceptable."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/02/putins-bite-is-worse-than-his-bark-should-we-have-been-surprised.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/24/deep-roots-of-chaos-in-ukraine
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the cornerstone of defence for its EU Members, is outside the scope of this report."
And so far as EU enlargement is concerned, it observes only the following:
"While we are clear that NATO is a defensive alliance, for the Russians NATO is seen as a hostile military threat, and successive rounds of NATO’s eastern enlargement have, as the Russians see it, brought it threateningly close to the Russian border. EU enlargement, as it has become conflated with NATO enlargement, has also taken on the aspect of a security threat. These views are sincerely and widely held in Russia, and need to be factored into Member States’ strategic analyses of Russian actions and policies."
Hardly a condemnation but a recognition that the Russians' paranoia has to be taken into account. It very carefully separates the Russians' view from its own.
The EU Association Agreement included commitments to convergence in regards to the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy. NATO and EU enlargement are inextricably linked since Lisbon.
At least you have conceded that the approach was criticised.
Your agenda is too transparent. You need to rethink your line to take.
0 -
That argument works better the other way: the historical success of the Conservative Party has been a function of its ability to hand over to electorally credible national leaders.EPG said:
I don't know if it's an interesting question. It's an artefact of the greater historic success of the Conservative Party, which is well-known, and the impact of multiplying larger versus smaller probabilities with themselves.Casino_Royale said:
Another interesting question: how many times has a Labour PM successfully handed over to a new Labour PM in office, who then subsequently went on to win an election?TCPoliticalBetting said:"Conservatives cannot win elections" was once a theme we read somewhere....
Since 1974 Labour has had 7 new Leaders and only 1 of these – Tony Blair – won a GE.
Since 1974 the Conservatives have had 6 new Leaders and 3 of these – Thatcher, Major and Cameron have won a GE.
Labour are about to try number 8.
The Tories can claim Baldwin, Eden, MacMillan, and Major. Also arguably Chamberlain would have won in 1939 too but there was no election due to WWII so that can't be proved. Only Douglas-Home and (strangely) Churchill failed. But Churchill did go on to win another GE subsequently.
Labour have failed with both Callaghan, and Brown and haven't succeeded with a handover of power (electorally) to anyone yet.
What is interesting is how most of those listed are regarded as inferior Prime Ministers historically, compared to Churchill, Attlee, Thatcher, Blair, who came to power through elections first. In particular Eden, but also Baldwin and MacMillan.
Baldwin had substantial success with pre-war housing and rescuing the nation from the Great Depression. Macmillan was able to build a strong US-UK partnership and deliver increased economic prosperity to the working classes.0 -
You've been repeatedly caught with your hand in the cookie jar. It's a fair inference.FalseFlag said:Great argument. Troll.
0 -
Unfortunately the stats are missing the big question. What offences? Surely it matters little if the odd PC has been caution for affray. But sexual offences, major fraud, would be another matter.TheWhiteRabbit said:Plato said:Umm
More than 300 police officers have been convicted of crimes in the past three years and many are still serving.
Offences include sex attacks, violence, drug possession and viewing child pornography.
Figures show 309 police officers and police community support officers have been given criminal records since the start of 2012 – equivalent to around two a week. Among them are several senior officers, including a chief inspector, a detective chief superintendent and two sergeants.
Separate figures show at least 295 police officers and PCSOs with convictions are serving with forces, potentially at odds with guidelines that insist on ‘proven integrity’.
The statistics may be the tip of the iceberg as only 25 out of 45 forces responded to requests for details under freedom of information laws.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3172748/The-cops-pounding-beat-convicted-criminals-300-committed-offences-including-sex-attacks-violence-serving.html#ixzz3gnx9zzuX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Three hundred sounds like a big number, but big numbers can be confusing out of context.
If there are 200,000 police officers and community support officers across all forces, that is an annual conviction rate of approximately 0.09 per cent.
There are over 1.2 million convictions a year in the UK criminal justice system. With 50 million adults, that is suggesting an annual conviction rate of somewhere below 2.50 per cent.0 -
Nothing left to argue so resorting to ad hominem attacks.antifrank said:
You've been repeatedly caught with your hand in the cookie jar. It's a fair inference.FalseFlag said:Great argument. Troll.
Your agenda is transparent.
http://takimag.com/article/but_is_it_good_for_the_gays_steve_sailer/print#axzz3g6OZVTdq0 -
I'm quite content to leave matters at that point.FalseFlag said:
Nothing left to argue so resorting to ad hominem attacks.antifrank said:
You've been repeatedly caught with your hand in the cookie jar. It's a fair inference.FalseFlag said:Great argument. Troll.
Your agenda is transparent.
http://takimag.com/article/but_is_it_good_for_the_gays_steve_sailer/print#axzz3g6OZVTdq0 -
More Ipsos Mori polling
Post-Budget, Osborne closes the gap on May and Johnson as a potential PM among Conservative supporters.
On balance, Britons say Budget will be good for them personally, but split on whether it will be good for the country
The first Ipsos MORI Political Monitor following the 2015 budget reveals that the public are divided on what George Osborne’s proposals mean for the country. Forty-six percent say the budget is a good thing for Britain while 44% say it’s a bad thing. Mr Osborne has more to smile about when the public reflect on what the budget means for them personally. Forty-five percent say the budget is a good thing for them personally while 38% say it’s a bad thing – with groups such as men, older people, the middle classes, private sector workers and home-owners particularly positive.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3605/Osborne-closes-gap-on-May-and-Johnson-as-a-potential-PM-among-Conservative-supporters.aspx0 -
I don't know if it does. I don't know if there is a sensible chain of causation in either direction. Given how quickly most Labour governments fell, it suggests the Conservatives are also good at choosing leaders in opposition. I would say they are just more electable and better at choosing good leaders, and that they have fewer ideological beliefs that cause members to frustrate electable leaders.Casino_Royale said:
That argument works better the other way: the historical success of the Conservative Party has been a function of its ability to hand over to electorally credible national leaders.EPG said:
I don't know if it's an interesting question. It's an artefact of the greater historic success of the Conservative Party, which is well-known, and the impact of multiplying larger versus smaller probabilities with themselves.Casino_Royale said:
Another interesting question: how many times has a Labour PM successfully handed over to a new Labour PM in office, who then subsequently went on to win an election?TCPoliticalBetting said:"Conservatives cannot win elections" was once a theme we read somewhere....
Since 1974 Labour has had 7 new Leaders and only 1 of these – Tony Blair – won a GE.
Since 1974 the Conservatives have had 6 new Leaders and 3 of these – Thatcher, Major and Cameron have won a GE.
Labour are about to try number 8.
The Tories can claim Baldwin, Eden, MacMillan, and Major. Also arguably Chamberlain would have won in 1939 too but there was no election due to WWII so that can't be proved. Only Douglas-Home and (strangely) Churchill failed. But Churchill did go on to win another GE subsequently.
Labour have failed with both Callaghan, and Brown and haven't succeeded with a handover of power (electorally) to anyone yet.
What is interesting is how most of those listed are regarded as inferior Prime Ministers historically, compared to Churchill, Attlee, Thatcher, Blair, who came to power through elections first. In particular Eden, but also Baldwin and MacMillan.
Baldwin had substantial success with pre-war housing and rescuing the nation from the Great Depression. Macmillan was able to build a strong US-UK partnership and deliver increased economic prosperity to the working classes.
Every leader has their positives, but Baldwin and Macmillan are not nowadays well regarded in the round, which is funny because Macmillan was superficially much more popular in his day than Thatcher or perhaps even Attlee; but Thatcher and Attlee had to play worse hands while Macmillan led Britain during the prosperity of the late 1950s, into the complacency of the 1960s. Easy to forget, and here I end the digression, that the growing official despair about low economic growth and inefficiency in the 60s led to the discovery of the solution that was Europe.0 -
Standard's write up of the poll
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/george-osborne-gains-ground-on-boris-in-race-to-be-leader-10413153.html0 -
Yes, that is my point. The Conservatives typically choose good leaders. Labour do not.EPG said:
I don't know if it does. I don't know if there is a sensible chain of causation in either direction. Given how quickly most Labour governments fell, it suggests the Conservatives are also good at choosing leaders in opposition. I would say they are just more electable and better at choosing good leaders, and that they have fewer ideological beliefs that cause members to frustrate electable leaders.Casino_Royale said:
That argument works better the other way: the historical success of the Conservative Party has been a function of its ability to hand over to electorally credible national leaders.EPG said:
ICasino_Royale said:
Another interesting question: how many times has a Labour PM successfully handed over to a new Labour PM in office, who then subsequently went on to win an election?TCPoliticalBetting said:"Conservatives cannot win elections" was once a theme we read somewhere....
Since 1974 Labour has had 7 new Leaders and only 1 of these – Tony Blair – won a GE.
Since 1974 the Conservatives have had 6 new Leaders and 3 of these – Thatcher, Major and Cameron have won a GE.
Labour are about to try number 8.
The Tories can claim Baldwin, Eden, MacMillan, and Major. Also arguably Chamberlain would have won in 1939 too but there was no election due to WWII so that can't be proved. Only Douglas-Home and (strangely) Churchill failed. But Churchill did go on to win another GE
Baldwin had substantial success with pre-war housing and rescuing the nation from the Great Depression. Macmillan was able to build a strong US-UK partnership and deliver increased economic prosperity to the working classes.
Every leader has their positives, but Baldwin and Macmillan are not nowadays well regarded in the round, which is funny because Macmillan was superficially much more popular in his day than Thatcher or perhaps even Attlee; but Thatcher and Attlee had to play worse hands while Macmillan led Britain during the prosperity of the late 1950s, into the complacency of the 1960s. Easy to forget, and here I end the digression, that the growing official despair about low economic growth and inefficiency in the 60s led to the discovery of the solution that was Europe.
I cited it this way because a lot of the conversation on leadership is around who has successfully taken Labour from opposition into government. But it's just as interesting to look at who Labour has handed over to within government who's then taken them into opposition. And to contrast that with the Conservatives.0 -
@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)0
-
I'm still not sure the tory backwoodsmen will simply allow Cam to engineer a passing on of the baton to Ozzie.
Boris may not get it, but Ozzie might not either.0 -
It's a strange morality that asks for proponents of peace to justify themselves whilst their opponents demand carte blanche.antifrank said:
I'm quite content to leave matters at that point.FalseFlag said:
Nothing left to argue so resorting to ad hominem attacks.antifrank said:
You've been repeatedly caught with your hand in the cookie jar. It's a fair inference.FalseFlag said:Great argument. Troll.
Your agenda is transparent.
http://takimag.com/article/but_is_it_good_for_the_gays_steve_sailer/print#axzz3g6OZVTdq0 -
Unfortunately for Labour, those groups tend to be enthusiastic voters.TheScreamingEagles said:More Ipsos Mori polling
Post-Budget, Osborne closes the gap on May and Johnson as a potential PM among Conservative supporters.
On balance, Britons say Budget will be good for them personally, but split on whether it will be good for the country
The first Ipsos MORI Political Monitor following the 2015 budget reveals that the public are divided on what George Osborne’s proposals mean for the country. Forty-six percent say the budget is a good thing for Britain while 44% say it’s a bad thing. Mr Osborne has more to smile about when the public reflect on what the budget means for them personally. Forty-five percent say the budget is a good thing for them personally while 38% say it’s a bad thing – with groups such as men, older people, the middle classes, private sector workers and home-owners particularly positive.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3605/Osborne-closes-gap-on-May-and-Johnson-as-a-potential-PM-among-Conservative-supporters.aspx0 -
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
0 -
The fun would be more if Jezza was a couple of votes short would Sinn Fein come to the rescue. If he's offering an NI referendum I suspect not.antifrank said:
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
0 -
Be fair. He's not going full loony lefty. I was expecting a tax rate of 98%antifrank said:
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
@christopherhope: BREAKING Jeremy Corbyn does NOT want to increase the top rate of income tax to 70 per cent; 50 per cent is just fine (thanks @theJeremyVine)0 -
I think if you re-read this exchange, you'll see that your argument comes over rather badly. You must see that 'Paranoia' in this case is an entirely subjective term. One man's paranoia is another man's sensible precaution. Just like in media accounts of tension between Russia and 'The West', one side is criticised as 'ramping up tensions' and the other side is lauded for 'responding robustly'. The two terms are totally interchangeable; they mean precisely the same thing. If you can't look at this dispassionately enough to see that, it says very little for your analytical skills.antifrank said:
You've been repeatedly caught with your hand in the cookie jar. It's a fair inference.0 -
Jean-Luc Mélenchon advocated a top rate tax of 100% in the 2012 Presidential campaign. And we call Jeremy Corbyn a leftwinger?TheScreamingEagles said:
Be fair. He's not going full loony lefty. I was expecting a tax rate of 98%antifrank said:
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
@christopherhope: BREAKING Jeremy Corbyn does NOT want to increase the top rate of income tax to 70 per cent; 50 per cent is just fine (thanks @theJeremyVine)0 -
Perhaps he doesn't realise that such a referendum would be heavily defeated. I expect a choice between the status quo, with devolution in the UK, and a choice on cotizenship/passports v. reuniting with EIRE prob would be defeated 65:35.Alanbrooke said:
The fun would be more if Jezza was a couple of votes short would Sinn Fein come to the rescue. If he's offering an NI referendum I suspect not.antifrank said:
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
0 -
Yeah, but the question is who he'd want to pay it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Be fair. He's not going full loony lefty. I was expecting a tax rate of 98%antifrank said:
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
@christopherhope: BREAKING Jeremy Corbyn does NOT want to increase the top rate of income tax to 70 per cent; 50 per cent is just fine (thanks @theJeremyVine)
Would it be for those at £150k+ ? Or would it also cover those on £100k + or £75k+ all of whom do very well, thank you very much.0 -
He'll just whack it on National Insurance.antifrank said:
Jean-Luc Mélenchon advocated a top rate tax of 100% in the 2012 Presidential campaign. And we call Jeremy Corbyn a leftwinger?TheScreamingEagles said:
Be fair. He's not going full loony lefty. I was expecting a tax rate of 98%antifrank said:
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
@christopherhope: BREAKING Jeremy Corbyn does NOT want to increase the top rate of income tax to 70 per cent; 50 per cent is just fine (thanks @theJeremyVine)0 -
...but will obviously not respect the result.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
After all, the people of the Falklands had a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to remain British, but Jezza wants to give the islands to the Argies.
0 -
there's also the minor point of has anyone asked the Republic first if they'd like 1.8 million slightly bent out of shape people with an addiction to handouts .Casino_Royale said:
Perhaps he doesn't realise that such a referendum would be heavily defeated. I expect a choice between the status quo, with devolution in the UK, and a choice on cotizenship/passports v. reuniting with EIRE prob would be defeated 65:35.Alanbrooke said:
The fun would be more if Jezza was a couple of votes short would Sinn Fein come to the rescue. If he's offering an NI referendum I suspect not.antifrank said:
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
0 -
On the other hand he does want to get rid of capital allowances and thereby destroy private-sector investment, put duty on aircraft fuel, and thereby force airlines to fill up abroad, halt regional development grants, put train fares up to full market rates without any subsidies and also increase the duty they pay on fuel, make house building less attractive, close the export credit guarantee scheme, and stop government procurement of services.TheScreamingEagles said:
Be fair. He's not going full loony lefty. I was expecting a tax rate of 98%antifrank said:
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
@christopherhope: BREAKING Jeremy Corbyn does NOT want to increase the top rate of income tax to 70 per cent; 50 per cent is just fine (thanks @theJeremyVine)
I'm not sure if all of this is loony left, but it's certainly loony.
(Admittedly the above assumes he's actually read the article in the Guardian which listed the £93bn in 'subsidies' to private businesses which he wants to stop.)0 -
So lower than under Thatcher!TheScreamingEagles said:
Be fair. He's not going full loony lefty. I was expecting a tax rate of 98%antifrank said:
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
@christopherhope: BREAKING Jeremy Corbyn does NOT want to increase the top rate of income tax to 70 per cent; 50 per cent is just fine (thanks @theJeremyVine)
CLP nomination meeting tonight. Unlike our neighbours in Sedgefield, I don't think we'll be backing Liz.0 -
In the interests of reducing the national debt, we ought to sell the Falkland Islands to the highest bidder, offering the islanders a share of the proceeds and the option of full British citizenship if they don't already have it. If Argentina really wants to buy out our interests, it can do so at auction.Disraeli said:
...but will obviously not respect the result.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
After all, the people of the Falklands had a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to remain British, but Jezza wants to give the islands to the Argies.
Cash on delivery of course.0 -
The SNP will be jealous. And the Argies - or is this what he's planning to announce on Monday?
When is he offering to abolish the Monarchy?TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
0 -
@JoeWatts_: Labour interim leader Harriet Harman is winner in new poll....of Tory supporters! http://t.co/oDl2PTgkW5 by @nicholascecil0
-
China will have the Falklands. They are in to acquiring / making new islands.antifrank said:
In the interests of reducing the national debt, we ought to sell the Falkland Islands to the highest bidder, offering the islanders a share of the proceeds and the option of full British citizenship if they don't already have it. If Argentina really wants to buy out our interests, it can do so at auction.Disraeli said:
...but will obviously not respect the result.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
After all, the people of the Falklands had a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to remain British, but Jezza wants to give the islands to the Argies.
Cash on delivery of course.0 -
this is hilarious, ladies and gentlemen, the modern day labour party:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/tough-on-spam-tough-on-the-causes-of-spam#.baeW0LyNQ0 -
Can you imagine the Argentine reaction when China creates a new Nine Dash Line in the South Atlantic that starts just outside the mouth of the River Plate?SandyRentool said:
China will have the Falklands. They are in to acquiring / making new islands.antifrank said:
In the interests of reducing the national debt, we ought to sell the Falkland Islands to the highest bidder, offering the islanders a share of the proceeds and the option of full British citizenship if they don't already have it. If Argentina really wants to buy out our interests, it can do so at auction.Disraeli said:
...but will obviously not respect the result.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
After all, the people of the Falklands had a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to remain British, but Jezza wants to give the islands to the Argies.
Cash on delivery of course.0 -
Nah! We wouldn't get much for it.antifrank said:
In the interests of reducing the national debt, we ought to sell the Falkland Islands to the highest bidder, offering the islanders a share of the proceeds and the option of full British citizenship if they don't already have it. If Argentina really wants to buy out our interests, it can do so at auction.Disraeli said:
...but will obviously not respect the result.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
After all, the people of the Falklands had a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to remain British, but Jezza wants to give the islands to the Argies.
Cash on delivery of course.
If we want to reduce the debt we could economise on the cost of defending the islands.
Nuke Argentina into a glowing radioactive wasteland - then it won't be a threat, so we won't need defences.
0 -
I can honestly say that I'm having trouble breathing in for laughing right now.
This is just beyond hilarious and absurd. The Thick Of It never got anywhere near this - perhaps we need Chris Morris and his BrassEye team back to cover it.Slackbladder said:this is hilarious, ladies and gentlemen, the modern day labour party:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/tough-on-spam-tough-on-the-causes-of-spam#.baeW0LyNQ0 -
So is Hawaii! Corbyn wouldn't approve though
Seriously, as a Labour man - whilst the rest of us are rolling in the aisles, what's it like to have a vested interest in this debacle?SandyRentool said:
China will have the Falklands. They are in to acquiring / making new islands.antifrank said:
In the interests of reducing the national debt, we ought to sell the Falkland Islands to the highest bidder, offering the islanders a share of the proceeds and the option of full British citizenship if they don't already have it. If Argentina really wants to buy out our interests, it can do so at auction.Disraeli said:
...but will obviously not respect the result.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
After all, the people of the Falklands had a referendum and voted overwhelmingly to remain British, but Jezza wants to give the islands to the Argies.
Cash on delivery of course.0 -
Love the response from Melissa Cox:Slackbladder said:this is hilarious, ladies and gentlemen, the modern day labour party:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/tough-on-spam-tough-on-the-causes-of-spam#.baeW0LyNQ
“Is everyone at Labour HQ on glue??”
0 -
How many Corbyn supporters are clutching to this straw?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-jeremy-corbyn-policies-that-most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html0 -
-
Do you have a link to said article Richard?Richard_Nabavi said:
On the other hand he does want to get rid of capital allowances and thereby destroy private-sector investment, put duty on aircraft fuel, and thereby force airlines to fill up abroad, halt regional development grants, put train fares up to full market rates without any subsidies and also increase the duty they pay on fuel, make house building less attractive, close the export credit guarantee scheme, and stop government procurement of services.TheScreamingEagles said:
Be fair. He's not going full loony lefty. I was expecting a tax rate of 98%antifrank said:
The Conservative majority would increase by 20 overnight if Jeremy Corbyn got elected Labour leader.TheScreamingEagles said:@christopherhope: As PM, @jeremycorbyn would give the people of Northern Ireland a referendum on leaving the UK and reuniting Ireland (thanks @theJeremyVine)
@christopherhope: BREAKING Jeremy Corbyn does NOT want to increase the top rate of income tax to 70 per cent; 50 per cent is just fine (thanks @theJeremyVine)
I'm not sure if all of this is loony left, but it's certainly loony.
(Admittedly the above assumes he's actually read the article in the Guardian which listed the £93bn in 'subsidies' to private businesses which he wants to stop.)0 -
-
Analyst's comment today on Ladbrokes' proposed merger with Gala Coral:
"We think Ladbrokes is in the last chance saloon, having today announced a profit warning, a dividend cut, a share placing and an intended merger"
It's surely time for Shadsy to move on where his talents will be put to better use.0 -
Corbyn makes Guido's caption contest.0
-
But the problem is that none of the nominations actually matter. Or give any clear indication of the real level of support.kle4 said:
Hmm, for the full effect, I feel Burnham would want his column to be in Red with Corbyn remaining in Blue, contrasting who's best for Labour=Andy, Tories=Corbyn, colourwiseScott_P said:htps://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/624553427977261056
0 -
Here you go:TheWhiteRabbit said:Do you have a link to said article Richard?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake
0 -
new thread
0 -
That is a problem for something, but not for the purposes of trying to sway some waverers by pretending they matter (or rather, are definitely significant).oxfordsimon said:
But the problem is that none of the nominations actually matter. Or give any clear indication of the real level of support.kle4 said:
Hmm, for the full effect, I feel Burnham would want his column to be in Red with Corbyn remaining in Blue, contrasting who's best for Labour=Andy, Tories=Corbyn, colourwiseScott_P said:htps://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/624553427977261056
0 -
Thanks Richard.Richard_Nabavi said:
Here you go:TheWhiteRabbit said:Do you have a link to said article Richard?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake
Wow. What spectacular narrow-mindedness from The Guardian, let alone Corbyn...
0 -
Corals have a reality TV show about themselves on BBC right now - haven't seen it but saw a review in The Times [3/5]. http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/bbc-one-explores-the-bookies
Maybe worth looking up on iPlayer.peter_from_putney said:Analyst's comment today on Ladbrokes' proposed merger with Gala Coral:
"We think Ladbrokes is in the last chance saloon, having today announced a profit warning, a dividend cut, a share placing and an intended merger"
It's surely time for Shadsy to move on where his talents will be put to better use.0 -
Stopped listening to podcast as soon as HC said "So ......"0
